Loudspeakers have long been reported to be the weakest link in the audio chain and add their own signature. Would I be correct in assuming that your "modifications" are an on going requirement for whenever you change boxes?
Wouldn't it be simpler to spend $7 on a tone control board from our friends in China?
Nowadays telephone tells me less about bandwidth and THD but more about digital compression, because details such as background voices are often rendered as alien blurb even on near-distance wired calls.
Anyway, in my opinion HiFi is a socio-electro-acoustic notion meaning to among other requirements usually
* not use digital elements except for on/off switches
* use discrete bipolar-junction-transistors class-A, A/B and D amplifiers
* use symmetrical 1.orderLP-1.orderHP-1.orderLP multi-way loudspeakers,
* have at most Pi phase turn at Sub-Kontra-A (28Hz),
* have monophonics-compatible stereophonics,
* do this all lala.
Then noone, whom i know of, has ever made HiFi and possibly ever will.
Last edited:
It's useful when you are posting claims on internet.
Fine if that's what you like.
I would believe you if you presented evidence.
It was your decision to post claims on the forum.
Since many veterans are hanging around here, i would like to ask you a question or two: Why did you not get stereo playback rite (mono- and center-position-compatible) from the start, like co-incident/intensity/syncronous mono- and center-position-compatible stereophonics was archieved on the recording side? I cannot believe, that you had no clue or idea. Tho i know, how hard it is to get along now, seemingly impossible, this is no explanation for, why it did not work out back then.
Well, my post was not the best or easiest for anyone to properly understand. Your assumption above is not correct.
My "modifications" were meant to convey that often times a new amp design is just a modification of a previous amplifier design. It's all about trying to make a better amplifier.
I merely posted an observation of my experiences. Only you were bothered by it for some reason known only to you.
Time to move on.
Perhaps your problem is with reading comprehension. I really thought you were onto something regarding the sound quality and amplifier parts when you posted claims of sound difference. When I followed up on it, all I've got from you was evasion and now snide reply.
I treated your claims with the benefit of the doubt but now it's clear that they were just another one of the typical audiophoolery. There are too many of those online already. Why add more to the list?
I try to answer this for myself at least for my part: I built nine pairs of stereo loudspeakers since 1989. I was often aware, that they do not work well due to interference between left and rite one. But the planning process always started with improving the single one, and when that brain time was over, i thot, that building one or two does not make much hand time difference, and that many records sound much livelier in stereo no matter how bad, and i needed that feel time.
Hey Hey Hey, there's no need for that!!!!
I read suspicion in your posts rather than genuine interest. After all, you didn't like it that I don't listen to techno music.
But now that you write that you had genuine interest I will go into more detail of everything. You can make of it what you want. Okay?
My amplifier designer friend came up with this new amplifier design in late 2015. Once I actually heard a rough prototype of this design I was intrigued by the sound quality. I made my own prototype of the design but didn't like the sound quality as much as I expected. Then it was suggested that I could change a couple resistor values which would slightly change some operating currents and perhaps change the sound quality a little bit as well. So I did this and it actually happened as he said.
In mid 2016 my friend took his amp around to various audio friends and acquaintances for some unbiased feedback and opinions. The feedback that returned indicated a few areas that could be improved in the sound quality. I then began to revisit my earlier experiments with resistor values as above and relayed my findings to my amp designer friend. I then learned that he had not made the resistor value changes that I had done and we began to investigate if there was really anything to what I had done.
Thus, we had two amplifiers that were the same, differing only in one resistor value. This made simple A/B comparisons simple as I only had to worry about changing connections quick enough so as to be able to keep the musical memory of the sound difference. There was no worry about loudness difference or any of the usual bias's that you mentioned. It was merely Amp A, with the base value, and Amp B, with different value. I needed to find if there is a sound difference and if so, is the difference quantifiable and verifiable and repeatable.
I was able to do the connection switching quickly enough, found the difference in sound, identified it easily, found it to be verifiable and was able to do it repeatedly.
I did a lot of A/B comparing in different sessions on different days and in different systems. The results were always the same.
In the end after lots of consultation we agreed on the proper resistor value to use for best sound performance. Designer friend then took it around to some of same acquaintances as before for another listen and received more complimentary sound quality feedback.
As I have mentioned we didn't do an ABX. For one thing we didn't have an ABX box, so therefore that makes doing an ABX impossible. We also did not need the X guessing factor, just an identification of a repeatable and verified difference between A and B.
That's what was done. I hope my description of this is clear enough.
I tend to think this is an exceptional circumstance to find a situation where there is this sensitivity of resistor value to have profound sound quality impact. I do not think this is a normal circumstance with regular occurrence in other amplifier designs, but it did occur in this one.
But because it did happen this one time it is entirely a possible event.
You can make of it whatever you want.
Dear Evenharmonics,
I would like to sincerely and formally apologize for this post. This was unnecessary.
There are hundreds of posts over on the diy amplifier forum from members like you that have swapped out a few components and seriously believe they have made an improvement, so you are not alone. But, Just like yours, the improvements are only perceptions.
Not worrying isn't how the level matching is done when comparing amps. It is very likely that the difference you perceived was due to level mismatch and this is very common when people compare amps.
I've heard many people doing things like that. After all, it is a DIY community.
As to level matching.....I did write that the amps were exactly the same. That means that they had the same gain stage and the volume controls on each were set pretty close to each other. I did not want a level difference between the amps as I know how that goes.
FYI, I never mentioned what the difference in the sound quality was, and I'm not going to do so.
I think it's time to give this a rest and move on.
Last edited:
Hey Radiosmuck,
Gee thanks for that, really makes my day. Gosh, I think I'll jump for joy and go drink some cheap champagne and imagine that it's the real stuff.
I might even do some extra since I found out the other day that perfection was obtained long ago and that I am just wasting my time. I go to the Trash N Treasure market every Sunday and next Sunday I'll be sure to stop and drool at all the perfection there on the sellers tables for mere pennies.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as an "audiophile system". Audiophiles are people, in particular people who enjoy listening to reproduced music, while systems are made of machines.
I would go further and say that the next time you see a product advertised as "audiophile" you run, not walk, away. Products cannot be human. End of story.
Perhaps you mean Peter Walker's AMCL company motto when you refer to "HiFi" ("The closest approach to the original sound") and to products and systems that could be described as meeting that challenge.
I find it adequate myself although you could add a qualifier like "the closest available approach" to encompass a moving State Of The Art if you like.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.