Thanks all. I think the answer is to have one of Toms Universal Buffers next to the amplifiers inputs and feed it using XLR over the longer distance. Since it’s monoblocks, might be interesting to have longer XLR cable and site the amps next to the speakers.
I found out that the output impedance of the Directstream v1 is too high to drive another transformer. That would have been a bad idea.
Also, the output transformer within the directstream is purposefully designed not to be too high performing - one with extended frequency response would let too much ultrasonic noise though according to the designer. So I think a simple and cheap upgrade to the Edicor XS4400 would likely be best (the original design supports this, and it doesn’t require any other modifications like with some other transformers).
I was put off the Directstream for a long time due to its poor measurements, however PS Audio seem to have accepted this, if anything the poor performance is actually a known compromise… interesting that its actually the best sound I’ve heard (so far)!
I found out that the output impedance of the Directstream v1 is too high to drive another transformer. That would have been a bad idea.
Also, the output transformer within the directstream is purposefully designed not to be too high performing - one with extended frequency response would let too much ultrasonic noise though according to the designer. So I think a simple and cheap upgrade to the Edicor XS4400 would likely be best (the original design supports this, and it doesn’t require any other modifications like with some other transformers).
I was put off the Directstream for a long time due to its poor measurements, however PS Audio seem to have accepted this, if anything the poor performance is actually a known compromise… interesting that its actually the best sound I’ve heard (so far)!
The Edcor XS4400 was precisely the upgrade I was thinking about; from what others have said, it’s a demonstrable improvement in fidelity. I say, go for it, along with implementing Tom’s UB ahead of the input stage of your triode amplifier.
This reminds me of Tom’s DG300B design, which I still have. The design has a capacitor input or transformer input (Jensen) option. After discussing with Tom, he gave me the thumbs up to use the UB (in lieu of the capacitor or transformer input) as it can be implemented for gain. The overall gain of the DG 300B using the 6N6P input stage is about 3.8dB. If you add the UB ahead of that, and dial in 12dB to 18dB of gain, you have an overall gain of 15dB-22dB which makes the design eminently more applicable to a wider variety of audio setups. It’s a win-win combo imho except for the snooty purists who tip their noses at the operational amplifier input…until they hear it…or rather, not!
Best,
Anand.
Last edited:
I believe that extraordinary claims should be backed by extraordinary evidence. Ultimately audio is about enjoyment of music ... and also about geeking out about the equipment. It just so happens that I derive more enjoyment when I'm not being openly lied to by audio manufacturers. For example with claims that an LED driven by a peak detector will remove mains noise and result in audio nirvana. That's why I offer the most comprehensive set of measurements in the industry for my products. At least then you can see what you're getting and make an informed purchasing decision.
I do agree that it's easy to get lost in the numbers. Numbers are very convenient for stacked ranking charts, but some seem to forget to take the precision of the instrumentation into account. Is it reasonable to argue that equipment A is better than B is better than C because their respective dB SINAD numbers are 142, 141.8, and 141.6 dB when the noise floor of the instrumentation is likely what explains the difference in those measurements? Or ... hey ... is the measurement even relevant in the first place?
I'm having the most fun with audio design when I push the performance to the limit and that means I get good measured performance. In my experience this also results in a good perceived experience. This opinion is supported by science as well.
Tom
I do agree that it's easy to get lost in the numbers. Numbers are very convenient for stacked ranking charts, but some seem to forget to take the precision of the instrumentation into account. Is it reasonable to argue that equipment A is better than B is better than C because their respective dB SINAD numbers are 142, 141.8, and 141.6 dB when the noise floor of the instrumentation is likely what explains the difference in those measurements? Or ... hey ... is the measurement even relevant in the first place?
I'm having the most fun with audio design when I push the performance to the limit and that means I get good measured performance. In my experience this also results in a good perceived experience. This opinion is supported by science as well.
Tom
Anand's idea of using the UB as an "input stage" is novel and interesting.
As 26dB of gain is possible I guess the UB could be used as a headamp to convert a MM phonostage to a MC stage.
Or to allow the use of RCA/SE phono inputs into a balanced phonostage; or the reverse
Might be summat for Tom to promote
t
As 26dB of gain is possible I guess the UB could be used as a headamp to convert a MM phonostage to a MC stage.
Or to allow the use of RCA/SE phono inputs into a balanced phonostage; or the reverse
Might be summat for Tom to promote
t
The Universal Buffer would not be my first choice for an MC input. It would probably work well enough, but you could optimize the performance further by choosing an input stage with lower input bias current.
It could be used with 35-40 dB gain as a gain stage for an MM cartridge. You could then handle the RIAA compensation in a DSP.
Tom
It could be used with 35-40 dB gain as a gain stage for an MM cartridge. You could then handle the RIAA compensation in a DSP.
Tom
Certainly why not; I only offer ideas for potential avenues of revenue for you (yeah...ideas are the easy part)
Audiophiles (especially those involved in vinyl/analogue) tend to be conservative and it's likely hard enough to persuade many (such as Mike Hanson) that a SS headamp might be "better" than a SUT.
I'm sure DSP is great at RIAA compensation but that is an even further step for conservatives.
It is hard enough to persuade many that passive RIAA compensation is not the only "good" sounding method and that feedback/active RIAA is not the work of the devil
t
Audiophiles (especially those involved in vinyl/analogue) tend to be conservative and it's likely hard enough to persuade many (such as Mike Hanson) that a SS headamp might be "better" than a SUT.
I'm sure DSP is great at RIAA compensation but that is an even further step for conservatives.
It is hard enough to persuade many that passive RIAA compensation is not the only "good" sounding method and that feedback/active RIAA is not the work of the devil
t
It's certainly an interesting idea. I'll add it to the Wish List in The Neurochrome Forum: https://forum.neurochrome.com/wish-list/
Tom
Tom
The Neuro Forum is pretty new. I started playing around with it a few months ago and finally reached a point where I feel I can announce it a few days back. I haven't actually announced it to the world yet. I hope to foster a bit of a community around the Neurochrome products where folks help each other with the debugging and selection of my products.
My health is pretty good. My heart beats when it wants to and my cardiologist says that's normal. I have some palpitations, but apparently those are normal too. Some just feel them more than others. Now, why I suddenly started feeling mine is still a mystery. I believe the official medical diagnosis is, "sh*t happens". My heart has beaten some two billion times by now. It's probably a bit unrealistic to expect every heartbeat to have been perfect at this point.
Hockey never stopped. Not for me anyway. I ended up playing 4-5 times/week over the summer and am now back on my winter schedule with 5-6 games/week. I'm playing some of the best hockey I've ever played. Life is good.
Tom
My health is pretty good. My heart beats when it wants to and my cardiologist says that's normal. I have some palpitations, but apparently those are normal too. Some just feel them more than others. Now, why I suddenly started feeling mine is still a mystery. I believe the official medical diagnosis is, "sh*t happens". My heart has beaten some two billion times by now. It's probably a bit unrealistic to expect every heartbeat to have been perfect at this point.
Hockey never stopped. Not for me anyway. I ended up playing 4-5 times/week over the summer and am now back on my winter schedule with 5-6 games/week. I'm playing some of the best hockey I've ever played. Life is good.
Tom
Last edited:
If we were trying to measure absolutes that mattered to a large number of people, then I would be more inclined to demand scientific evidence.
In this case, we're talking about personal preferences. Most of us are on a quest to build a system that satisfies our own tastes. Each of us is the final judge as to the performance of that system, and we gauge that however we see fit. Some lean on technical measurements, while others are comfortable trusting their ears. Neither approach is right for everyone.
For example, I'm currently using the Klipsch Cornwall IV. On a lark, I bought the Tannoy Kensington SE. Both are very good speakers! The Kensington does many things well, but it's sorely missing a sense of speed and dynamics that the Cornwall does exceedingly well. I'm not even sure how you would measure what I'm perceiving with my ears, but the differences that I hear are utterly obvious. Because I'm the only person who has to be happy in my listening room, then my perception is all that matters.
I'm not here to judge your taste in audio equipment, music, decor, or whatever. I do agree that ultimately it's about having an enjoyable experience listening to music and I hope my products can be part of that experience for you. If not, that's OK too. We don't all have to like the same stuff.
That said, I do believe that measurements (plural) can be a great tool for separating the wheat from the chaff and tell dog poo from chocolate. And if dog poo is being marketed as chocolate, I think it's fair to call out the manufacturer on it.
Tom
That said, I do believe that measurements (plural) can be a great tool for separating the wheat from the chaff and tell dog poo from chocolate. And if dog poo is being marketed as chocolate, I think it's fair to call out the manufacturer on it.
Tom
Because the drunk stagger is the oft stated example of a random walk, the average distance travelled is the square root of the number of drunk steps. So if you do 9 random changes to your audio system, you will on average make 3 real improvements.
Of course this is idealized. In practice their might well be no improvement, or you might actually break something,
Craig
Of course this is idealized. In practice their might well be no improvement, or you might actually break something,
Craig
@sawyers I think that should be: if you make 9 random changes, you will make on average 3 real changes.
The same with the random steps: with 9 random steps you make 3 real steps, but you can't say they are in any particular direction.
The background being that some steps retrace and some changes cancel others.
Not that it is of life-importance of course
Jan
The same with the random steps: with 9 random steps you make 3 real steps, but you can't say they are in any particular direction.
The background being that some steps retrace and some changes cancel others.
Not that it is of life-importance of course
Jan