Well known good practice, and a little help from SMD ;-)
The sum of your two sentences makes me think that you are talking about high SR VAF amps.
Not a good idea to take a draft horse to run a horse race. And reciprocaly.
One pole left in A CFA. Think about stability.
Now the sound.
It is true that, at first listening of a CFA, you will have the feeling some treble are missing. It is untrue. What is missing is harshness and artificial shine (HF distortion and overshoot). All what i hate. I find the treble more liquid, more natural, more fluid, less aggressive. Just a natural speed and natural extension of the real instrument.
Cymbals don't do "pssss" in real life. But "ding" or "crash". (IYSWIM. ?)
Acoustic guitars ? You recover the body and the attack, and an obvious difference between high gauges chords and thin ones.
Dark ? i don't know what it means. Losses of low levels details ? On the contrary (OMHO). Just they are more 'body' oriented.
Thought experiment.
Take a crossover + speaker and connect it to an amplifier - ie same as a powered speaker.
Have a listen etc.
Now take 0.1% of the speaker+crossover lumped module and make a cable out of it. In other words use a cable with RLC of c. 1/1000 of the speaker +crossover lumped module.
Will you hear a difference?
Take a crossover + speaker and connect it to an amplifier - ie same as a powered speaker.
Have a listen etc.
Now take 0.1% of the speaker+crossover lumped module and make a cable out of it. In other words use a cable with RLC of c. 1/1000 of the speaker +crossover lumped module.
Will you hear a difference?
Saw the mouser price of 39 dollars. The ebay price of 13 is so much lower, is the mouser markup real or is the ebay counterfeit?
I was concerned because the permeability has such a range that I wasn't too sure if I could get identical inductance. At 13 dollars, I wouldn't mind buying 6 to wind, then sort by inductance. Was quite surprised at the numbers, mu up to 100k..whoa.
I hate to admit it, I've never purchased from E-bay..
jn
Last edited:
I think more to the point, will you hear any difference in the imagery with identical stereo speakers treated in exactly the same way? I'm going to stick my neck out and say "no".
Then they will tell you that your hearing needs to be checked or your sound system isn't revealing enough or you were subjected to debilitating stress of test.
Well, we tried measuring it. Nothing to see there.
We’ve simmed it. Nothing to worry about at audio frequencies.
So maybe a little ‘gedanken’ experiment will help.
🙂
Listening to Beethoven’s Symphony no. 5 (von Karajan Berlin philharmonic recording) and it’s significantly better than my DG CD recording.
I suspect the CD was fiddled a bit - the imaging and separation between the instruments is much better on vinyl for some reason and I prefer the top end. (I am using headphones BTW).
On to ‘Swan Lake’ now. Recording not as good but still great.
We’ve simmed it. Nothing to worry about at audio frequencies.
So maybe a little ‘gedanken’ experiment will help.
🙂
Listening to Beethoven’s Symphony no. 5 (von Karajan Berlin philharmonic recording) and it’s significantly better than my DG CD recording.
I suspect the CD was fiddled a bit - the imaging and separation between the instruments is much better on vinyl for some reason and I prefer the top end. (I am using headphones BTW).
On to ‘Swan Lake’ now. Recording not as good but still great.
I feel misunderstood, but may be that's not important.
My statement was for DF, but apply to you too, not for everyone. I didn't think that if DF or you found amplifier X boring, you should consider it as good hifi. Your statement in this post says that you agree that good hifi sounds boring. This is where we actually disagree. Now that's clear.
It's about understanding of a phenomenon, yes, not definition, not terminology or jargons (or English grammar). About the latter, you are the authority, i'm not trying to change anything.
I have mentioned how damping factor as an example will change the sound of 'speaker' but not considered as variable that defines amplifier's accuracy. If so, who cares with accurate amp if it cannot produce accurate sound (but only accurate output sinewave)?
I have also mentioned to you that for me, prior to speaker cable, the job has not done yet.
Yes - love it too. The recording - and especially the imaging- is stunning.
The Yo-yo Ma stuff is also always well recorded. Try ‘Appasionato’ - there a Kabalefski [sp?] pieceon there that’s is fantastic plus a lot of other good stuff.
I have a very good Itzak Perleman recording with the NY Philharmonic - I’ll post a pic tomorrow.
Last edited:
Logic is not your strong point.
"Hifi amplifiers sound boring" is a false statement (meaning there are hifi amplifiers that don't sound boring.
"A boring amplifier must be hifi" is also a false statement (meaning there are boring amplifiers that are not necessary hifi).
Conclusion, "boring amplifiers" and "hifi amplifiers" are two distinct categories that don't necessary overlap. So you cannot judge "boredness" by "hifi properties" or the other way around.
It was a little 'funny' story. I have been using ears to build amplifiers. I change variable(s) and listen to the result. So, I changed DF variable and listened for the result. I increased DF, sound got better, increased DF again, sound got better, increased again, sound got (subjectively) worse 😕 I thought DF was a useless variable to define amplifier quality. My assumption was wrong, my ears were correct.
Of course, but which part? Subjectivists altering the sound? Subjectivists being frustrated? Subjectivists having good ears? Industry authorities not able to present methodology to design amp that closely represent reality?
So what do you think is my strong point? 😀 Language is my weak point. I can understand people but people cannot (easily) understand me. I expect people to read between the lines, as this skill is often needed to understand people.
This is all subjective. There is no rule here. You can have banana as your favorite fruit, or apple, or mango. I can guess that apple is your favorite. But i may be wrong. But what is the problem? I was just guessing.
Now, do you understand my points?
If you find no audible difference, comparing your CFA to one of your VFA, it is alright with you. But I would not be as definitive about the "useless" than you.
Lot of people pretended that the 96 of 24X96 was useless because we cannot hear after 20KHz. And yet!
Some people pretend no distortion can be heard under 0.1% ... And yet !
My first 'response' was he has heard Giovanni Stochino, but not yet the recently popular CFA. But he could be right (and has heard the CFA) as explained by your post. But i guess he was wrong, thinking that SR is directly responsible with the issue he perceived.
So the mismatch ratios you tested were what? That is why I asked you what your cable L and C were. If you look at my sim graph, note that all the parameters have been defined.
I used a 20 foot 100 ohm cable, you used roughly half that length, who knows what your cable's parameters are as you never answered my question. Let's assume it's the same for argument's sake..
You used a 20, 50, and 100 ohm load. So your mismatch was unity, 2, and 5.
My graph starts at 5, and steps to 50.
Given your selection of loads and line length (never mind a signal you agree is too slow for what is being looked for), what lines on my graph would be the predictors for your test?
For the mismatch of 5 (and a length twice that of your cable) you have to use my 20 ohm line. Most importantly, note that is the uppermost curve, the one in grey. Also note that your settling will be twice as fast given a cable half as long. Since my 20 ohm curve settles to 90% in roughly 1 uSec, your cable should settle in 500 nanoseconds. Since your test waveform is significantly longer than that, your test is hopelessly inadequate for the ratios you selected.
To examine your mismatch of 2, I would have to redo the sims. However, given that the lines are compressing even more as mismatch drops, the expectation that anybody would see any difference is absolutely zero. If one were given independent scope displays of my 20 ohm and 18 ohm, it would appear the same.
Do not bother doing any more tests. It is difficult enough examining tests that are well constructed and carried out correctly.
I would normally call this level of work shoddy. However, given that you do not really understand what is required,stated directly that you had a preconceived notion of the outcome, and seem bent only on trying to prove me incorrect, I can no longer trust any results you may produce along these lines.
Please perform no more tests, it is an embarrassment. If you worked for me and this was your work product, I would reassign you to tasks requiring less engineering thinking skills, like cable trays or motion control...wait a minute, that's what I'm doing now...
But thank you for the time spent.
Jn
Last edited:
Impurities or Alloys ?.....
Dan.
Yes, and another dimension 'too far' for some perhaps. I have isolated and recorded the individual sounds of silver and gold, I find it very interesting to hear the effects of these and other elements and compounds individually and in combination. Impurities are not by definition subjectively bad, but according to which impurities and combination of 'impurities' they most certainly can be. On the flip side particular impurities can be used as correction, others as seasoning. This is nothing new, this all started with crystal radios 😉.
Dan.
Last edited:
Has the JN PMA series finished then? Normal programming has returned? Looks like they're running repeats now though.
I make that assumption. A collaborative effort on forum appears to be a waste of time. I had hoped for the best, but have learned.
So yes, the return to the normal programming of impurities, near superconductors, goop, photos in freezers, the stuff many people here prefer to bandy about.
Jn
- Status
- Not open for further replies.