Allen Wright said:
Last time I was there they were sort of experimenting with a high-voltage direct drive amp build in the pane socket. Not very convincing; but I wonder, did they have that at the Swiss show?
Are they going to chuck the Einsteins for your amps??
Jan Didden
Jan,
>>Last time I was there they were sort of experimenting with a high-voltage direct drive amp build in the pane socket. Not very convincing; but I wonder, did they have that at the Swiss show?<<
No, just some photos. It was a SS amp though, I'd rather do such voltages with tubes.
>Are they going to chuck the Einsteins for your amps??<
No mention of that in our brief talk, but on their site the Einstein slot is blank...?
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
>>Last time I was there they were sort of experimenting with a high-voltage direct drive amp build in the pane socket. Not very convincing; but I wonder, did they have that at the Swiss show?<<
No, just some photos. It was a SS amp though, I'd rather do such voltages with tubes.
>Are they going to chuck the Einsteins for your amps??<
No mention of that in our brief talk, but on their site the Einstein slot is blank...?
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Allen Wright said:
Their last in-house show was with Einstein hardware, that's why I asked.
Jan Didden
Allen Wright said:
There is a core philosophical challenge in this. We all claim to pursue giving the "best" listening experience when listening to reproduced sound. However since its a fundamentally technical enterprise we all tend to claim connection to a set of technical rules to judge our efforts. The subjective experience is difficult to measure in any consistent way and the gauging is either very individual (audiophile reviews and gossip) or statistical (a/b/x, listening panels etc.) its not easy to use. Curiously the subjective gave us single ended tubes and statistical gave us MP3.
Measurements tend to converge toward what can be measured, not necessarily toward that elusive "best" experience. Its possible to assemble an audio system with technical aberrations below academically accepted thresholds of perception and not have a good experience. And its also possible to have a clearly flawed system that gives exceptional subjective response from some listeners. For whatever reason I find most tube based solutions less than satisfying. I find solid state solutions work better for me. I still find aspects less than fully satisfactory and still fiddle. The same holds for every other element.
Since I don't have a subject-o-meter with a single figure of merit I can use to gauge the work I fall back to what I have and what seems to have helped in the past. And I look for new things to explore but they are getting harder to find.
The final result is very much a personal thing given all of the trade offs. John Curl is doing his best to show where his values are on this curve. They are a little different from mine as they are for all of the others reading this.
Remember, its possible that the reality of the original sound was not that satisfactory anyway. If it ever existed.
Yes, Demian, I tend to find some exotic tube designs very, very, good, but I still only work with solid state.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: VAS fighting
I figured you would bring that up. 🙂 . The resistors applied differentially to sop up offsets worked quite well. 10% Idss mis-match and 4:1 Is mis-matches are tolerated as well as +-5% on capacitors. 10% Idss mis-match and offset trim applied at the current mirrors only reduces AOL to 1e6. This is with 2k differentially across the input stage and 250 Ohms on the VAS (that's not a mis-print). The forward signal path really is all common mode. Still have no time to build one, was thinking of a headphone amp or line stage to make actual measurements on. Ran it at CLG of 100, 20V p-p into 100 Ohms and got 30ppm or so worst case.
G.Kleinschmidt said:
I figured you would bring that up. 🙂 . The resistors applied differentially to sop up offsets worked quite well. 10% Idss mis-match and 4:1 Is mis-matches are tolerated as well as +-5% on capacitors. 10% Idss mis-match and offset trim applied at the current mirrors only reduces AOL to 1e6. This is with 2k differentially across the input stage and 250 Ohms on the VAS (that's not a mis-print). The forward signal path really is all common mode. Still have no time to build one, was thinking of a headphone amp or line stage to make actual measurements on. Ran it at CLG of 100, 20V p-p into 100 Ohms and got 30ppm or so worst case.
Nice observation. MP3 is like the audio equivalent of fast food, cheap and satiating in the short term; unhealthy in the long term.1audio said:
Yes, although I would qualify that with what can be conveniently measured. This tends to be dictated by the cost of the equipment and what industry it was designed for - almost never audio.
I don't believe so. I think this is a bit of an excuse...like if a person is at their wits end to identify a root cause within the bounds of accepted thresholds they might choose to believe there is some "a-sonic" effect at work that is somehow audible. I see this all the time.
Yes.
Sure.
No one said it would be easy. To make a leap may require a different approach.
Sure.
Not in my book. Not usually. Never doubt two things: the satisfaction of music and your own ability to connect with music. The challenge is to stop the replay chain wrecking the experience. Although I believe the best vinyl is better than the best CD, I have CDs which are really extremely well recorded and communicate well. Sometimes very modern recordings, like J. Cash, and sometimes transcriptions from really old stuff, like Cole Porter.
Brian
1audio said:
Yes, especially due to flawed recording / mixing / compressing.
However, I don't think you meant live concert of acoustic instruments …
Joshua_G said:
I design for live concerts of acoustic instruments. SY once heard one and measured the amp's prototype. Such direct comparisons are much more fair than any triple-blind tests, so I don't care what some mature audiophile reviewer may say or write about my systems.
Wavebourn said:
This reminds me of some of the stuff I used in the 60'
http://wavebourn.com/Audio.html
Joshua_G said:
Actually I really meant that the original music as played in its original space was not all that wonderful. Often our memory of the experience doesn't really match the actual experience and many well revered recordings were not such a great experience in the "making". A good recording engineer can pull a recording with a more satisfactory sound than that heard at the session.
stinius said:
Some parts and materials that are cheap today were even not available in 1960'th.
PMA said:
But all of them create imaginations when properly recorded and reproduced. I have a record of Amati violin in Swiss church, accompanied by an organ there, and it sounds very real, including cool air breeze in the church.
john curl said:
There are pretty good recordings out there, however, we cannot faithfully reconstruct a church organ in our living room …
- Status
- Not open for further replies.