Hi,
It would have surprised me if it had.
Still, those Jadis integrated amps you so nonchalantly shot down are so bad they can do that with their hands in their pockets.
But hey, your GC is better, right? Right.
The Ja 200 is an aging design, certainly not perfect.
It has a gently rolling off top end starting at an unashamedly low 13KHZ but it will bring the performance right into your living room given half a chance.
It uses those moribound (I keep on hearing that for 40 years already) tubes no one seems to like.
Nonetheless if anyone can point me to a semi-conductor amp that can pull that rabbit too then I'll never touch a tube again for the rest of my life. Promise.
Mind you that lousy tube amp doesn't measure too great either, can hardly deliver what any half decent loudspeaker would call current but here's the kicker: those two chaps behind the Jadis operation design their toys by listening to them.
How strange is that?
And it gets funnier by the minute: that amp doesn't even contain a single boutique cap.
Not one, not even a funny resistor costing an arm and a leg.
All that stuff is picked straight out of the Philips Industrial catalogue. How's that for laughs?
So, you're now going to argue that the speakers we used were something really special, right?
Nope.
Bog standard SD Acoustics SD1s, incidentally the ones I still use at home.
Good speakers but nothing too extravagant either.
Must have been the room then?
Nope again. Unless you consider a hotel room special that is.....
The source?
Ah, O.K. You got me there.
We used vinyl records.
You know the kind of recordings everyone wanting to pretend to have some kind of education should have.
Like the fifth millionth copy of an Edith Piaf recording, that kind of record we used.
A good deck and arm too.
Cartridge wasn't too bad either yet nothing extraordinary though.
But to me it was the amp that impressed me most.
That and the fact that these guys could really, I mean really set up a system good and fast.
So, you ask, what was it that made it such an unforgettable event?
I'll let you think about it for a while. Than I may tell you, may not too.....................
Ciao, 😉
BTW, you're amp is better.😉
It would have surprised me if it had.
Still, those Jadis integrated amps you so nonchalantly shot down are so bad they can do that with their hands in their pockets.
But hey, your GC is better, right? Right.
The Ja 200 is an aging design, certainly not perfect.
It has a gently rolling off top end starting at an unashamedly low 13KHZ but it will bring the performance right into your living room given half a chance.
It uses those moribound (I keep on hearing that for 40 years already) tubes no one seems to like.
Nonetheless if anyone can point me to a semi-conductor amp that can pull that rabbit too then I'll never touch a tube again for the rest of my life. Promise.
Mind you that lousy tube amp doesn't measure too great either, can hardly deliver what any half decent loudspeaker would call current but here's the kicker: those two chaps behind the Jadis operation design their toys by listening to them.
How strange is that?
And it gets funnier by the minute: that amp doesn't even contain a single boutique cap.
Not one, not even a funny resistor costing an arm and a leg.
All that stuff is picked straight out of the Philips Industrial catalogue. How's that for laughs?
So, you're now going to argue that the speakers we used were something really special, right?
Nope.
Bog standard SD Acoustics SD1s, incidentally the ones I still use at home.
Good speakers but nothing too extravagant either.
Must have been the room then?
Nope again. Unless you consider a hotel room special that is.....
The source?
Ah, O.K. You got me there.
We used vinyl records.
You know the kind of recordings everyone wanting to pretend to have some kind of education should have.
Like the fifth millionth copy of an Edith Piaf recording, that kind of record we used.
A good deck and arm too.
Cartridge wasn't too bad either yet nothing extraordinary though.
But to me it was the amp that impressed me most.
That and the fact that these guys could really, I mean really set up a system good and fast.
So, you ask, what was it that made it such an unforgettable event?
I'll let you think about it for a while. Than I may tell you, may not too.....................
Ciao, 😉
BTW, you're amp is better.😉
Hey I like tubes as well 😀 And I feel exactly the same way. If I could do it with a transistor, mosfet or chip I would gladly dump all the tubes. They are just such a pain to work with; high voltage supplies, high volatage resistors, transformers, heater supplies, biasing, and so on...and they have a habit of going wrong (why I have a spare amp...)
They really are a bother. But the *******' things sound so good.
One thing I think you did not mention about the Jadis (forgive me if I am wrong). Those two guys also wound their own transformers.. By hand.
Hi,
The first couple of prototypes that is.
After that they were wound (probably sorta still by hand) at a small factory in Carcasonne (South of Snail Country).
Really?
Well, maybe those cheap counterfeit jobs from you know where do but surely good NOS ones are pretty reliable.
I'd sure hate to see NOS 211s go down the errrrrrr........tubes.😀
Cheers, 😉
The first couple of prototypes that is.
After that they were wound (probably sorta still by hand) at a small factory in Carcasonne (South of Snail Country).
Really?
Well, maybe those cheap counterfeit jobs from you know where do but surely good NOS ones are pretty reliable.
I'd sure hate to see NOS 211s go down the errrrrrr........tubes.😀
Cheers, 😉
Reliability : Usually it's not the tubes that go wrong themselves. Most guilty have been high voltage capacitors and resistors buring out, etc.
But on the other hand, if you do something really evil to a SS circuit, it likely dies a violent death (unless explicitly protected). Wheras a tube circuit usually just glows brightly before blowing a fuse. I just replaced a coupling cap with a boutique variety that happened to be short circuit. Resulted on 160V on the grid of the 211s (instead of about -50 or 60) .. result...fuse blew.
Yeah I will test them first next time...
But on the other hand, if you do something really evil to a SS circuit, it likely dies a violent death (unless explicitly protected). Wheras a tube circuit usually just glows brightly before blowing a fuse. I just replaced a coupling cap with a boutique variety that happened to be short circuit. Resulted on 160V on the grid of the 211s (instead of about -50 or 60) .. result...fuse blew.
Yeah I will test them first next time...
lineup said:
Neither is absolute, that's the problem:
A) extremely prone to placebo effect, especially when delving to the depths of audibility of things
B) there is no way to guarantee that the output is no different from the input (with a fixed gain). Elecronic measurements have limited precision, and we won't know what precision is good enough until we understand hearing perfectly. Even if the output is correct by definition, then you don't know if the speakers are cleaner with current drive rather than voltage drive (for example).
"Euphonic distortion" still gets used to explain apparent conflicts between A and B, but that's a pretty much outmoded concept these days. We now know that in most cases of "sounds good measures bad" the measurements were faulty (or rather the assumptions made about the relevance of the measurements). The worst offender is probably THD. I'm sure there is such a thing as "euphonic distortion" (well there is - look at guitar amps), but it's not a blanket excuse for "sounds good measures bad".
Ultimately the answer has to be A: You can sell an amp which sounds good but measures bad. But you need to do a lot of advertising to sell an amp which measures good but sounds bad.
I'll take B - accurate amplification.
I can add signal processing to get A if I want it.
I'd really like to sometime see the results of some true double blind testing.
I can add signal processing to get A if I want it.
I'd really like to sometime see the results of some true double blind testing.
The point I was trying to make is that...
A is accurate amplification
or the most likely to be the closest to it. B is simply a tool that can be used to get to A, but is a bit of a circular definition.
Of course this relies on people preferring something which sounds closest to to the original, rather than turn up the bass etc. Keep in mind the "original" for a lot of recording is itself a fabrication of the recording studio, made to sound best on fairly ordinary equipment. Good acoustic recordings have less of this going on, but they are still crafted to sound the best on clean systems.
A is accurate amplification
or the most likely to be the closest to it. B is simply a tool that can be used to get to A, but is a bit of a circular definition.
Of course this relies on people preferring something which sounds closest to to the original, rather than turn up the bass etc. Keep in mind the "original" for a lot of recording is itself a fabrication of the recording studio, made to sound best on fairly ordinary equipment. Good acoustic recordings have less of this going on, but they are still crafted to sound the best on clean systems.
I suppose current capability, slew rate and dampening factor are a start for estimating for example bass slam.
You'd think, but it's not that simple. It can be extremely hard to find any consistent link between measurable effects at bass frequencies and descriptions about the sound of the bass.
In fact, for a SS amp all those things (current capability, slew rate, and damping factor) are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to accurately reproducing a bass waveform. But they do seem to affect the sound - a big amp can sound "bigger" even though there is no (valid) technical reason.
In fact, for a SS amp all those things (current capability, slew rate, and damping factor) are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to accurately reproducing a bass waveform. But they do seem to affect the sound - a big amp can sound "bigger" even though there is no (valid) technical reason.
Where I was headed ....
Give me B - a amp that "measures" accurate. I'll get an amp that "sounds good" by reproducing what the music producers had in mind. I paid them money for their opinions. And if there's some inadequacy in the signal chain that I feel want to adjust - I can add signal processing.
In other words, I don't want an amp that "sounds" like anything.
There's no real B that exists, but give me something that strives to be B, and not characteristically A.
I'd be interested in any reference material on how something sounds that can't be measured and compared to a subjective opinion. Quite honestly it sounds (pun intended) a little supernatural.
Give me B - a amp that "measures" accurate. I'll get an amp that "sounds good" by reproducing what the music producers had in mind. I paid them money for their opinions. And if there's some inadequacy in the signal chain that I feel want to adjust - I can add signal processing.
In other words, I don't want an amp that "sounds" like anything.
There's no real B that exists, but give me something that strives to be B, and not characteristically A.
I'd be interested in any reference material on how something sounds that can't be measured and compared to a subjective opinion. Quite honestly it sounds (pun intended) a little supernatural.
A word that keeps on poping up is soundstage.. wich to me for the most is an artificial sound.
when listening to live music, the only types of music where you would be able to identify poisitions (ala soundstage style) would be acoustic instruments unamplified voice, and orchestral music...
All other live music in real life sounds like a pointsource.
Now this is not the fault of the amp. But I sure as hell prefer a setup for Band music which would not make the seperation to clinical and artificial... you know like when half a drumset goes to the one speaker and the cymbals to the other... horrible I tell you and soooooooooooo common.
OK I got my flamesuit on
when listening to live music, the only types of music where you would be able to identify poisitions (ala soundstage style) would be acoustic instruments unamplified voice, and orchestral music...
All other live music in real life sounds like a pointsource.
Now this is not the fault of the amp. But I sure as hell prefer a setup for Band music which would not make the seperation to clinical and artificial... you know like when half a drumset goes to the one speaker and the cymbals to the other... horrible I tell you and soooooooooooo common.
OK I got my flamesuit on
On my system it's actually hard to beleive that the music is coming from the speakers at all...it seems to come from a space between the speakers.
Today, most recordings are mixed from plain-mono microphones though a mixing console with mono channels, that only allow for L-R (volume) panning. This does not create any imaging other than center, full left, full right, or difuse, because all time information is lost. Furthermore, in most cases there was never any time/position information because each track/instrument/voice is usually recorded independently in a closed cabin with a single microphone.
Only a very small amount of recordings are made with a pair of microphones placed 1 feet apart and strategically rotated respect to the sound source, in order to capture time/position information for every sound source around them (rotation is for panning). Note that imaging perception is almost fully based in the time difference between the stimulation of one ear and the other every time there is a transient.
However, what most people calls imaging is just the acoustic mess caused by the almost unpredictable pattern of sound reflections created by their rooms and furniture (that is not always placed in the same way, thus creating random effects). This effectively makes us believe that different frequency ranges come from different parts of the room, even behind us or up and down, it even happens with plain MONO recordings 😀😀😀 We may even be fooled into thinking that different instruments come from different positions since each one has predominant frequencies that our brain takes as its main position reference, overriding the rest.
There is not such a thing as imaging inside rooms, except when the listener is very close to the speakers and both are far from walls, or when horns or very aggressive acoustic treatment are employed. Horns provide some directivity that helps to tame room reflections, thus helping our brain a lot into identifying the original reflections captured by the microphones when the recording was made, that would be otherwise overriden by room acoustics. On the other hand, acoustic treatment should produce a strong attenuation every time a sound wave is reflected in a wall, so the imaging improvement is the same or better (that may be perceived as not an improvement at all when the recording has poor or no imaging).
A good alternative is to listen outdoors, without ceiling or walls, altough floor reflections have still to be taken care of. The main drawback of it is that hi-fi systems sound soft and tiny without walls or ceiling because most of the loudness that we get in rooms is actually due to the sound reflection mess that is created. Again, there is where horns come into place.
Only a very small amount of recordings are made with a pair of microphones placed 1 feet apart and strategically rotated respect to the sound source, in order to capture time/position information for every sound source around them (rotation is for panning). Note that imaging perception is almost fully based in the time difference between the stimulation of one ear and the other every time there is a transient.
However, what most people calls imaging is just the acoustic mess caused by the almost unpredictable pattern of sound reflections created by their rooms and furniture (that is not always placed in the same way, thus creating random effects). This effectively makes us believe that different frequency ranges come from different parts of the room, even behind us or up and down, it even happens with plain MONO recordings 😀😀😀 We may even be fooled into thinking that different instruments come from different positions since each one has predominant frequencies that our brain takes as its main position reference, overriding the rest.
There is not such a thing as imaging inside rooms, except when the listener is very close to the speakers and both are far from walls, or when horns or very aggressive acoustic treatment are employed. Horns provide some directivity that helps to tame room reflections, thus helping our brain a lot into identifying the original reflections captured by the microphones when the recording was made, that would be otherwise overriden by room acoustics. On the other hand, acoustic treatment should produce a strong attenuation every time a sound wave is reflected in a wall, so the imaging improvement is the same or better (that may be perceived as not an improvement at all when the recording has poor or no imaging).
A good alternative is to listen outdoors, without ceiling or walls, altough floor reflections have still to be taken care of. The main drawback of it is that hi-fi systems sound soft and tiny without walls or ceiling because most of the loudness that we get in rooms is actually due to the sound reflection mess that is created. Again, there is where horns come into place.
I was hoping someone else would do the "dirty work", regarding soundstage.
Thanks Eva!
Most recordings do not allow for the recreation of a left to right sound stage. Volume plus time delay must be combined to create the illusion properly and time delay is seldom used. I am NOT saying that there are no recordings that do this, artificially or real (with 2 mics). I wish we had more recordings made with only 2 mics!
As far as front to back is concerned, we cannot recreate front to back with 2 speakers/channels... basic physics/math.
I am not saying that reverberation and volume etc... cannot persude one's mind into creating that perception though.
😉
Thanks Eva!
Most recordings do not allow for the recreation of a left to right sound stage. Volume plus time delay must be combined to create the illusion properly and time delay is seldom used. I am NOT saying that there are no recordings that do this, artificially or real (with 2 mics). I wish we had more recordings made with only 2 mics!
As far as front to back is concerned, we cannot recreate front to back with 2 speakers/channels... basic physics/math.
I am not saying that reverberation and volume etc... cannot persude one's mind into creating that perception though.
😉
Hi,
Not sure what you mean by front to back but I sure know a good handful recordings that are so well executed that speakers and room seem to vanish into thin air.
Incidentally they invariably use minimal mic setups, most only just a Blumlein pair.
Minimal or no electronic processing, tubed mic amps, analogue tape machines. You get the picture.
Unfortunately the musical content isn't always up to par or the pressing isn't what it could have been but hey, they do exist.
I often get the feeling that most younger listeners just don't have the foggiest idea of what is actually possible. Not that you can blame them but it's a shame really.....
Cheers, 😉
Not sure what you mean by front to back but I sure know a good handful recordings that are so well executed that speakers and room seem to vanish into thin air.
Incidentally they invariably use minimal mic setups, most only just a Blumlein pair.
Minimal or no electronic processing, tubed mic amps, analogue tape machines. You get the picture.
Unfortunately the musical content isn't always up to par or the pressing isn't what it could have been but hey, they do exist.
I often get the feeling that most younger listeners just don't have the foggiest idea of what is actually possible. Not that you can blame them but it's a shame really.....
Cheers, 😉
Frank,
The claim was made earlier that "soundstage" could also place sound sources front to back (near/far)as well as side to side (left/right). I'll go with the left to right, IF and only if it is a genuine stereo recording... something we are sorely lacking these days...
As far as front to back is concerned, the physics and math don't support it. I do believe, with a good stereo recording, we can imagine it quite well though...
The claim was made earlier that "soundstage" could also place sound sources front to back (near/far)as well as side to side (left/right). I'll go with the left to right, IF and only if it is a genuine stereo recording... something we are sorely lacking these days...
As far as front to back is concerned, the physics and math don't support it. I do believe, with a good stereo recording, we can imagine it quite well though...
Hi,
Do you mean depth of image?
No idea why you'd need any math or extra speakers to support it.
Seems to work fine without them IMHO.......
Cheers, 😉
Do you mean depth of image?
No idea why you'd need any math or extra speakers to support it.
Seems to work fine without them IMHO.......
Cheers, 😉
Suppose we better get back to the thread, although I guess it will be moved in time...
As for the vlaue of gainclones... its a brilliant stepping stone into the world of DIY audio... and for some I think it may be more than enough to last them a lifetime... I suppose people always get better hearing with higher demands as their disposable income increases
As for the vlaue of gainclones... its a brilliant stepping stone into the world of DIY audio... and for some I think it may be more than enough to last them a lifetime... I suppose people always get better hearing with higher demands as their disposable income increases
Of course you wil hear behind you everything coming reflected from the back wall of your room... But this is not imaging, this is only poor room acoustics. Anyway, we have poor abilities to perceive front vs. back sound since the effect fully based on entry-angle dependent reflections and group delays caused by external ear geometry on high frequencies.
When you are in a conventional room you hear the walls, floor and ceiling, but not any imaging worth mentioning. When listening outdoors with a single pair of speakers, you will never hear such a thing as a sound coming from the clouds or from behind you (perhaps you coluld hear something from the floor).
And I know because I'm quite used to listening stuff outdoors, so you may wish to try it...
Something strange is goin' on... now I don't know the deam chips...
Frank, I just gave my oppinion of what I've heard, and it was not good. At least those two Jadis amps.
Sorry if I offended you.😕
About my 'GC', I don't have that.
I made that some years ago (with low capacitance PSU - 1,000~1,500uF, a typical 'GC') and yes, it's exactly what it does: some background sounds disappear when other instruments come into the mix.
Why?
I repeat for the 1000000000 time:
Because a power amp with 1,000~1,500uF capacitance on the PSU can't drive most speakers.
Do you understand now?
It's exactly what's happening, I've been there, done that.
I said I know what he's talking about, and I do.
I've tested many speakers with those amps, it's VERY hard to find a pair of speakers that the amp can drive.
It's SET territory.
I have posted my tests on this forum, back then.
PSU voltage sags too much with the music, it's funny that some think that the chip can produce 50W with such a PSU.
Yes, I use a chipamp, but with a different PSU.
The problem is not the deam chip some of you guys are blaming, it's the PSU.
I use one LM3886 per channel, snubberized CRCC PSU with ~30,000uF capacitance, and the amp has driving abilities much beyond my initial expectations.
fdegrove said:
Frank, I just gave my oppinion of what I've heard, and it was not good. At least those two Jadis amps.
Sorry if I offended you.😕
About my 'GC', I don't have that.
I made that some years ago (with low capacitance PSU - 1,000~1,500uF, a typical 'GC') and yes, it's exactly what it does: some background sounds disappear when other instruments come into the mix.
Why?
I repeat for the 1000000000 time:
Because a power amp with 1,000~1,500uF capacitance on the PSU can't drive most speakers.
Do you understand now?
It's exactly what's happening, I've been there, done that.
I said I know what he's talking about, and I do.
I've tested many speakers with those amps, it's VERY hard to find a pair of speakers that the amp can drive.
It's SET territory.
I have posted my tests on this forum, back then.
PSU voltage sags too much with the music, it's funny that some think that the chip can produce 50W with such a PSU.
Yes, I use a chipamp, but with a different PSU.
The problem is not the deam chip some of you guys are blaming, it's the PSU.
I use one LM3886 per channel, snubberized CRCC PSU with ~30,000uF capacitance, and the amp has driving abilities much beyond my initial expectations.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.