"An amp so true to the source that it often hurts to listen to because of such poor recording/mix quality ... you just never knew how bad recordings sucked before."
Unless you were thee when the recording was mastered, how do you know which amp (UCD or Coldamp) is truer to the source? The UCD having emphasized treble, as mentioned earlier, could also account for the difference.
Unless you were thee when the recording was mastered, how do you know which amp (UCD or Coldamp) is truer to the source? The UCD having emphasized treble, as mentioned earlier, could also account for the difference.
noah katz said:
SSSSSSSStop picking one me!~~ haha.
Like I said, I haven't heard coldamp, I simply stated that based on how others said it sounds, that it is likely to be found similar to NCD, which I have heard.
I also wasn't the one to claim UcD has emphasized highs. In fact I'd readily disagree with that statement. Also keep in mind you have to do a fairly decent job of the wiring before you even get to actually "hear" the amp (at least for UCD). Given its robustness it can be wired many which ways and sound alright, so even if it is completely backwards you might think you did it ok.
So if your wiring suffers from common mistakes, you hear those mistakes, not the real sound of the amp, which happens to be next to nothing. Therefore if you make the effort to improve the wiring, what you previously credited as being how the amp sounds tends to vanish. There was one guy who said nuforce was alot better... he knew it was a wiring issue though and it pushed him to come here asking how to improve that. Others just don't realize it, yet don't hold back on posting judgments. If you go and audition someone else's amp, you stand a good chance of falling into that same trap.
It takes a bit of listening to know what's what, on a variety of material, as I stated before. Not even acoustic is that good for deciding.... you really need orchestral, and a bit of a variety of it at that.
You don't need to be there when it's mastered to know which is more true to the source anymore than you need a blind test to know one sounds alot different from another.
If everything you hear across that variety carries with it the same euphonic signature (best case) or the same bad signature, you're either listening to bad wiring or an amp with a signature/fingerprint.
There's always a little bit of a fingerprint anyway, no amp is ideal, but if you're idea of the ideal amp is the one with the least fingerprint possible/truest to the source....I can assure you, if you actually get that, you're not going to enjoy alot of the recordings out there, because they really are bad.
If you have an amp capable of extremely tight imaging yet all your hear seems like a few tracks glued in space to a certain location..... bad mix (or wiring). Yep, you do get that with some recordings.
With others there's grainyness, hiss, bad SNR, clipping.. so very annoying that on a very good amp it's not so enjoyable to listen to. I mentioned chili peppers for a reason... they're one of the worst examples for "loud" recordings whereby clipping is so bad you can't stand to listen to it.
Play it on an amp with a bit of a euphonic fingerprint where all that gets smoothed over in a bed of silk and you can stomach it a little more... if you're a fan of that bed of silk.
The cost that comes at though is the rare instance when a true master does the mixing and does a really good job of it, you're really losing out on the artistry put into it because it's all veiled.
Also I know I said before the cleanlyness of the UcD amp has pushed me to look for better recordings of a variety I don't even listen to..... someone picked up on that to say "oh well I like a fingerprint then because I want to listen to what I listen to"... whatever. I do that to better evaluate the amplifier, obviously. You're not going to evaluate quarter mile times of a drag car on a gravel road are you?. Same thing.
Was it Doug Self who claimed such fingerprints were best left as additional features, with the capability to turn them off when desired? I tend to agree with that, because we shouldn't build amps and consider them "high end" when they're tailored to cake over the flaws common in so many recordings.... instead it is up to the recording industry to start earning the money they've been ripping off of us for decades to start providing us with a quality product, not the loudest, poorly compressed, pre clipped junk they can.
Given the success they've gotten recently with selling downloadable low quality versions though..... probably the only area that'll be left for a good high end amp will be for hometheatre.
The UCD's have a very modest signature. Its an ultra clean amp. Because it is a bit more layed back in the mids the highs are coming off easier(but clean). The BP gives a better sensation feeling, it impresses quicker, is warmer. Ofcourse setups matter like Chris said. The very tight bass response of the UCD's impress.
And a lot of recordings are indeed awfull. You have to pick to find a good 1 so you can do a comparison with a reasonable result.
And a lot of recordings are indeed awfull. You have to pick to find a good 1 so you can do a comparison with a reasonable result.
I can totally agree with everything said there.
They are a little laid back in the upper mids... and a little bit thin all around. You only have 2 caps to change to fix this, but then it's a question of which caps right? 🙂
Whatever happened to those ZL'z we were going to get anyway?
They are a little laid back in the upper mids... and a little bit thin all around. You only have 2 caps to change to fix this, but then it's a question of which caps right? 🙂
Whatever happened to those ZL'z we were going to get anyway?
noah katz said:
Hi
you can record scenes you are very familiar with , with a DAT recorder and professional mics
that ' s what i did
i've recorded my mother , my wife and my children talking in my lounge and outdoors
or friends playing with my acoustic guitar and double bass in my lounge again
with these samples , it's easier to hear differences between DACs , preamps , amps , speakers and tweaks ...
i've got the best results with tweaked UCD ( over Tripath 3dlab amp , Accuphase 307 linear amp , Panasonic XR45 and Tact M2150 )
Alain
rha61 said:
Hi Alain,
Thanks for your contribution. Good to hear that you also prefer UcD over Accuphase. Of course Accuphase is not bad (I have the E407) but they just can`t make it against the UcDs (and against some other Class D amps).
The difference is so obvious, one can immediately hear it.
Gertjan
The so called increased treble is still in a straight line when measured(20-20khz), so I don't know why it sounds differently? Measuring wise differences are neglectable. Maybe phase? But than again sq. wave looks ok on both.noah katz said:
Chris,
"SSSSSSSStop picking one me"
I was afraid it might seem that way, but I find some of your statements questionable, I can't help but question them.
"if you're idea of the ideal amp is the one with the least fingerprint possible/truest to the source....I can assure you, if you actually get that, you're not going to enjoy alot of the recordings out there, because they really are bad."
Apparently your primary focus is the perfect amp and are willing to accept the consequences, but I am also one whose goal is to *enjoy* listening.
Alain,
That's very interesting about your recordings. Do you have any plans to test a Coldamp?
Gertjan,
"The so called increased treble is still in a straight line when measured(20-20khz), so I don't know why it sounds differently? Measuring wise differences are neglectable. "
That is the big mystery. Perhaps the nulling test performed with two different amps would be illuminating, if it's possible to do such a thing.
"SSSSSSSStop picking one me"
I was afraid it might seem that way, but I find some of your statements questionable, I can't help but question them.
"if you're idea of the ideal amp is the one with the least fingerprint possible/truest to the source....I can assure you, if you actually get that, you're not going to enjoy alot of the recordings out there, because they really are bad."
Apparently your primary focus is the perfect amp and are willing to accept the consequences, but I am also one whose goal is to *enjoy* listening.
Alain,
That's very interesting about your recordings. Do you have any plans to test a Coldamp?
Gertjan,
"The so called increased treble is still in a straight line when measured(20-20khz), so I don't know why it sounds differently? Measuring wise differences are neglectable. "
That is the big mystery. Perhaps the nulling test performed with two different amps would be illuminating, if it's possible to do such a thing.
Chris,
"SSSSSSSStop picking one me"
I was afraid it might seem that way, but I find some of your statements questionable, I can't help but question them.
"if you're idea of the ideal amp is the one with the least fingerprint possible/truest to the source....I can assure you, if you actually get that, you're not going to enjoy alot of the recordings out there, because they really are bad."
Apparently your primary focus is the perfect amp and are willing to accept the consequences, but I am also one whose goal is to *enjoy* listening.
Alain,
That's very interesting about your recordings. Do you have any plans to test a Coldamp?
Gertjan,
"The so called increased treble is still in a straight line when measured(20-20khz), so I don't know why it sounds differently? Measuring wise differences are neglectable. "
That is the big mystery. Perhaps the nulling test performed with two different amps would be illuminating, if it's possible to do such a thing.
"SSSSSSSStop picking one me"
I was afraid it might seem that way, but I find some of your statements questionable, I can't help but question them.
"if you're idea of the ideal amp is the one with the least fingerprint possible/truest to the source....I can assure you, if you actually get that, you're not going to enjoy alot of the recordings out there, because they really are bad."
Apparently your primary focus is the perfect amp and are willing to accept the consequences, but I am also one whose goal is to *enjoy* listening.
Alain,
That's very interesting about your recordings. Do you have any plans to test a Coldamp?
Gertjan,
"The so called increased treble is still in a straight line when measured(20-20khz), so I don't know why it sounds differently? Measuring wise differences are neglectable. "
That is the big mystery. Perhaps the nulling test performed with two different amps would be illuminating, if it's possible to do such a thing.
Noah,
It's alright.
I have with my soundcard some pretty good DSP capabilities...but it's not something I care to play with as whenever my amp is playing I'm evaluating some aspect of it. You can't do that if you mess with the sound, but the ability is of course there, with the option of turning it off... see what I'm saying?
The definition of a good amplifier, whether or not you agree, is what comes out is a perfect reproduction of what went in, times the gain. If it doesn't sound like it does comming out as it did going in, obviously, it's a less than perfect amplifier. If you don't want to aim high... why bother?
Also what seems to impress instantly or be pleasing at first can become tiresome quickly when everything you listen to has the exact same character/veil.
So yeah, if you want an amp that lies to you, I can perhaps refer you to Rick Shultz, he'll tell you whatever will get your wallet out.
It's alright.
I have with my soundcard some pretty good DSP capabilities...but it's not something I care to play with as whenever my amp is playing I'm evaluating some aspect of it. You can't do that if you mess with the sound, but the ability is of course there, with the option of turning it off... see what I'm saying?
The definition of a good amplifier, whether or not you agree, is what comes out is a perfect reproduction of what went in, times the gain. If it doesn't sound like it does comming out as it did going in, obviously, it's a less than perfect amplifier. If you don't want to aim high... why bother?
Also what seems to impress instantly or be pleasing at first can become tiresome quickly when everything you listen to has the exact same character/veil.
So yeah, if you want an amp that lies to you, I can perhaps refer you to Rick Shultz, he'll tell you whatever will get your wallet out.
Chris,
"The definition of a good amplifier, whether or not you agree, is what comes out is a perfect reproduction of what went in, times the gain...
Also what seems to impress instantly or be pleasing at first can become tiresome quickly when everything you listen to has the exact same character/veil. "
No argument there.
"If you don't want to aim high... why bother?"
There's a long answer to all the implicit assumptions and value judgements in that question, but I don't want to derail this thread like the UCD one.
"The definition of a good amplifier, whether or not you agree, is what comes out is a perfect reproduction of what went in, times the gain...
Also what seems to impress instantly or be pleasing at first can become tiresome quickly when everything you listen to has the exact same character/veil. "
No argument there.
"If you don't want to aim high... why bother?"
There's a long answer to all the implicit assumptions and value judgements in that question, but I don't want to derail this thread like the UCD one.
I don't know, I find my words taken out of context by you lately so it's become a passtime of clarification, kind of tiresome. You find I say questionable things? Then you ought to be able to correct me, plain and simply. I would welcome such an event, but I haven't seen that happen yet, so how questionable can I truly be?
I think I write clearly enough to convey my thoughts as intended at least 95% of the time, on my worst day, as well as in such a way that anyone can understand what I say simply by taking it straight forward at face value.
You just agreed with most of what I said for instance, yet just a moment ago you preferred an amp that had a euphonic fingerprint so most of your recordings would seem enjoyable. I don't believe I've changed my positioin at all.
Who's the questionable one here, do you think?
"There's a long answer to all the implicit assumptions and value judgements in that question, but I don't want to derail this thread like the UCD one."
Verbal masturbation if ever. First it was the NCD thread which you're thinking of, this is the UCD thread, and I think that was in fact your long answer, to a rhetorical question no less.
I hate to say it Noah, but if I've ever I've seen a troll, you certainly seem to be making a serious attempt to qualify.
Best Regards,
Chris
I think I write clearly enough to convey my thoughts as intended at least 95% of the time, on my worst day, as well as in such a way that anyone can understand what I say simply by taking it straight forward at face value.
You just agreed with most of what I said for instance, yet just a moment ago you preferred an amp that had a euphonic fingerprint so most of your recordings would seem enjoyable. I don't believe I've changed my positioin at all.
Who's the questionable one here, do you think?
"There's a long answer to all the implicit assumptions and value judgements in that question, but I don't want to derail this thread like the UCD one."
Verbal masturbation if ever. First it was the NCD thread which you're thinking of, this is the UCD thread, and I think that was in fact your long answer, to a rhetorical question no less.
I hate to say it Noah, but if I've ever I've seen a troll, you certainly seem to be making a serious attempt to qualify.
Best Regards,
Chris
"You find I say questionable things? Then you ought to be able to correct me, plain and simply."
I didn't say mistaken, I said questionable.
"First it was the NCD thread which you're thinking of, this is the UCD thread"
Yes, my mistake.
"I hate to say it Noah, but if I've ever I've seen a troll, you certainly seem to be making a serious attempt to qualify."
I disagree, but I do plead guilty to derailing threads in my quest to get more satisfaction than can be had elsewhere in the sound vs. measurement debate, for which I apologize to all.
I didn't say mistaken, I said questionable.
"First it was the NCD thread which you're thinking of, this is the UCD thread"
Yes, my mistake.
"I hate to say it Noah, but if I've ever I've seen a troll, you certainly seem to be making a serious attempt to qualify."
I disagree, but I do plead guilty to derailing threads in my quest to get more satisfaction than can be had elsewhere in the sound vs. measurement debate, for which I apologize to all.
noah katz said:
Hi Noah
i've no plan to test Coldamp modules yet
i'will test Flyingmole ca-s10 and Gemincore amps soon , they've got a lot of rave here in France
http://amplificateur-numerique.com/
Alain
UCD and SPS80
Hi all,
I've been mostly lurking here a few months now,
and enjoyed the reading as well as learnt alot.
I'm doing this with the aim to build a HT power 5 channel amp.
I'm now leaning towards five UCD400's and two SPS80,
one for front channels and one for center/surround.
Unbalanced input and all in one box.
One of the issues I have is internal power wiring.
I can connect the amp to and earthed plug.
But how do I wire it internally?
SPS80 shall be earthed to chassi.
J-P and Bruno has written lots of good info on how to wire,
but it doesn't fit with some of the SPS80's demands.
So how can it be done? 😕
Best Regards
Erland
Hi all,
I've been mostly lurking here a few months now,
and enjoyed the reading as well as learnt alot.
I'm doing this with the aim to build a HT power 5 channel amp.
I'm now leaning towards five UCD400's and two SPS80,
one for front channels and one for center/surround.
Unbalanced input and all in one box.
One of the issues I have is internal power wiring.
I can connect the amp to and earthed plug.
But how do I wire it internally?
SPS80 shall be earthed to chassi.
J-P and Bruno has written lots of good info on how to wire,
but it doesn't fit with some of the SPS80's demands.
So how can it be done? 😕
Best Regards
Erland
IMHO the SPS80 "requirements" are not incompatible with Brunos, Jan Peter, etc, recomendations.
For safety we indicate that you must earth the equipment (unless your case has double insulation and physical contact to any metallic part from the outside is impossible), but that doesn't mean that you audio input or output GND must be connected to earth, as the SPS80 earth, primary GND and secondary GND are separated just for this reason.
Just keep the case connected to earth, and keep all the input/output GNDs and supply GND isolated from the case. That guarantees no ground loops but still maintaining safety.
For safety we indicate that you must earth the equipment (unless your case has double insulation and physical contact to any metallic part from the outside is impossible), but that doesn't mean that you audio input or output GND must be connected to earth, as the SPS80 earth, primary GND and secondary GND are separated just for this reason.
Just keep the case connected to earth, and keep all the input/output GNDs and supply GND isolated from the case. That guarantees no ground loops but still maintaining safety.
ssanmor said:
Thanks ,
I'll start from there.
B T W I'm not going for the BP's partly for space reasons.
/Erland
ssanmor said:
Somewhere I read that the signal GND should be connected to the case (Hypex application notes on grounding). In an experimental setup, I did that. I leave the SPS80 GND seperated from the case. Plan to use a subchassis (aluminum plate on which the SPS80 is mounted. That plate will be mounted in the chassis but electrically isolated from it. Then mains GND (if available) can go the the subchassis (but not to the case). The case will thus be floating from mains GND and connected to audio GND (and possibly mains GND) via other equipment. For additional safety, connecting the chassis to mains GND with two antiparallel diodes maybe good.
I guess thiw would work too.
Best regards
Gertjan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.