Concerning the quiet supply I posted here previously, which was heavily criticized, here are the DAC's manufacturer Application Notes, recommending similar circuit (Figure 4):
http://www.esstech.com/techsupp/Application_Note_Component_Selection_and_PCB_Layout.pdf
The circuit is repeated below.
http://www.esstech.com/techsupp/Application_Note_Component_Selection_and_PCB_Layout.pdf
The circuit is repeated below.
Attachments
Sure I agree but can you tell me what? First we must define good SQ. Alot of golden ears like distortion ie. $350k tube amps with 1% THD at 1 watt! If one of these was tweaking an amp by trial and error (cant use science at this point ) would the amp end up with extra even harmonic distortion? Fine if he's the only one listening to it, but is this better SQ? Not IMO. Is SQ subjective or objective? I think this is the crux of this discussion.
that's why I refused to give armchair recommendations.
Choosing opamp and capacitance depends on each other and of course load, circuit implementation etc.
regards
Choosing opamp and capacitance depends on each other and of course load, circuit implementation etc.
regards
cbdb said:
There are much more to SQ than frequency range and with age (should😀) come wisdom to make up for the lost few kHz at the top.
I am going to make a statement. The preamp that I, or at least Parasound, is getting an award for this week at CES, is the Parasound JC-2. I have never listened to that preamp in my own listening space in my life. How about that? I designed the circuitry years ago, and we mostly added quality wire, layout, and connectors to the mix. It started out as a $2500 design, but got more expensive as the parts and construction cost went up significantly. For example, 2SK389 went from $.79 to at least 10 times that much. I know this for sure.
I have faith in my design ideas, however, and I did MEASURE the JC-2 in my own lab for any distortion abberations, myself. I hardly NEVER listen to my designs anymore as I am developing them.
However, I have a lot of experience as to what works AND I don't compromise easily. (anymore)
Now, the JC-2 is NOT a BLOWTORCH. The Blowtorch is better, (slightly) but the Blowtorch is worse measuring, 4 times more expensive, very basic controls, no remote control, etc. However, it is the better product.
You might think of it like the difference between a Volkswagen and a Porsche.
You can study the schematic on this thread, and you can get impartial measurements from the 'Stereophile' website.
If you want my real opinion of the success of the JC-2, unfortunately, you have to go to 'The Absolute Sound' interview with me about the JC-2 and why it 'works' so well. You might be surprised. We haven't advertised, to the best of my knowledge, in either magazine, for many years.
I have faith in my design ideas, however, and I did MEASURE the JC-2 in my own lab for any distortion abberations, myself. I hardly NEVER listen to my designs anymore as I am developing them.
However, I have a lot of experience as to what works AND I don't compromise easily. (anymore)
Now, the JC-2 is NOT a BLOWTORCH. The Blowtorch is better, (slightly) but the Blowtorch is worse measuring, 4 times more expensive, very basic controls, no remote control, etc. However, it is the better product.
You might think of it like the difference between a Volkswagen and a Porsche.
You can study the schematic on this thread, and you can get impartial measurements from the 'Stereophile' website.
If you want my real opinion of the success of the JC-2, unfortunately, you have to go to 'The Absolute Sound' interview with me about the JC-2 and why it 'works' so well. You might be surprised. We haven't advertised, to the best of my knowledge, in either magazine, for many years.
john curl said:
John
Congratulations with the award, I’m sure it’s well deserved, and I think almost everybody in here think the same.
You should be really proud; I wish you a nice trip to the CES.
What would you say is the main difference between the two JC-2 and BT?
Stinius
Andre Visser said:
Despite saying I'd not bother with this thread I can't resist this one.
1. despite not being able to hear a sound at all (your admission) your wisdom can make you a better judge
2. There are plenty more measures that you could make if you thought / knew about them than just frequency range, but that is generally accepted as falling in range with age. You seem to have accepted this.
Is this how far the subjectivists have fallen in their lack of logic?
Some one needs a reality check
cbdb said:
My idea is to get the system to reproduce sound as realistic as possible to the real instrument, consentrating on every detail. Surely we don't know what the exact sound was like when recorded but we know how a piano, guitar etc. should sound like.
I believe you get two types (at least🙄) of audiophiles, some prefer to listen to the reproduced music, trying to get it as accurate as possible, some prefer to listen to their hi-fi, I will rather not expand on that.
Seeing that hi-fi is all about listening and enjoyment of the music, do you think it is realistic or even possible to rely on measurements alone? You can build a system with the best specs in the world but if your feet doesn't tap with the music, what have you achieved?
As long as measurement does not capture brains activity, brains evaluation and psychoacoustics (not pejorative), it is unsufficient. We need measurements when developing a product; then we need a lot of listening tests and comparisons. We need both.
john curl said:
John
I have not seen the schematics on the BT, but only the schematics of the JC-2 in this thread, and it didn’t show any values so it’s hard to say anything about the feedback.
Stinius
If you followed the thread from the beginning, you would know more. It is rather hard work than hobby, frankly speaking. I have learnt a lot here.
This is silly, many experienced older people can still hear subtle listening differences. Apparently it isn't as much a part of extended listening response as many presume. It is also true that when we were younger we were often able to hear better. I used to hear to 24KHz myself, when I was about 20. Forty years ago, at AMPEX, I was asked to find a particular problem in another office, the mechanical engineering group. I heard this ultrasonic oscillation that seemed to be bouncing off the walls. I narrowed it down to a squeaky bearing in a tape recorder undergoing a life test. Most heard nothing at all, some heard something, but indistinctly.
Now, I can't pretend to do that today, but I had a serious audio test on my hearing done recently, and the doctor said that I was just fine for my age. To my surprise, the former mixing engineer for the Grateful Dead and one of the crew and I recently talked together at the AES. IF the presumptions that are made here were accurate, then if ANYBODY should need a hearing aid, it was these two! YET we conversed in a normal tone without electronic aids in a relatively noisy environment. Go figure.
Now, I can't pretend to do that today, but I had a serious audio test on my hearing done recently, and the doctor said that I was just fine for my age. To my surprise, the former mixing engineer for the Grateful Dead and one of the crew and I recently talked together at the AES. IF the presumptions that are made here were accurate, then if ANYBODY should need a hearing aid, it was these two! YET we conversed in a normal tone without electronic aids in a relatively noisy environment. Go figure.
Andre, my 2cents worth:
I went to a concert in the Hofburg theater in Vienna during Xmas. Performance was a collection of Johan Straus and W A Mozart music, as the orchester (the Hofburg Orchester) would normally perform on 1 Jan every year which is being broadcasted pretty well worldwide (the well-known 'New Years Concert' from Vienna).
I also have recordings of these performances. I must tell you that if I wanted to try to reproduce the music in my home as it was in the venue, it wouldn't be easy. I would have to cut down on clarity of sound, decrease the stage width and increase the noise level. In other words: the life performance, from the sound perspective, wasn't that great. As it almost never is in live venues.
OTOH, I really enjoyed the evening out with wife & kids, the banter before and after, the great ambience and the elegant dresses of the soloists.
Summary: A great evening to enjoy, but soundwise, the CD is better.
Jan Didden
I went to a concert in the Hofburg theater in Vienna during Xmas. Performance was a collection of Johan Straus and W A Mozart music, as the orchester (the Hofburg Orchester) would normally perform on 1 Jan every year which is being broadcasted pretty well worldwide (the well-known 'New Years Concert' from Vienna).
I also have recordings of these performances. I must tell you that if I wanted to try to reproduce the music in my home as it was in the venue, it wouldn't be easy. I would have to cut down on clarity of sound, decrease the stage width and increase the noise level. In other words: the life performance, from the sound perspective, wasn't that great. As it almost never is in live venues.
OTOH, I really enjoyed the evening out with wife & kids, the banter before and after, the great ambience and the elegant dresses of the soloists.
Summary: A great evening to enjoy, but soundwise, the CD is better.
Jan Didden
Attachments
alansawyer said:1. despite not being able to hear a sound at all (your admission) your wisdom can make you a better judge
Are you suggesting that SQ only exist above 15Khz? Your comment shows your ignorance of what was said.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.