(Thanks for the answer about Hint, PMA)
Bob, If, in an old amp, you change all old carbon resistances for metal ones, the difference will be obvious. Even brutal. Only one in the signal path (pot) will be, of course, more subtle. Specially if, for some reasons, there are other parts in your system that add some kind of a grainy or dull character.
Soldering directly one connector will not change your life. Unless the contact was really bad (oxidation etc.). May-be (may-be) soldering all will make a subtle difference. Anyway, soldered parts are better over the years: No slow deterioration expected. In french, we say "Ça ne mange pas de pain".
One other thing that can change the balance of your amp is the diameter and kind of wires you have for Power supplies and Speakers connections.
Big diameter will bring more basses, more "body" and more natural dynamic.
But you can do the contrary using thinner cables if you feel your amp not "fast" enough.
Too, I found that plain copper wires or bars sound less grainy than multi-strand cable. But, may-be it is only autosuggestion ? I do-it this way, (I use CAT6 network cables for line connexions) and don't ask anymore too much questions to myself about. When I have some obvious and global imbalance, i begin to look at my speakers and room acoustic with a suspicious attitude.
When I was still married, it was the moment my wife started to look at me with a suspicious attitude ;-)
Last edited:
Because it will nag at me until I do some form of ABX on it which will lose me an evening and I have preamps to finish building.
Ah that explains it. I'd missed that in the discussion
.
It just goes to show how much variation there is in what people hear for whatever reasons, most heard 3 as having the biggest difference.
Ah that explains it. I'd missed that in the discussion
I think I did not mention it, I am sorry.
I thought you were afraid of being biased, as everyone say Claire#1 is the best
Yes, Pavel's posted measurement also told us so
Bill has no option to disagree.
Last edited:
One of them, just the one preferred (#1) is for measuring purposes. It is a 2-channel amp, but the 2nd channel has 20dB input attenuator to enable measurements on power amplifiers, so it is useless as stereo. The #2 preamp is normal stereo.
Between us, I found that a mono file is not bad for testing at all. You do not waste time seeking for spaciousness and get concentrated on important things
. Do you know that JC listens in mono, at his home?
Last edited:
No they didn't, as I suspect you knowI thought you were afraid of being biased, as everyone say Claire#1 is the best
Prior to the last few yrs I never really heard mono music on a decent system.......and I gotta say it’s not bad, in a stereo playback configuration the mono still presents a stage (and a much better centered stage at that) and whether it’s just a effect from listening to stereo recordings most all the time I still get depth from a decent mono recording.
I didn’t realize that Claire was mono but yet not surprised that I couldn’t tell by listening......how do you change a stereo recording to playback mono?
Sum both inputs then split?
I didn’t realize that Claire was mono but yet not surprised that I couldn’t tell by listening......how do you change a stereo recording to playback mono?
Sum both inputs then split?
Yeah it is mono but mixed to mono by myself
. Original is in stereo. This was done in Foobar DSP manager options. It can only be used with some music files. Those that have phase "miracles" created by sound engineers, between the channels, are not usable.
Sitting here and listening through a headphone from my computer at quite moderate level, yesterday thought I heard a difference, especially between W1 and W2 with W2 being preferred, C1, 2 ,3 couldn't tell so much a difference.
Today repeated the listening test several times and I must say I can't really hear any difference, today also tried to elevate the playback volume by a good margin which makes the listening impression again to change, but not much difference in between the tracks.
It appears as if the Wn music material itself has noise (or maybe it's my rather mediocre equipment..), am also questioning whether the recording quality is HiFi enough to be used demoing differences, would also liked have to have a piece of the original track too.
Perhaps the noise acts as dither on our ears and/or the electronics?
And I must say I can't keep a minute of track in my head, rather just a some single second trying to repeat a certain part of the audio track where the cymbals get hit or listening to the sibilance in the vocals for any discernible differences.
All in all, I tried hard to find supernatural phenomenons and aliens but failed in this aspect, so probably I have only tin ears.
Today repeated the listening test several times and I must say I can't really hear any difference, today also tried to elevate the playback volume by a good margin which makes the listening impression again to change, but not much difference in between the tracks.
It appears as if the Wn music material itself has noise (or maybe it's my rather mediocre equipment..), am also questioning whether the recording quality is HiFi enough to be used demoing differences, would also liked have to have a piece of the original track too.
Perhaps the noise acts as dither on our ears and/or the electronics?
And I must say I can't keep a minute of track in my head, rather just a some single second trying to repeat a certain part of the audio track where the cymbals get hit or listening to the sibilance in the vocals for any discernible differences.
All in all, I tried hard to find supernatural phenomenons and aliens but failed in this aspect, so probably I have only tin ears.
Last edited:
There were often occasions, in recording studios*, where i was on to refreshing or repairing an old device.
Then you are tempted to improve its defects, but afraid to lose its character, the one people liked, and the reason why it was still in use.
Same thing when a friend guitarist ask-you to work on its original VOX AC30, because he is bored by its noise.
It is a little like, I imagine, to restore a precious master painting. It's scary ;-)
Not ignoring the risk, if you succeeded to perfectly recover its original sound, that people, used to the sound he had, degraded by age, cry to desecration (My English ?)
Same, I imagine too, when some have to restore a vintage car to put it back on the road and not in a museum ?
*No arrogance intended: I would be lot much richer if i had been a lawyer or a surgeon ;-)
Ultima Thule, apart i have opposite preference for #1, if I spoke English as correctly as you, I could have written each of your sentences. I listen exactly the same way. Never comparing more than one measure at a time, chosen for a particular instrument or a detail.
Question to myself: do I tend to prefer the first listen, and take it as a reference ?
Last edited:
Hi UT, we are now talking specifically about Claire Martin samples, all the time or almost all the time. The 1st vintage sample, I've got a world on a string, Sinatra 1953, was picked by me intentionally as the first one in a row. So please, try the newer samples of contemporary recordings, you will find them in the 1st post of the thread as well and also several times later, if you followed the thread. I know it may be exhausting, but the thread is still not that long.
Je comprends bien
. My French is not perfect at all, but usable in basic situations. I understand what you mean.
I think everyone should understand (or have some time to think about) what Mmerill and Scott Wurcer have said or implied. I'm going to talk based on my experience here, not repeating other people's words. We are comparing two good things (quality at the output of a preamp) through much less perfect lenses (quality at the output of power amp and speaker). There are complex things going on which cannot be easily understood if not experienced...
But ime, the worse you think the recording, the 'dirtier' the lenses you have...
Increasing the volume ime will only make it even harder to perceive differences, unless maybe if it clips (and the recordings have not the same FR level). It will be easier if you have a mechanism to change the recordings while listening from a distance (may be it's a good idea to create such thing in this hobby). What you want to listen here (between #1 and #2) is the decay of the double bass low frequency.
Ime, if you focus on things like that, what you hear is the difference in power level (which is may be non-existent here). But that depends on your amp of course (I can use different amps and hear different things). Easiest may be is to focus on distortion by listening to the vocal. I did this by listening through Youtube and find in which segment the singer's vocal character is obvious. I found it when she sang (I know it's all unfair) BUT AM too much in love to care. Using headphone at work I couldn't hear clearly this vocal character though. How do you know there's distortion? Distorted vocal, in close examination, doesn't sound like human's voice, let alone showing the character. In this aspect, Claire#1 is a true winner.
I could not resist, removed input divider from the 2nd channel and made a "normal" 2-channel audio amplifier of it. This instrument deserves such change, to utilize its capabilities and potential in everyday listening, also the stepper attenuator used with very good channel matching is a big advantage.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.