The Aphex had 6 knobs per channel and I doubt there was nothing but a cathode follower hidden in the box. I also doubt there were any $400 teflon capacitors in it either, in fact like most guitar pedals they probably used the worst cheap junk parts available.
BTW - The Aphex is speced at .0003% THD at full output that probably means lots of 8-legs. I'm intrigued now and should look up their patents as to how they create their FX without any distortions.
EDIT - Well I'm stumped...
Last edited:
Mark
Pavel is usually triggered by some strong claims here for which he has an opinion.
He has neither attempted to set his tests in a scientific way nor attempted to set participants up.
Simple tests for simple people. No need to dig too deep.
George
I think what we are talking about here is the original Aphex Aural Exciter.
It had an OTA driven by a rectifier / side chain that had EQ circuitry in it for
aggressive compression and distortion effects. No tubes anywhere.
Pretty horrible piece of gear really - but like most studio gear, in the hands of
someone who knew how and where to use it, could be a good thing.
T
Aha.
I have never seen or worked on a tubed unit.
These days the Culture Vulture seems to be popular. Not cheap.
Thermionic Culture: THE CULTURE VULTURE
Last edited:
4150253 -filed 01/1977
5115471 -01/1991
5424488 -06/1993
5359665 -11/1993
5483600 -02/1994
5422602 -06/1994
5450034 -07/1994
8290169 -12/2009
George
I am pretty sure that in case we avoid excess noises, excess hum and the frequency response is flat and we avoid sighted tests, then it makes no difference which amplifying component we use, should it be transistor, opamp or tube. In case of the sighted test supported by comments on advantages of the superior design features, exotic materials and parts and layout etc., everyone hears the difference. In case of a DBT, no one has heard a difference even if comparing the recorded sound (through tubes here) against the original file data. So it goes. Human hearing has interesting properties and strict limits. Highend audio is not about science at all, it needs to create myths, marketing chains including magazine reviews etc., class A ratings etc. That's what I have learned during about 16 years here, starting on a subjective side as a "believer" and ending as a pesimist more and more. I still like the hobby, but not the marketing and mind games associated with it, which are so transparent to understand.
Nezy, thanks. Even though I didn't start a new thread one troll did show up. The one whose moniker in HRH English would be "Wireless male genitalia."
He confuses Jewish with Israeli (yes 74% Jewish) and the low intensity war and civil war in Gaza with mass murder in a house of worship.
So thanks for bearing with me in posting here rather that attracting more trolls.
He confuses Jewish with Israeli (yes 74% Jewish) and the low intensity war and civil war in Gaza with mass murder in a house of worship.
So thanks for bearing with me in posting here rather that attracting more trolls.
Pavel,
Your learning curve has actually been quite impressive. The issue I think is that you are both confident and flexible in your observations and have changed and grown in them.
So shame on you for not following dogma, no matter how silly!
The open issue is actually musical preference. I have had folks able to improve the adjustment of sound systems using reproduced sounds that some would have trouble recognizing as music!
In other words a well made violin in masterful hands can make wonderful music. In other hands it just might be a sonic weapon. In the worst case of playing it might even be a relief to find what is in the violin case was a Tommy gun.
Your learning curve has actually been quite impressive. The issue I think is that you are both confident and flexible in your observations and have changed and grown in them.
So shame on you for not following dogma, no matter how silly!
The open issue is actually musical preference. I have had folks able to improve the adjustment of sound systems using reproduced sounds that some would have trouble recognizing as music!
In other words a well made violin in masterful hands can make wonderful music. In other hands it just might be a sonic weapon. In the worst case of playing it might even be a relief to find what is in the violin case was a Tommy gun.
Completely agree. There are many here that can't / won't acknowledge this, but it is 100% the truth in my experience.
When I started out, I was swayed by the huge number of subjectivist posts. I had a tube amp, then built a solid state amp with Black Gates, silver hookup wire, fancy RCA connectors - the usual fairy dust. As I continued to try different equipment and especially gain knowledge and electronics experience I have arrived at the same conclusions.
And yet you held off until after the reveal. Not saying you didn't get it right (only a 50% chance of getting it wrong), but there is a long history of people popping up post reveal and claiming they got it right. In one extreme the poor lad then went on to prove how good his ears were by getting 100% on a foobar ABX of 2 bit identical files.
If you are referring to ABX type of DBT, then perhaps so. Not so for more sensitive DBT tests. One may recall that Jakob2 has posted information about the relative sensitivity of some different test protocols.
When people insist that ABX is the only valid DBT, or that DBT doesn't work, either way, then the discussion has departed from being scientific and become something else.
I was thinking of the old arguments that used to go on here, and that would not be good to have start up again. That's all.
I happen to believe in DBT. However, I found Foobar ABX to be very difficult to work with when comparing files with small differences. When Pavel speaks of experience with what is shown by DBT, I have not seen him actually attempt to use anything but Foobar ABX. If so, conclusions about what can be shown with DBT in general may be incorrect or at least premature.
I happen to believe in DBT. However, I found Foobar ABX to be very difficult to work with when comparing files with small differences. When Pavel speaks of experience with what is shown by DBT, I have not seen him actually attempt to use anything but Foobar ABX. If so, conclusions about what can be shown with DBT in general may be incorrect or at least premature.
Last edited:
He is right in that there is little corroborated evidence that most people can pick out an added 0.5% H2 from music rather than tones. As Jakob points out when this comes out, it's damned hard to come up with a watertight test method. So we are left with personal preference and if someone prefers something glowy in the signal path who is to argue with them.
Now there's an honest spec.
I don't see the point of comparing musician's effects boxes to something you would put in an average personal signal chain. If you add enough frequency dependent expansion/compression, distortion, synthesized sub-harmonics, etc. what's the point of bothering to listen for simply the difference? It's all about personal preference.
Who says 0.5% 2H ?
In my own tests, I can just detect a difference to 0.1% THD..... and that is from an amplifier that i can affect the THd change on. Thats on top of what ever the speaker was doing.
Low distortion speakers allow lower just detectable dist. differences.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.