Nuuk, I have just spotted this the other day:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/shoestrings_e.html
It's very nice to see a friend writing for such a honest site as tnt-audio.
I drink to this.
PS: send regards to Lucio!
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/shoestrings_e.html
It's very nice to see a friend writing for such a honest site as tnt-audio.
I drink to this.
PS: send regards to Lucio!
Member
Joined 2002
carlosfm said:Nuuk, I have just spotted this the other day:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/shoestrings_e.html
It's very nice to see a friend writing for such a honest site as tnt-audio.
I drink to this.
PS: send regards to Lucio!
OHHHH😀
Attachments
Thank you Carlos - anything to give you an excuse for a drink! 😀
Mick - I have heard the whole lot at an audio show and had demos of their technology. 😉
Mick - I have heard the whole lot at an audio show and had demos of their technology. 😉
That vertexaq stuff sounds pretty much the same as part of the the MIT cable philosophy...
remove all high freq noise and resonances (amongst others), no matter how it got in the cable in the first place, be it mechanical (shaking caps), rfi or whatever.
I'm working on an mit-like terminated speaker cable as we speak (yeah really, i am 😉 ). It works pretty well.
and this is not an invitation to bash MIT cables, they do have a few pretty good thingies.
Somehow i never really liked cat5 cables in interconnects. I've tried, extensively, including things like the shoelace (or cat5 wound around an insulator in general). They seem to hammer out all the details.
But maybe that's just my ears 😉
I ended up buying a couple of sets of oehlback interconnects cheaply in the raf/staffhorst sale. 12E/pair and they sound good enough to me.
remove all high freq noise and resonances (amongst others), no matter how it got in the cable in the first place, be it mechanical (shaking caps), rfi or whatever.
I'm working on an mit-like terminated speaker cable as we speak (yeah really, i am 😉 ). It works pretty well.
and this is not an invitation to bash MIT cables, they do have a few pretty good thingies.
Somehow i never really liked cat5 cables in interconnects. I've tried, extensively, including things like the shoelace (or cat5 wound around an insulator in general). They seem to hammer out all the details.
But maybe that's just my ears 😉
I ended up buying a couple of sets of oehlback interconnects cheaply in the raf/staffhorst sale. 12E/pair and they sound good enough to me.
Jitter problem of oversample converters
Oversampled data converters are more sensitive to jitter of clock signal than non-oversampled (NOS) DAC chips. Noise caused by jitter is now said to be the main reason of so-called "digital taste". On some forum (e.g. www.hifidiy.net), many people have modified crystal oscillator of DAC, or use NOS DAC chips such as TDA1541.
1-bit delta sigma DAC is the final form of oversampled converter; and it's precisely a digital controlled class-D running at low power level.
If such a low power device still have the problem, it may be worse in high power systems.
Oversampled data converters are more sensitive to jitter of clock signal than non-oversampled (NOS) DAC chips. Noise caused by jitter is now said to be the main reason of so-called "digital taste". On some forum (e.g. www.hifidiy.net), many people have modified crystal oscillator of DAC, or use NOS DAC chips such as TDA1541.
1-bit delta sigma DAC is the final form of oversampled converter; and it's precisely a digital controlled class-D running at low power level.
If such a low power device still have the problem, it may be worse in high power systems.
I bet a D-S switching amplifier would not be more prone to jitter than a PWM one. Furthermore the introduction of jitter with defined properties could be used as dither.
Keep in mind that we have a closed NFB loop around and amp contrary to DACs and the like.
Regards
Charles
Keep in mind that we have a closed NFB loop around and amp contrary to DACs and the like.
Regards
Charles
classd4sure said:
Looks like the wife kept the couch
I couldn't get your link to work.
And that's the sad bit of it all. People just don't trust their own ears anymore. Tell ya what. I'm doing an exhibition in April next year. The High End HiFi show at the Park Inn Hotel, Heathrow, London. I will be showing our NXT Hybrid HiFi loudspeakers DRIVEN by my valve pre and CLASS D Power stages. Class D is HiFi. It's moving on at an alarming rate and still few manufacturers take it seriously due to CLASS T. It knocks spots off CLASS T, but I don't need to convince you lot of that. You already know it.
Ricky.
Hi,
I think as this thread has shown it's not so much Tripath's class D limitations that scares them away. They think it's a class of it's own anyway so it's not hurting the ol "D". There's alot of activity around here about Tripath and people seem to enjoy them alright.
I wonder how many of them are actually listening to Tripath in their big screen TV's and what not already and dont' even know it?
I think it's more the older myths about it only being good for subwoofer use, which used to be true. As we've seen here most people have only gotten to experience class D in car amplifiers where that pretty much still is the case too.
It doesn't matter what you tell em or what they hear (I think you're right there) most will wait until some reviewer who can't take measurements and doens't even understand it say's it's the new dawn of audio.... at which point they'll run out and grab the first piece of class D junk they can afford and swear by it no matter how bad it sounds.
Aren't people funny? Pretty much like sheep to the ebb and flow of marketing, wherever it goes they shall follow.
Some I've seen have said such things class D comming and going like some new wave fad, and they've seen it happen several times before, so they dont' feel it's there yet because they figure it's simply "in season" yet again.
I'd argue they've never seen it truly arrive, but sure throughout the years the class d winds have stirred from time to time, mostly because of snake oil marketing hype and claims of true digital amplifiers that of course weren't. It seems to me like rather than learning to distrust BS marketing schemes and looking into things themselves they instead learnt to distrust the technology entirely, what a shame for them, because that continues to improve while the marketing.... well...
Alot of people of course are much more open minded than that, we see many of them here displaying interest or at least curiosity which I think is great, they can see there's a party down the street and they're starting to say "hey that looks like fun".
So, Ricky, what are you trying to do with a tube front end? That nearly seems like putting a wolf costume on and running around beating drums. You're going to confuse the hell out of the tube herd🙂
Best Regards,
Chris
I think as this thread has shown it's not so much Tripath's class D limitations that scares them away. They think it's a class of it's own anyway so it's not hurting the ol "D". There's alot of activity around here about Tripath and people seem to enjoy them alright.
I wonder how many of them are actually listening to Tripath in their big screen TV's and what not already and dont' even know it?
I think it's more the older myths about it only being good for subwoofer use, which used to be true. As we've seen here most people have only gotten to experience class D in car amplifiers where that pretty much still is the case too.
It doesn't matter what you tell em or what they hear (I think you're right there) most will wait until some reviewer who can't take measurements and doens't even understand it say's it's the new dawn of audio.... at which point they'll run out and grab the first piece of class D junk they can afford and swear by it no matter how bad it sounds.
Aren't people funny? Pretty much like sheep to the ebb and flow of marketing, wherever it goes they shall follow.
Some I've seen have said such things class D comming and going like some new wave fad, and they've seen it happen several times before, so they dont' feel it's there yet because they figure it's simply "in season" yet again.
I'd argue they've never seen it truly arrive, but sure throughout the years the class d winds have stirred from time to time, mostly because of snake oil marketing hype and claims of true digital amplifiers that of course weren't. It seems to me like rather than learning to distrust BS marketing schemes and looking into things themselves they instead learnt to distrust the technology entirely, what a shame for them, because that continues to improve while the marketing.... well...
Alot of people of course are much more open minded than that, we see many of them here displaying interest or at least curiosity which I think is great, they can see there's a party down the street and they're starting to say "hey that looks like fun".
So, Ricky, what are you trying to do with a tube front end? That nearly seems like putting a wolf costume on and running around beating drums. You're going to confuse the hell out of the tube herd🙂
Best Regards,
Chris
classd4sure said:
Seems like this is related to me.
Well, let me clarify, or at least go back and read my posts again.
1. I have HEARD class D amps. Go back and check my impressons of a Panasonic amp, heard around a year ago. The amp was NEW. Good, but not enough.
I have also heard a Tact amp, some years ago. The Panasonic IS (sounds) better.
2. I said I will try it some day, but now I'm very busy with other projects, and very happy with my current amp. IS THAT BAD? Unaceptable? 😕
3. I didn't say A or AB is better than D.
I have my doubts, that's it.
In fact, I said that you all are generalizing in saying class D amps are better. BETTER THAN WHAT?
What brand? Model?
ANY class A or AB amp?
Seems like you are very biased, but classd4sure already tells it all.
classd4sure said:
I have had some ugly discussions because I'm too open minded, you know?...
Hi Carlos,
I was in the midst of replying to that previous one of yours "classic stuff" just now, in order to make sure you didn't get the wrong impression and think I was aiming that at you.
It's not aimed at anyone here, in fact least of all you, who obviously does have a very open mind.
I note you haven't judged the technology as a whole based on what your TV sounds like ETC.
I actually got to listen to a Philips big screen the other day.
It's an older one I think, the video had heavy motion blurring and alot of blockyness, I dont' know how much of that is from the digital cable or the TV itself.
I'm just assuming there's some sort of class D chip in there too. I noticed it had super cheap looking 2 way paper cone speakers just like they used in cars before they started upgrading stereo's in them as a stock feature. I was taken aback when I saw that, 10$ speakers, 5 000$ big screen, commercial junk strikes again!
Anyway I'd much prefer a first person discourse when I've a point to make about any individual in particular.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression somehow?
Best Regards,
Chris
I was in the midst of replying to that previous one of yours "classic stuff" just now, in order to make sure you didn't get the wrong impression and think I was aiming that at you.
It's not aimed at anyone here, in fact least of all you, who obviously does have a very open mind.
I note you haven't judged the technology as a whole based on what your TV sounds like ETC.
I actually got to listen to a Philips big screen the other day.
It's an older one I think, the video had heavy motion blurring and alot of blockyness, I dont' know how much of that is from the digital cable or the TV itself.
I'm just assuming there's some sort of class D chip in there too. I noticed it had super cheap looking 2 way paper cone speakers just like they used in cars before they started upgrading stereo's in them as a stock feature. I was taken aback when I saw that, 10$ speakers, 5 000$ big screen, commercial junk strikes again!
Anyway I'd much prefer a first person discourse when I've a point to make about any individual in particular.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression somehow?
Best Regards,
Chris
Better than what you ask?
You're right I'm biased when it comes to class D.
I don't just look at it from a sound quality perspective, I try to take in the whole picture. So then we have the efficiency, which leads to overall higher power output capability, and at a much lower cost, which tends to make them more affordable to more people.
The argument is that now the sound quality has arrived, making it very worthwhile. I haven't heard enough different kinds of amps to be able to say it's better than unit A or unit B etc.
That work for you? Also I find it healthy to doubt, and respect that quality, you've asked questions instead of ranting old myths that no longer apply, I respect that alot.
Regards,
Chris
You're right I'm biased when it comes to class D.
I don't just look at it from a sound quality perspective, I try to take in the whole picture. So then we have the efficiency, which leads to overall higher power output capability, and at a much lower cost, which tends to make them more affordable to more people.
The argument is that now the sound quality has arrived, making it very worthwhile. I haven't heard enough different kinds of amps to be able to say it's better than unit A or unit B etc.
That work for you? Also I find it healthy to doubt, and respect that quality, you've asked questions instead of ranting old myths that no longer apply, I respect that alot.
Regards,
Chris
classd4sure said:
Yeah, that's exactly my oppinion of most TVs today.
Even receiving an analog transmission, they treat it in the digital domain to generate the 100Hz picture.
The result is blurring, blocking, undefined picture.
This is very noticeable when looking close the the screen, either it is a CRT, an LCD or a plasma.
Well, my 72cm 4:3 Philips TV is around 15 years old, has a very accurate (natural) colour, contrast, very good definition...
I'll let it rotten until it falls apart in pieces, and then I'll buy a new one.
If things don't improve much from what we have now, it will be a downgrade.
carlosfm said:
Yeah, that's exactly my oppinion of most TVs today.
Even receiving an analog transmission, they treat it in the digital domain to generate the 100Hz picture.
The result is blurring, blocking, undefined picture.
This is very noticeable when looking close the the screen, either it is a CRT, an LCD or a plasma.
Well, my 72cm 4:3 Philips TV is around 15 years old, has a very accurate (natural) colour, contrast, very good definition...
I'll let it rotten until it falls apart in pieces, and then I'll buy a new one.
If things don't improve much from what we have now, it will be a downgrade.
If you have real HDTV braodcast and playback equipment, you will probably see something different. Most digital contents in this nect of the world are generated with analog equipment. But I have seem many programs via satellite TV from Japan, and it is phantastic.
Most shows desplay good TV using prerecorded programs on High definition Tape that really brings out the true potential of good equipment.
carlosfm said:
Seems like this is related to me.
Well, let me clarify, or at least go back and read my posts again.
1. I have HEARD class D amps. Go back and check my impressons of a Panasonic amp, heard around a year ago. The amp was NEW. Good, but not enough.
I have also heard a Tact amp, some years ago. The Panasonic IS (sounds) better.
2. I said I will try it some day, but now I'm very busy with other projects, and very happy with my current amp. IS THAT BAD? Unaceptable? 😕
3. I didn't say A or AB is better than D.
I have my doubts, that's it.
In fact, I said that you all are generalizing in saying class D amps are better. BETTER THAN WHAT?
What brand? Model?
ANY class A or AB amp?
Seems like you are very biased, but classd4sure already tells it all.
I have had some ugly discussions because I'm too open minded, you know?...
Carlos,
What kind of music to you listen to when you do comparisons or evaluate a design? I'm in the middle of building a Tripath amp.
Is the Panasonic IS amp a later model than the TACT amp you listened to many reas ago?
I think you are right there are good design and bad designg with any amp (as with anything).
soongsc said:
So many things... Ben Harper is a good example.
Then there's Jeff Buckley's 'Grace'.
Talking Heads, Counting Crows (first album)...
And others...
Also lots of Jazz.
Depends, if it sounds really good it gets addictive and I may be long hours listening to music.
Compulsively. 😎
PS: Try Talking Heads' 'Burning down the house' LOUD, but I must warn you: be prepared.
Hi,
Thought I'd help pollute my favorite thread with even more off topic stuff 🙂
Jewel: Little lady with ALOT of air, if you want air, she'll blow you away. Many acoustic songs too.
Avril Lavign: Less air, much more dynamic. Just awesome for testing with.
Metallica: The best of theirs to test with is the entire second album of "Garage Inc." which are all cover songs including "Tuesday's Gone" so if you can't stand them it's still OK.
Rage Against the Machine: All of it, very unique.
From Autumn to Ashes: The song itself is called "Autumn's Monologue" and I beg you all, please, pleeease try this one, I'd like you're impression of it from a "testing" point of view. It's also a great song though, female vocalist, piano, acoustic. I find their's something with the symbols being a little out of place, little being an understatement, it slaps you right in the face, and cheaper systems don't play it well at all. Is it an "attack" thing?
Steve Miller Band: One of the better recordings out there.
I rarely watch a movie twice if I can help it and I'm still only on one channel, but "War of the Worlds" is just..... I don't know, I bet it makes you smile two or three times. I don't mean the original of course, and do mean the movie, not the soundtrack.
While it's not at all to my liking, I must say the soundtrack to "The last samurai" is something else. I think it's by Hans Zimmer. Better make sure your speakers are up to that job though.
I can't stand these guys but must give credit to Limp Bizkit for their cover of "Behind Blue Eyes". Crank that one up!
A perfect circle!!!!!!!! The entire first album, all the acoustic versions done of the songs on it, as well as the techno remixes, great stuff.
Christina Aguilera and Madonna for some dance stuff (remixes, there's all kinds).
Fionna Apple, "Criminal". Yet again a little lady with alot of air. It has woodwinds and piano, good stuff for testing.
Godsmack, all of it! One album called "The other side" is all acoustic. The others are metal and have some rather impressive bass at times.
I haven't heard it in awhile but seem to recall 3 doors down having really good recordings, same with "Tantric".
If you've never seen it TNT audio has a really good article on this topic.
Disclaimer: The above listed material will only sound good on a class d amplifier, well not really but it keeps us on topic at least.
Cheers
Thought I'd help pollute my favorite thread with even more off topic stuff 🙂
Jewel: Little lady with ALOT of air, if you want air, she'll blow you away. Many acoustic songs too.
Avril Lavign: Less air, much more dynamic. Just awesome for testing with.
Metallica: The best of theirs to test with is the entire second album of "Garage Inc." which are all cover songs including "Tuesday's Gone" so if you can't stand them it's still OK.
Rage Against the Machine: All of it, very unique.
From Autumn to Ashes: The song itself is called "Autumn's Monologue" and I beg you all, please, pleeease try this one, I'd like you're impression of it from a "testing" point of view. It's also a great song though, female vocalist, piano, acoustic. I find their's something with the symbols being a little out of place, little being an understatement, it slaps you right in the face, and cheaper systems don't play it well at all. Is it an "attack" thing?
Steve Miller Band: One of the better recordings out there.
I rarely watch a movie twice if I can help it and I'm still only on one channel, but "War of the Worlds" is just..... I don't know, I bet it makes you smile two or three times. I don't mean the original of course, and do mean the movie, not the soundtrack.
While it's not at all to my liking, I must say the soundtrack to "The last samurai" is something else. I think it's by Hans Zimmer. Better make sure your speakers are up to that job though.
I can't stand these guys but must give credit to Limp Bizkit for their cover of "Behind Blue Eyes". Crank that one up!
A perfect circle!!!!!!!! The entire first album, all the acoustic versions done of the songs on it, as well as the techno remixes, great stuff.
Christina Aguilera and Madonna for some dance stuff (remixes, there's all kinds).
Fionna Apple, "Criminal". Yet again a little lady with alot of air. It has woodwinds and piano, good stuff for testing.
Godsmack, all of it! One album called "The other side" is all acoustic. The others are metal and have some rather impressive bass at times.
I haven't heard it in awhile but seem to recall 3 doors down having really good recordings, same with "Tantric".
If you've never seen it TNT audio has a really good article on this topic.
Disclaimer: The above listed material will only sound good on a class d amplifier, well not really but it keeps us on topic at least.
Cheers
soongsc said:
They rent you the decoders when you subscribe to it here, you're stuck with what they give you.
I've seen the same digital cable in this area on other TVs, regular CRT ones, it's nothing to write home about. It can "kick out"/get all blocky and freeze up for a second, sometimes enough to be very annoying. Lightning disturbes it the same way too.
It's still very watchable most times, and otherwise there's no motion blurr. Now put that same cable on the Philips big screen I saw the other day, which I think is only about five to eight years old, possibly a projection TV? Anyway, it really becomes unwatchable, I've seen 300MB cam rips that would beat it hands down. Aside from the blockyness and extreem motion blurr, there was some very strange things going on. At times it looked like their eyebrows were floating around on their forehead lol. BTW it was Lord of the Rings.
Someone else I know has a very new one big screen. I can't recall the make, it may be a plasma screen. Quality of the digital cable is atroscious on it too, but throw in a DVD and it's a new world!
I kind of think a projector is the way to go. I was very impressed with one from Sony. Plug it into your computer and you can play anything you like with minimal hassle, and you dont' even need much of a video card either, a 60$ card is more than enough for movies.
My dream system would be 8 UCD monoblock amps driven by my sound card (E-MU 1820M) + projector and have it all as automated as it can possibly be. Could even build a good part of that into my coffee table, since the top is already hinged 🙂
Maybe I'm giving too much away..
classd4sure said:
I think DVD resolution is about 1/4 pixel count of HDTV.
Lots of things are involved with good video playback, as with audio, may things still cannot be determined by spec values quite yet.
Window XP media Edition? That's what it sounds like it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.