@tombo56 - I certainly enjoy my low power class A amplifier done 'your way'. I still haven't tried the 'R21' PSU and variants in any other amplifier though. I can't say how much it contributes (or more correctly doesn't) ... but I have to think that they're part of the excellence / overall package. I sent out some of my spare boards just the other week.
They're in my very low distortion amplifier tick box. I'd certainly characterize them as 'revealing', but I admit I don't recall fatigue ever being one of my descriptors. I often listen to some absolute garbage recordings; Garbage is certainly in my playlists too.
I must have an amp / system that allows me to listen to the music I enjoy without wanting to plug my ears. I have music playing most of my day. I've listened to systems that have literally given me a headache. Others find them "excellent", so I have to believe that the way we process the sound once it hits our ears plays a role too.
I admit that I just have no clue, but ... I'm trying to pick up a few things here and there.
They're in my very low distortion amplifier tick box. I'd certainly characterize them as 'revealing', but I admit I don't recall fatigue ever being one of my descriptors. I often listen to some absolute garbage recordings; Garbage is certainly in my playlists too.
I must have an amp / system that allows me to listen to the music I enjoy without wanting to plug my ears. I have music playing most of my day. I've listened to systems that have literally given me a headache. Others find them "excellent", so I have to believe that the way we process the sound once it hits our ears plays a role too.
I admit that I just have no clue, but ... I'm trying to pick up a few things here and there.
As I was rooting through things I've saved in my "General learning" file, I came across this article. Since Nelson Pass has been quoted for various reasons, and preferences around 2nd harmonics etc. have been discussed, some people may find it interesting. If I find any additional articles or scientific papers that relate to the topic at hand, I'll certainly post them for others.
https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/audio-distortion-and-feedback/
https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/audio-distortion-and-feedback/
Well, among stated design goals for that design was ‘no listening fatigue’. It delivers. 😁
I agree that the way each individual processes the sound, plays important role. Soundstage perception is one example of that. It doesn’t actually exist in the stereo recording but is an illusion created by our brain. There are people that can never experience virtual sound sources and always perceive two distinct sound sources. There is never ever for them that beautiful experience of loudspeakers ‘disappearing entirely’.
I don’t know is is some kind of impairment or super-human ability, that their brain can’t be fooled.
That's the amazing thing. There are certain recordings (fine ... I listen to Adele sometimes, I'll hand in my 'audiophile badge' 🙂 ) that on other systems might make me almost literally cringe. With some components, I don't feel like I'm missing a single detail, but... I don't want run from the room. So, to me ... ultra-low or low... or however we may characterize the distortions below 0.X%, doesn't necessarily always make me cringe with a 'bad' recording. I may also need to accept that what I'm hearing may not be a 'bad' recording. Boston's first album on the early CD release is another one that comes almost immediately to mind. I don't deny that a lot of my music isn't recorded for audiophiles. It's likely recorded for mass appeal through 'Beats' headphones or earbuds... who knows? Sure, I do listen to a decent portion of music I might have known before it found its way onto "test discs" and the like, but ... that's probably not the majority of what I listen to all day.
I don't know either. I'm not an expert on the subject AT ALL, but I do keep a list of odd things I run across that interest me. How our brains learn to "see" and "hear" etc. fascinates me.
I think this video has all sorts of interesting information, and it's released by a source I feel like I can trust. At about 17:22 into the video, it covers a neat experiment re: changing the shape of the pinnae and how people reacted to spatial cues.
Cheers!
Edited to add - I don't know if it sight parallels hearing at all with how we "learn" to do it, but I'm 'cross-eyed' and when my vision was corrected through surgery early in life, I had to "relearn" depth perception. It's still pretty odd for me. I don't have true 'monocular' vision where my brain won't combine the images from both eyes properly, but relearning how to "see" the two images as one was part of the process of moving the focus points of my eyes, or at least how it was explained to me when I was young.
Last edited:
I don't think so, on a proper equilibrated system 'crap' sounds good, it has some fun value in any music, and especially since it is very compressed or badly use of microphone and cheap one it is interesting nevertheless.
The better my sound system sounds the more I find pleasure in listening anything
A high damping factor is usually preferred for bass, but you probably want it to start 'softening' above say, 300Hz or some reasonable limit where bass resonances and box tuning no-longer matters too much. In the right-hand half of the speaker's frequency range, where the nominal 8 ohms starts climbing around 9~20 ohms, the 'semi-inductance' becomes a major source of distortion (which appears in series with the sound-producing 8 ohms), and for that reason alone the preferred mode of operation flips to "current drive". Every additional ohm of output impedance, brings the system closer to a regulated current source, which helps to reduce the influence of the speaker impedance on the output current. This is only relevant for normal coil+magnet speakers though, not exotics.
People use different means to achieve sort-of similar ends. E.g.:
1. Low/ no negative feedback --> low damping factor.
2. Forked RC feedback network with shunt resistor --> low damping factor @ HF; high damping factor @ LF.
3. Open loop gain has 1st pole at a very low frequency --> reduced feedback factor @ HF.
4. Passive attenuation with resistors and inductors, and active pre-emphasis.
There are some "current drive" threads that can be searched, and no, the findings never seem to be convincing for those who are happily doing what they're already doing.
This is not for 'them'. This is for the experimenters -- people who are curious about certain riddles, like: why did a tweeter that was padded down with a resistor sound so much smoother than the same tweeter, using the same amplifier, but actively attenuated?
In fairness, some of of it IS subjective, and it is acknowledged as such appropriately. It also appropriately mentions anecdotal information. There is also hard science. The three can mix nicely, in my opinion as long as they are acknowledged. With that said, I find/found it very informative and insightful.
When people offer opinions, it doesn't mean those people are wrong. It might mean that there isn't appropriate data and analysis to definitively support the idea or opinion with a level of confidence that some would choose to make a decision.
To me, anecdotal information can also be valuable - X% of people prefer H2, Y% of people prefer H3, Z% of people don't care or don't know (as an example) ... Sure it's anecdotal, but I'd dare say that the sources were solid and the sample pool was reasonable enough to make informed decisions. Does it stand up to peer reviewed analytical scrutiny for the purposes of scientific study; not in my world. Is it a piece of information with enough backing from a trusted source for me to lend it credence; yes!
My general take on most things is that in the absence of 'science', I'll take what I can get from trusted sources. If it's 'important' enough (to me), you can best bet that I'll be using a more rigorous approach, but there aren't a great many things that (to me) require that much rigor. So, I'm quite wishy washy about it. Sure, I like to chat about it, but there simply doesn't seem to be enough science (that I can find or that people will freely share) to support a lot of the theories I see bandied about in forums. It's just a lot of hot air and declarations (and a good number of people having fun too).
Seriously!!?? 😵
You would seem to never have listened to a pair of Maggies - like say, the big 3-way, true-ribbon 3.X series. Sure, you can get a sound out of them with a typical 50w receiver (50w into 8 ohms / 70w into 4) ... but they really sing when powered by a Sanders Magtech (500w into 8 / 900 into 4).
(You don't play them any louder ... it's just that the music coming from them ... sounds better!)
Even with a pair of ProAc stand-mounts, I have heard the sonic improvements going from:
* a 40w tube amp
* to a 150w 'Elektra' ss amp
* to the said Magtech.
Once in a while I give myself a reality check and measure the peak current and peak AC sum at the speakers output playing as loud as I would ever listen the loudest parts.
It averages 1.5A 3V peaks, and the worst peaks were 8A , can't remember the exact voltage, (around 14V?).
This will not place my power amp in a positions of more than 0.5 to 0.1% thd mainly 2nd. and it is too loud.
So a 50 Watts amp (0.5%) is plenty sufficient and this is with worse and hardest loudspeakers I can find.
I can't remember hearing electroacoustics, I know some people have found the right amp to be a 20Watts tube amp.
I am sure my tube amp and my SS amps can sent 15Amps if needed for a short period.
My SS is class AB, class A bias is minimal (and not required).
It averages 1.5A 3V peaks, and the worst peaks were 8A , can't remember the exact voltage, (around 14V?).
This will not place my power amp in a positions of more than 0.5 to 0.1% thd mainly 2nd. and it is too loud.
So a 50 Watts amp (0.5%) is plenty sufficient and this is with worse and hardest loudspeakers I can find.
I can't remember hearing electroacoustics, I know some people have found the right amp to be a 20Watts tube amp.
I am sure my tube amp and my SS amps can sent 15Amps if needed for a short period.
My SS is class AB, class A bias is minimal (and not required).
Interesting how we are so different. 😀
My "reality checks" ... are simply ... listening to music.
I drive my 2-way, 4 ohm active spkrs with two different pairs of ss amps - both designed by the same guy. These are:
* 40w Class A, during the colder months
* but 75w Class AB, for the summer months (as two Class A amps simply put out far too much heat into the room 🙁 ).
I much prefer the sound from the spkrs when they are driven by the Class A amps. What is interesting about this, though ... is that the Class A amps did not sound as good as the Class AB amps, when they were used on the mids & ribbons of my active Maggies.
I checked also with a spectrometer which sums up all frequencies, pretty much same results (STOXX)
andr why you drive them with power amp if they are active speaker?
andr why you drive them with power amp if they are active speaker?
^ There simply must be a few things lost in translation perhaps.
Active speakers require amplifiers. Those amplifiers simply are (generally) part of the speaker enclosure.
Active speakers require amplifiers. Those amplifiers simply are (generally) part of the speaker enclosure.
This would be HORRIBLE in a professional listening situation!
I need to hear all the quirks and problems of a recording, most during tracking and mastering. When everything is washed to a nice and funny representation working is really hard, you need a lot of control hearing etc.
To get there the room is the most important factor. There is a reason why in professional rooms most money by far goes into room design and acoustics. Just putting such a system in a normal living room ... it will likely just sound exhausting instead of revealing.
Not everybody needs a revealing listening system. But "everything sounds nice" is not my definition of High Fidelity.
I really enjoy the face of people when they listen to my system the first time and hear all the details of a great recording the first time in their live. 😎 This experience is simply not possible in a normal living room - getting the details of a great open headphone with a pin sharp stereo panorama.
Amp size: 10dB more SPL needs 10x the amp power.
So the over all needed peak power STRONGLY depends on your speaker sensitivity, room size and SPL level.
90dBSpl is plenty for most listeners, 50W easy for that! But as soon as you want a "live" representation and feel some of the bass lines amp power explodes.
Even with strong compressed music peak power is 6-10times of average needed power. Having some extra power in your amp is not often needed but never a mistake.
THD of the amp ... while an important technical value it's just a very little puzzle peace in a complete listening system.
(just sound exhausting instead of revealing), that is exactly how my system sounds, untreated room, it doesn't resolve nicely at all, it just aims at projecting some distortion in the room.
And that is plenty sufficient for me now, I doubt I will ever have money to purchase a home to place it and treat it with proper wood sculptures, maybe in a far far future, right now I am doing the best that I can to finish 2 loudspeakers projects.
I can still hear clearly the value of quality amplification and source, I can post ridiculous samples to explain myself better...
Like one is DAC of a computer or DAC with diy tube output (yeee diy audio!)
I was browsing to old music of disco childhood. And in Sweet dreams (labouche) the video clip on youtube 3:16, when it repeats that fourth interval a few times. This is what I hear on my headphones on the computer: everything is sterile, the high hat sounds is very fake, the singer voice is very distorted, each part plays with aggressiveness on its own but nothing hold together.
I replayed that with a better computer DAC into my stereo system (DIY) and everything still separated, it sounds more credible with better bass.
Then I switched the dac to the Tube buffer: the voice is clear, the sound samples are now sounding with decent quality, and there is drive and no aggressiveness. But especially at 24-28 seconds or 3:16 to 3:20, when it does that repeat stuff it sounds very organic, modulated on the bass and it brings the beat to a subtle double speed with all the double repeated notes, on the headphones or not tube dac you cannot hear any of this subtleness. It sounds very pleasurable.
And that is plenty sufficient for me now, I doubt I will ever have money to purchase a home to place it and treat it with proper wood sculptures, maybe in a far far future, right now I am doing the best that I can to finish 2 loudspeakers projects.
I can still hear clearly the value of quality amplification and source, I can post ridiculous samples to explain myself better...
Like one is DAC of a computer or DAC with diy tube output (yeee diy audio!)
I was browsing to old music of disco childhood. And in Sweet dreams (labouche) the video clip on youtube 3:16, when it repeats that fourth interval a few times. This is what I hear on my headphones on the computer: everything is sterile, the high hat sounds is very fake, the singer voice is very distorted, each part plays with aggressiveness on its own but nothing hold together.
I replayed that with a better computer DAC into my stereo system (DIY) and everything still separated, it sounds more credible with better bass.
Then I switched the dac to the Tube buffer: the voice is clear, the sound samples are now sounding with decent quality, and there is drive and no aggressiveness. But especially at 24-28 seconds or 3:16 to 3:20, when it does that repeat stuff it sounds very organic, modulated on the bass and it brings the beat to a subtle double speed with all the double repeated notes, on the headphones or not tube dac you cannot hear any of this subtleness. It sounds very pleasurable.
You seem not to have a wide experience of hifi components? (Hah - "the Donald" will sort you out, once you guys become the 51st State! 😀 )
As loosely defined here:
I'll give you a lengthier definition:
* 'passive' spkrs need an amp channel to drive them.
* inside the box - if there is more than just one driver - there is a passive XO which splits the incoming music signal across the drivers.
* the key issue, to my way of thinking ... is that the amp channel is not directly connected to the drivers - the XO is in the way.
* whereas an 'active' spkr has one amp channel directly connected to its corresponding driver.
* hence, the frequency splitting happens before the power amp channels.
* these amp channels can be incorporated in the spkr enclosure ... or they can be external.
* in my case - they are external.
Here are my spkrs - which don't have an enclosure (with the Class A amp next to it):
Another very cliche sample is on the opening of Hotel california, the melody is very rhythmic and complex with incredible subtleties with 2 or more guitars at the very start, then the bass, and there is this drum effect with cymbal.
On a normal system or through my headphones, it all sounds flat and not interesting the digital system completely misses the boat in revealing the intricate rhythm and tapestry of sound of the opening duet, the cymbal sounds very ill-defined and like noise.
But on my diy system it is incredible how good the guitarists are and the drum has much clarity and definition with its effects to complement during the song.
On a normal system or through my headphones, it all sounds flat and not interesting the digital system completely misses the boat in revealing the intricate rhythm and tapestry of sound of the opening duet, the cymbal sounds very ill-defined and like noise.
But on my diy system it is incredible how good the guitarists are and the drum has much clarity and definition with its effects to complement during the song.
andy then your speakers are passive, you are the first person to tell me that amps outside speakers are active speakers.
So strange that we live on the same earth and I don't know what an active loudspeaker is.... I never seen OB with the entire room considered the 'box' then it makes sense your amplifier is inside the 'box', just a little inconvenient to move your active speakers with the XO, the amps, and the speakers.
So strange that we live on the same earth and I don't know what an active loudspeaker is.... I never seen OB with the entire room considered the 'box' then it makes sense your amplifier is inside the 'box', just a little inconvenient to move your active speakers with the XO, the amps, and the speakers.
This too, you can hear everything and the huge size of the opera very easily on a good system, The instruments have a their full tone, at some moments you can hear the sound engineer boost the treble, but it remains acceptable