JC actually uses IC's in some of his designs. In almost unbelievable fact I have one of his designs that is almost entirely ICs! The only discrete parts are in the power supply!
As the design is fairly recent I will not post it. Sorry. However as I am building something not quite the same, I will post that.
Now Scott has never said he doesn't believe in Bybees Quantum Purifiers. He just seems to be of the strong opinion that they don't work. 🙂
As the design is fairly recent I will not post it. Sorry. However as I am building something not quite the same, I will post that.
Now Scott has never said he doesn't believe in Bybees Quantum Purifiers. He just seems to be of the strong opinion that they don't work. 🙂
His IC designs that I've read about get rave reviews too. I don't think there is anything wrong with high quality ICs in a well designed circuit. I just think a little pleasant distortion can help a system sound more "musical."
Sorry, I don't see the difference???? 🙂 or maybe that's your point?
Woooa...!🙂
You are actually trying to convince PC Frank about his speakers , much easier to convert JC to chips and Scott to Bybee's ....
Yeah ...
+100 😀
Of course, I use IC's. I have been evaluating linear IC's since 1966. They have been disappointing for the most part. Today's IC's are faster, quieter and generally better sounding, but I can and still do build discrete designs that sound better than any IC design that I can put together.
Youtube capture as a comparison - the best joke you have ever said here, Frank. Organ captured from pc speakers, please do that.
Pavel, the process is, extract the audio from the YouTube clip at the highest resolution possible, convert that to a WAV file, and then playback using the optimum software, etc. This works well, the intrinsic audio quality of the clips can be excellent - undetectable compared to the 'proper' source.
I have already run the WAV file through in a totally non-optimised system state, and it presents very well - a good sign ...
Edit: the YouTube clip run native adds a type of "nervous" noisiness to the sound, an artifact most likely from the simultaneous processing of video and sound.
I have already run the WAV file through in a totally non-optimised system state, and it presents very well - a good sign ...
Edit: the YouTube clip run native adds a type of "nervous" noisiness to the sound, an artifact most likely from the simultaneous processing of video and sound.
Last edited:
Frank,
I know you have differential software so high resolution wave file vs sound from your pc speakers and then compare them. No taking the sound from the speaker and then running that through your speaker. Use your best CD and then compare that to your sound output from your speaker. No cheating allowed.
I know you have differential software so high resolution wave file vs sound from your pc speakers and then compare them. No taking the sound from the speaker and then running that through your speaker. Use your best CD and then compare that to your sound output from your speaker. No cheating allowed.
And you've got me confused, Kindhornman - to put it bluntly, I don't get what you're saying at all ...
To give an idea of what I'm hearing, it's quite easy to go up to the speakers and hear the subtle noises of the mechanicals operating, and the very slight hesitation at the start of the note, as the air fills a particular pipe and then the note triggers into life.
The waveform of the audio is about as far from the congested mess you often get to see these days as possible - looking at it, if someone said it was a piccolo solo you probably would accept that ...
The WAV file can be extracted, ripped direct from the clip, or CD, zero distortion takes place - the microphone goes into a completely separate recording device, and that capture also becomes a WAV file. Make sense?
Of course Frank, that's it - original wav data vs. sound recorded from your PC speakers via microphone, stored as wav. You may use the sample.wav I posted yesterday, or anything else at reasonable sound quality.
Last edited:
Another one for Frank (and Pavel). This one is excellent for the musical aspect, the fact that its a brilliant recording is just a bonus. If your rails are going to sag, then this is where it will show 😉
Going down 😀 This one goes to the basement.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/op0bl8pruug8jdy/Low Bass MP3.mp3
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p26h8h0dgze2fv0/Low Bass WAV.wav
Going down 😀 This one goes to the basement.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/op0bl8pruug8jdy/Low Bass MP3.mp3
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p26h8h0dgze2fv0/Low Bass WAV.wav
Attachments
Someone mentioned paper cones. I'd just like to remind you that paper cones were used with considerable success by AR and many others, and in fact, some argue that's the best material for bass drivers.
The fact that Frank's speakers use paper is not a problem, as I see it, what probably is a problem is that those paper cones are paper thick ("thick" is being generous). I dug up two woofers from my Korean made car some years ago and was astounded at their "thickness". But it sure explained why they sounded paper light.
Out they went and in came some JBL gear, and lo and behold, the sound improved no end.
On Belgian Frank's 2 1,500 VA transformers in two monoblocks. I am not really impressed because, as you said yourself, you use what is probably one of the most inefficient topologie around, meaning that you need them big and hefty for it to work properly. But respect to you for taking the time and trouble to use some high quality items, not just any old big transforemrs. That was, in my view, an excellent decision, if transformers are what our hearts are to us, it seems reasonable to me that you would not ask a man with heart problems to run a marathon.
On Australian Frank's PC speakers. I note that now they have problems not just up to 100 Hz, but up to 200 Hz. Over the next 10-15 pages of posts, I expect to learn that they are not so hot up to 500 Hz, and that there are some problems above 10 kHz as well. That reminds me of how my wife reports of expenditures after a trip. First report, oh, just a blouse. Second report, well, there was that pair of shoes as well, and the next day, yes, there were those T shirts too. She returned from Barcelona on Tuesday, and just yesterday, I was informed that she bought two pairs of shoes and two shirts for my son who was with her, as well. I expect to discover the actual damage done by Sunday.😀
You can't fool me, Aussie, I'm a made man who's seen the whole shebang many times. 😛
The fact that Frank's speakers use paper is not a problem, as I see it, what probably is a problem is that those paper cones are paper thick ("thick" is being generous). I dug up two woofers from my Korean made car some years ago and was astounded at their "thickness". But it sure explained why they sounded paper light.
Out they went and in came some JBL gear, and lo and behold, the sound improved no end.
On Belgian Frank's 2 1,500 VA transformers in two monoblocks. I am not really impressed because, as you said yourself, you use what is probably one of the most inefficient topologie around, meaning that you need them big and hefty for it to work properly. But respect to you for taking the time and trouble to use some high quality items, not just any old big transforemrs. That was, in my view, an excellent decision, if transformers are what our hearts are to us, it seems reasonable to me that you would not ask a man with heart problems to run a marathon.
On Australian Frank's PC speakers. I note that now they have problems not just up to 100 Hz, but up to 200 Hz. Over the next 10-15 pages of posts, I expect to learn that they are not so hot up to 500 Hz, and that there are some problems above 10 kHz as well. That reminds me of how my wife reports of expenditures after a trip. First report, oh, just a blouse. Second report, well, there was that pair of shoes as well, and the next day, yes, there were those T shirts too. She returned from Barcelona on Tuesday, and just yesterday, I was informed that she bought two pairs of shoes and two shirts for my son who was with her, as well. I expect to discover the actual damage done by Sunday.😀
You can't fool me, Aussie, I'm a made man who's seen the whole shebang many times. 😛
Excellent, Karl - that one was fine, I was able to run it at full volume without any audible glitching from power supply issues. No below 100Hz probably helped but I didn't feel any loss of bass 'foundation' in the sound.
Since that is now easily available to all in good quality format, I might start off with some takes of that. Note, my recording device is quite primitive - check my blog - but provided I take some care I should be able to do a reasonable capture - my biggest problem is that the AGC can't be turned off, and it overloads beyond certain SPLs. So, I need to point the mic in the 'wrong' direction, or do it from another room - I'll see how I go ...
Since that is now easily available to all in good quality format, I might start off with some takes of that. Note, my recording device is quite primitive - check my blog - but provided I take some care I should be able to do a reasonable capture - my biggest problem is that the AGC can't be turned off, and it overloads beyond certain SPLs. So, I need to point the mic in the 'wrong' direction, or do it from another room - I'll see how I go ...
No wonder in case you have no comparison 😀
In this sample, melody is at midrange, so you probably do not realize bass deficiency.
Where has all the high end gone,
long time passing,
where has all the high end gone,
long time ago.
long time passing,
where has all the high end gone,
long time ago.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.