Konnichiwa,
True. I will use only one part and not two if I can do so without giving up something I want in my designs performance. If I need two, I'll use two.
The "Valve El Cheapo" as well as the Analogue Addicts Phonostage (solid state with Op-Amp's) are excellent examples of my approach.
Sayonara
Giaime said:
True. I will use only one part and not two if I can do so without giving up something I want in my designs performance. If I need two, I'll use two.
The "Valve El Cheapo" as well as the Analogue Addicts Phonostage (solid state with Op-Amp's) are excellent examples of my approach.
Sayonara
Hi Thoersten,
EC8010 and SY have experimented with that with success. I'm sure others have as well.
-Chris
All you need to do is swamp out the variations in LED current from another source. So you can run your LED at, say 10 mA, while your tube may only conduct 3 mA of that.
EC8010 and SY have experimented with that with success. I'm sure others have as well.
-Chris
Konnichiwa,
Which needs to be low noise and by the time we are done we have a huge load of complexity which in the end is still worse in subjective sonic terms than a simple RC combo.
And if you do that why not use (semi)fixed bias instead, you can even use a LED to derive the voltage, for less complexity than adding extra current.
So, of course you COULD do all of that stuff, but see no reason for doing it exept to "proove" that it can be done actually, which is not something I am interrested in.
Sayonara
anatech said:
Which needs to be low noise and by the time we are done we have a huge load of complexity which in the end is still worse in subjective sonic terms than a simple RC combo.
And if you do that why not use (semi)fixed bias instead, you can even use a LED to derive the voltage, for less complexity than adding extra current.
So, of course you COULD do all of that stuff, but see no reason for doing it exept to "proove" that it can be done actually, which is not something I am interrested in.
Sayonara
Hi Thoersten,
Fair enough, but your source of current could be something as simple as a resistor from a regulated supply (assuming low noise) or an LED/Transistor/resistor setup. Not really very complicated if the results at the end are worth it.
I will accept your stance on the subject. I just wanted to point out a very easy solution to the problem you stated.
-Chris
Fair enough, but your source of current could be something as simple as a resistor from a regulated supply (assuming low noise) or an LED/Transistor/resistor setup. Not really very complicated if the results at the end are worth it.
I will accept your stance on the subject. I just wanted to point out a very easy solution to the problem you stated.
-Chris
Konnichiwa,
Actually, the LED remains nonlinear and adds a distinct sound, even at high current. By the time you have added what is needed to make it work well the size and cost of a resistor and a capacitor, even a good quality one seem a small price to pay.
And you may remember that at a comparison at the triode festival a simple unbypassed resistor beat out LED's, among others (my own experiments also bear this out). Why make a huge effort to implement something that is third or fourthrate at best?
Bias using a unbypassed resistor where the grid needs to be available without coupling capacitor or fixed bias, gridleak bias or a bypassed cathode resistor where you need the neccesary low anode impedance.
Sayonara
anatech said:
Actually, the LED remains nonlinear and adds a distinct sound, even at high current. By the time you have added what is needed to make it work well the size and cost of a resistor and a capacitor, even a good quality one seem a small price to pay.
And you may remember that at a comparison at the triode festival a simple unbypassed resistor beat out LED's, among others (my own experiments also bear this out). Why make a huge effort to implement something that is third or fourthrate at best?
Bias using a unbypassed resistor where the grid needs to be available without coupling capacitor or fixed bias, gridleak bias or a bypassed cathode resistor where you need the neccesary low anode impedance.
Sayonara
Hi Thoersten,
I'm sure you are similar in your approach. Right now it's an academic discussion at best for me. The bench reveals truth and misconception. 😉 But I will consider your views as well.
-Chris
I wasn't there, so I always put this type of info into the back of my head until I can verify it myself. Other factors often come into play as well.
I'm sure you are similar in your approach. Right now it's an academic discussion at best for me. The bench reveals truth and misconception. 😉 But I will consider your views as well.
-Chris
Konnichiwa,
The bench reveals what we can measure. What we can and usually do measure show very little correlation with what we hear. To me the bench is not the final arbiter of quality, my music replay system is....
Sayonara
anatech said:
The bench reveals what we can measure. What we can and usually do measure show very little correlation with what we hear. To me the bench is not the final arbiter of quality, my music replay system is....
Sayonara
Hi Thoersten,
That's part of the process! What I can hear in the music room. The item must be operating first to get off the bench.
-Chris
That's part of the process! What I can hear in the music room. The item must be operating first to get off the bench.
-Chris
Too many times amps sound great and measure poor.
Is this a contradiction of science?
No, it's our UNTRAINED ear that like 2nd harmonic distortion and dynamic compression.
99% of the hi-end market today is 2nd armonic generators.
Please, go to concerts, live music, hear how a guitar or a sax sound like. And then compare to your system.
Too many times THIS is what happens...
On the bench you MUST be sure that the amp isn't playing tricks on you.
The ear is easily tricked: for example, in 1983 Pink Floyd recorded a 2 channel record (The Final Cut) in Holophonic mode. You can really hear like in surround sound, but with 2 channels. Engineers know how to play tricks on human ear.
And hi-end self acclaimed gurus knows that a nonlinear stage will sound less realistic but will sell more amps
Is this a contradiction of science?
No, it's our UNTRAINED ear that like 2nd harmonic distortion and dynamic compression.
99% of the hi-end market today is 2nd armonic generators.
Please, go to concerts, live music, hear how a guitar or a sax sound like. And then compare to your system.
Too many times THIS is what happens...
On the bench you MUST be sure that the amp isn't playing tricks on you.
The ear is easily tricked: for example, in 1983 Pink Floyd recorded a 2 channel record (The Final Cut) in Holophonic mode. You can really hear like in surround sound, but with 2 channels. Engineers know how to play tricks on human ear.
And hi-end self acclaimed gurus knows that a nonlinear stage will sound less realistic but will sell more amps
Konnichiwa,
Because you measure the wrong things.
Nope, not at all. Please make sure you have at least passing familiarity with current research into the limits of human hearing and among other things it's reaction to HD.
Actually, 100% of them are. And they prodce differing amounts of 2nd HD and other HD's and many other types of distortion.
What godawfull load of hogwash.
Do you have actually the foggiest notion of distortion audbility? How many percent 2nd HD do you think are audible? How many percent 5th harmonics do you think is audible?
You need to realise that practically all current commonly used and standardised measurements exist, not because they are relevant or correlate in any meaningfull way with "good sound", but because some marketing department decided using them was a good way to illustrate the superiority of their product over others.
Anyway, I have better things to do than to disabuse you of your notions. In time (a few decades will help) will do so with less effort for me.
Sayonara
Giaime said:
Because you measure the wrong things.
Giaime said:
Nope, not at all. Please make sure you have at least passing familiarity with current research into the limits of human hearing and among other things it's reaction to HD.
Giaime said:
Actually, 100% of them are. And they prodce differing amounts of 2nd HD and other HD's and many other types of distortion.
Giaime said:And hi-end self acclaimed gurus knows that a nonlinear stage will sound less realistic but will sell more amps
What godawfull load of hogwash.
Do you have actually the foggiest notion of distortion audbility? How many percent 2nd HD do you think are audible? How many percent 5th harmonics do you think is audible?
You need to realise that practically all current commonly used and standardised measurements exist, not because they are relevant or correlate in any meaningfull way with "good sound", but because some marketing department decided using them was a good way to illustrate the superiority of their product over others.
Anyway, I have better things to do than to disabuse you of your notions. In time (a few decades will help) will do so with less effort for me.
Sayonara
I can easily percieve a THD of 0.23% on a pure sinewave at 440Hz.
I'm not joking!
An amplifier producing large amount of 2nd harmonic can be very pleasant to hear due to its sweatness.
But an amplifier producing 2nd harmonic is also a device that manipulates the message that you want to listen and I don't want that this happens.
Regards
Michele Buzzi
I'm not joking!
An amplifier producing large amount of 2nd harmonic can be very pleasant to hear due to its sweatness.
But an amplifier producing 2nd harmonic is also a device that manipulates the message that you want to listen and I don't want that this happens.
Regards
Michele Buzzi
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Typical internet guru no nfb kind of reply.
Thank you very much for your efforts
go read RDH4, even in 1954 they know that. Sorry everyone for the OT that this disscussion is taking, I won't post anymore.
Konnichiwa,
At what SPL?
First, on a sinewave the treshold for HD is lower than on music.
Secondly, the treshold is lower at lower SPL's, so unless you state at what SPL you percieve -52db 2nd HD the statement alone is meaningless. With the SPL specified we know that as long as the system produces less than -52db 2nd HD it will remain inaudible to you.
Good thing you neaver measured the HD (and others of speakers.
Distortion is a fact of life. It happens in all devices. And once the non-linearity is present it cannot be removed, only redistributed into different harmonic sequences and into different domains.
Classic simple harmonic distortion that is monotonic and reaches no more than a few percent when the system produces in the region of 100db at the listening position is at the limits of audibility.
Sayonara
m_buzzi said:
At what SPL?
First, on a sinewave the treshold for HD is lower than on music.
Secondly, the treshold is lower at lower SPL's, so unless you state at what SPL you percieve -52db 2nd HD the statement alone is meaningless. With the SPL specified we know that as long as the system produces less than -52db 2nd HD it will remain inaudible to you.
m_buzzi said:
Good thing you neaver measured the HD (and others of speakers.
Distortion is a fact of life. It happens in all devices. And once the non-linearity is present it cannot be removed, only redistributed into different harmonic sequences and into different domains.
Classic simple harmonic distortion that is monotonic and reaches no more than a few percent when the system produces in the region of 100db at the listening position is at the limits of audibility.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
And your is tyohical for closedminded Audio McCarthyists.
WTF makes you think I did not read it? I was refering to your line of reasoning, not to what books you post on your website.
BTW, D.E.L. Shorters work on Distortion is much more comprehensive and showed better corelation but still much worse than the GedLee Metric recently introduced by Earl Geddes.
I can still remember being a lot like you in my views, I could tell you some anecdotes that disabused me of my overtly academically influenced views (usual in a recent graduate or student), but I have better uses for my time.
If you are in London we can chat over a beer.
BTW, congratulations on your teams Cup!
For now I'll stop arguing with you and leave you with:
"Theory without practice is sterile, practice without theory is blind!" Charles Mordechai
"Je suis marxiste tendance Groucho."
Ciao/Sayonara
Giaime said:
And your is tyohical for closedminded Audio McCarthyists.
Giaime said:Thank you very much for your efforts
WTF makes you think I did not read it? I was refering to your line of reasoning, not to what books you post on your website.
BTW, D.E.L. Shorters work on Distortion is much more comprehensive and showed better corelation but still much worse than the GedLee Metric recently introduced by Earl Geddes.
I can still remember being a lot like you in my views, I could tell you some anecdotes that disabused me of my overtly academically influenced views (usual in a recent graduate or student), but I have better uses for my time.
If you are in London we can chat over a beer.
BTW, congratulations on your teams Cup!
For now I'll stop arguing with you and leave you with:
"Theory without practice is sterile, practice without theory is blind!" Charles Mordechai
"Je suis marxiste tendance Groucho."
Ciao/Sayonara
Happy camper
I have some questions and comments.
When we evaluates or listen to newly designed equipment by other individuals do we listen to the end product that the equipment produces or do we look at the schematic and count parts to make a quality judgment decision?
Should we not all remember that there is excellent complex equipment and there is excellent less complex equipment?
Is it not true that two individuals can build the same circuit and get totally different results due to various internal and external influences?
None of us knows much about each others listening environment or how the canals within all our own ears have been formed or deformed over the years. Are these factors not some of the biggest things that effect perceived reproduced sound quality on an individual basis?
My comment is that blind listening tests are required to evaluate new circuit designs. By this I mean that the person listening to the equipment should have no knowledge of what is inside the box. Such listening tests require no technical knowledge only a set of good ears and the proper environment.
Once technical aspects of a piece of equipment are evaluated personal opinions will be a very strong driving force to say whether something is good or bad without even having listened to the end product.
Since DIY audio includes technical as well as personnel opinions things do have a tendency to become heated at times. Since our circuit design efforts puts us into the realm of engineers, whether degreed or not we do do our best to enjoy ourselves with our efforts and occasionally ask for opinions of others or share data. Thus we can say that we are all engineers of some sort while operating at various levels of skill. Based on my many years of working with engineers in general has led me to conclude that working with engineers can be very difficult at times. Thus sometimes it is best not to express an opinion on an issue.
I sure did like the start of this thread by Giaime and was sorry to see it degrade the way it has. Let’s get back to designing and building equipment that provides us pleasure and encourage those who take the risk of sharing their designs.
Johannes Fassotte
Alaskan Audio
I have some questions and comments.
When we evaluates or listen to newly designed equipment by other individuals do we listen to the end product that the equipment produces or do we look at the schematic and count parts to make a quality judgment decision?
Should we not all remember that there is excellent complex equipment and there is excellent less complex equipment?
Is it not true that two individuals can build the same circuit and get totally different results due to various internal and external influences?
None of us knows much about each others listening environment or how the canals within all our own ears have been formed or deformed over the years. Are these factors not some of the biggest things that effect perceived reproduced sound quality on an individual basis?
My comment is that blind listening tests are required to evaluate new circuit designs. By this I mean that the person listening to the equipment should have no knowledge of what is inside the box. Such listening tests require no technical knowledge only a set of good ears and the proper environment.
Once technical aspects of a piece of equipment are evaluated personal opinions will be a very strong driving force to say whether something is good or bad without even having listened to the end product.
Since DIY audio includes technical as well as personnel opinions things do have a tendency to become heated at times. Since our circuit design efforts puts us into the realm of engineers, whether degreed or not we do do our best to enjoy ourselves with our efforts and occasionally ask for opinions of others or share data. Thus we can say that we are all engineers of some sort while operating at various levels of skill. Based on my many years of working with engineers in general has led me to conclude that working with engineers can be very difficult at times. Thus sometimes it is best not to express an opinion on an issue.
I sure did like the start of this thread by Giaime and was sorry to see it degrade the way it has. Let’s get back to designing and building equipment that provides us pleasure and encourage those who take the risk of sharing their designs.
Johannes Fassotte
Alaskan Audio
I think we should give up with personal offencies, and I excuse with Thoersten and all the other forum members for starting doing such a bad thing.
But please, let's avoid the usual falling between "tecnicists", that are closed minded, and "empirical guys" that know nothing about electronic design.
I would like to encourage the freedom of publishing desings and comment them, without prejudices or positions of superiority.
And to answer to Johannes Fassotte, I have to say one thing. I can't agree to your assertion that we're all engineers, with various degrees of skills: by definition engineer isn't closed minded because he's a scientist, and he's open to talking about designs.
People that doesn't like to share things, that don't like comments, that think that the best things in audio have been already done, that stick to simple designs because they don't know how to design complex ones, no, those people aren't engineers. Those people are hi-end gurus.
And, as always, only the stupids don't change opinion on things.
Thoersten: I'm pretty sure you know many anecdotes about how you enlarged your views, and I'm pretty sure also I would like to hear them. But I have already touched with hand that most of those "esoterical" things, that go out of my "closed mindedness" (I'm sorry for that) are just plain BS.
http://www.giaime.altervista.org/howtosell.html
But please, let's avoid the usual falling between "tecnicists", that are closed minded, and "empirical guys" that know nothing about electronic design.
I would like to encourage the freedom of publishing desings and comment them, without prejudices or positions of superiority.
And to answer to Johannes Fassotte, I have to say one thing. I can't agree to your assertion that we're all engineers, with various degrees of skills: by definition engineer isn't closed minded because he's a scientist, and he's open to talking about designs.
People that doesn't like to share things, that don't like comments, that think that the best things in audio have been already done, that stick to simple designs because they don't know how to design complex ones, no, those people aren't engineers. Those people are hi-end gurus.
And, as always, only the stupids don't change opinion on things.
Thoersten: I'm pretty sure you know many anecdotes about how you enlarged your views, and I'm pretty sure also I would like to hear them. But I have already touched with hand that most of those "esoterical" things, that go out of my "closed mindedness" (I'm sorry for that) are just plain BS.
http://www.giaime.altervista.org/howtosell.html
Konnichiwa,
You know, I would not know where to start to disentangle this raft of unsubstatiated pseudo religeous nonsense you spout in that.
Anyway, with views like you express, why even bother with Valves? Surely a generic Sony stack system for < $ 800 is the perfect expression of your philosophy?
Also note, this is DIYAUDIO not Stereophile.
Few people here sell anything, certainly non that do get rich on it either.
You might have noticed that I have shared many of my designs (usually the ones that I felt where to benefit of the DIY community), all not just theoretical "how it should be done", but practical, build and optimised ones, freely (as in free of charge, without prejudice) just as many others do. I do so in the spirit of open exchange of ideas and of learning much I do not yet know.
Your whole attitude is better placed writing to the letters section of Stereophile and many other magazines.
Many here have got literally decades of practical experience of electronics in general and audio specifically. Usually the people who do the most freaked out stuff have degrees or more in electronics or related fields, which started them OFF decades ago. It is the added experience that made them question the dogma taught at University and set them on the way to take thing differently.
To simple delare them and their writing "Typical internet guru no nfb kind of reply." and brush off the points made shows a degree of intellectual arrogance that I always had low tolerance for.
BTW, in the end the point is not NFB or no NFB, distortion cancellation or not, PP or SE and any of these, in the end point it is if we enjoy listening to the music through the gear we come up with.
If I found in sufficient blind testing (yes, I still do it, though less than I used to) that a capacitor handrolled by vestal virgins from Hemp Paper and using Silver from Peru gave me more enjoyment when listening to music than one machine rolled from russian silver and using generic paper I'd be using the first.
I'd be in fact not even very much interrested in a detailed theoretical explanation why. if you want to why I'm not that interrested in the why, read here:
Never Whistle While You're *******'
I am first and foremost an engineer and I happen to know first hand that sometimes ritals are needed that seem crazy, irrational and superstitious to the uninitiated to make things happen the way you want. I just deal with it, I don't NEED a theoretical explanation and often those advanced (like string theory) appear close relative of that rarest of all birds, the oozlom bird.
Meanwhile, for some perspective on the "subjective" and "objective" stuff and how it relates to music, I recommend a little article written by Markus Sauer for Stereophile, I especially recommend this particalur section (start at expert testimony):
God is in the Nuances
Anyway, I doubt that anything will change your views (one of the advantages of age is the realisation that it is a perfect foolishness to convince anyone under the age of 30 that a given "idee fixe" is off base. So, take what say any which way you like. Think back in a few decades though... 😉
Ciao/Sayonara
Giaime said:
You know, I would not know where to start to disentangle this raft of unsubstatiated pseudo religeous nonsense you spout in that.
Anyway, with views like you express, why even bother with Valves? Surely a generic Sony stack system for < $ 800 is the perfect expression of your philosophy?
Also note, this is DIYAUDIO not Stereophile.
Few people here sell anything, certainly non that do get rich on it either.
You might have noticed that I have shared many of my designs (usually the ones that I felt where to benefit of the DIY community), all not just theoretical "how it should be done", but practical, build and optimised ones, freely (as in free of charge, without prejudice) just as many others do. I do so in the spirit of open exchange of ideas and of learning much I do not yet know.
Your whole attitude is better placed writing to the letters section of Stereophile and many other magazines.
Many here have got literally decades of practical experience of electronics in general and audio specifically. Usually the people who do the most freaked out stuff have degrees or more in electronics or related fields, which started them OFF decades ago. It is the added experience that made them question the dogma taught at University and set them on the way to take thing differently.
To simple delare them and their writing "Typical internet guru no nfb kind of reply." and brush off the points made shows a degree of intellectual arrogance that I always had low tolerance for.
BTW, in the end the point is not NFB or no NFB, distortion cancellation or not, PP or SE and any of these, in the end point it is if we enjoy listening to the music through the gear we come up with.
If I found in sufficient blind testing (yes, I still do it, though less than I used to) that a capacitor handrolled by vestal virgins from Hemp Paper and using Silver from Peru gave me more enjoyment when listening to music than one machine rolled from russian silver and using generic paper I'd be using the first.
I'd be in fact not even very much interrested in a detailed theoretical explanation why. if you want to why I'm not that interrested in the why, read here:
Never Whistle While You're *******'
I am first and foremost an engineer and I happen to know first hand that sometimes ritals are needed that seem crazy, irrational and superstitious to the uninitiated to make things happen the way you want. I just deal with it, I don't NEED a theoretical explanation and often those advanced (like string theory) appear close relative of that rarest of all birds, the oozlom bird.
Meanwhile, for some perspective on the "subjective" and "objective" stuff and how it relates to music, I recommend a little article written by Markus Sauer for Stereophile, I especially recommend this particalur section (start at expert testimony):
God is in the Nuances
Anyway, I doubt that anything will change your views (one of the advantages of age is the realisation that it is a perfect foolishness to convince anyone under the age of 30 that a given "idee fixe" is off base. So, take what say any which way you like. Think back in a few decades though... 😉
Ciao/Sayonara
Personally, I have found that trying to convince anyone of any age who has an idee fixee is a fruitless and unrewarding task. So I don't.
So, getting back to phono stages...
So, getting back to phono stages...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.