When I made recording boards for mastering musical sources, I designed discrete electronics, because I can make better than commercial grade designs with them. I did this for Dave Wilson for his recordings, Crystal Clear for their direct disc recordings, and others, who wanted the best designs possible. If I did it again today, I would still design with discrete active devices, especially fets. IC op amps for the bang-for-buck stuff. They are still not that great.
Still waiting to hear what SY has to say about the prior posts regarding the 5/6 buffer issue...
...looks like he's waiting for everyone to forget about this?? Or maybe he's busy, could be that too...
_-_-
...looks like he's waiting for everyone to forget about this?? Or maybe he's busy, could be that too...
_-_-
But you have no idea what the original sounded like. It's different in every seat. If the trumpets aimed at you you'll have 20db more of it. If your in the back of the room you'll get 10db more room than in the front. Chase your tail.
That's exactly what the stereophile crew doesn't want to acknowledge. And that, once it's obvious that the original presentation cannot be reproduced, then at least the end user shall be allowed to taylor it to his own preferences. But no, we needed a holy war against equalizers, then tone controls, loudness button, name it they fought against it. All in the name of BW, THD, noise, linear phase and other scientifically sounding arguments. They stopped at the volume knob, since that one would have been too obviously wrong to eliminate. So now everyone that went by their 'science and numbers' is condemned to listen in a single stereophile prescribed way. Then when they didn't really like it and cried "but the emperor has no clothes", the crew proposed "cables" to appease them.
Well, it's a broad topic, certainly.
But only to the extent that it helps define what if anything might be amiss with the "opamp" for the purposes of this thread. I think we've sufficiently defined the aim of the whole thing, aka what the signal path might have as a purpose, beyond conveying the electronic signal itself?
So, I'd like to focus on the 5-6 issue of SY's test, and the issues I raised regarding that back a few posts. That has the potential to refine this raw "ore" and get some "yield".
_-_-
But only to the extent that it helps define what if anything might be amiss with the "opamp" for the purposes of this thread. I think we've sufficiently defined the aim of the whole thing, aka what the signal path might have as a purpose, beyond conveying the electronic signal itself?
So, I'd like to focus on the 5-6 issue of SY's test, and the issues I raised regarding that back a few posts. That has the potential to refine this raw "ore" and get some "yield".
_-_-
If #6 were moved from the test chain to elsewhere in the audio chain (leaving the others still in place),
would that one op amp then still be audible? If not, why not?
If so, why can't the op amps be in the recording chain, and the single op amp be in the reproducing chain?
Then you should still be able to hear the single op amp in your own system (assuming the rest is good enough).
Last edited:
This is the main quote, from Simon 7000:
This and my post before that asked about the lack of information or controls for the actual "test".
----------------------
rayma, I'd be curious to know this too...
...seems that maybe the person doing the test had an "improper implementation"??
Or was something else going on.
Interestingly, no measurements were presented.
This and my post before that asked about the lack of information or controls for the actual "test".
----------------------
rayma, I'd be curious to know this too...
...seems that maybe the person doing the test had an "improper implementation"??
Or was something else going on.
Interestingly, no measurements were presented.
Is "improper" defined by measurements, or by the ability to hear the op amp?
The latter would be a cop-out.
Don't forget that Holt quit over their refusal to cover multi-channel stuff in depth.
... and at the auction I won an HP333A for € 60. Not a bad day for me.
Sorry for OT rant. I'll got to sleep now. 😱
Jan
The usual type of volume control is actually a major weakness in home and pro audio equipment.
Doug and Sherwood Sax at The Mastering Lab eliminated them on their DD Sheffield Lab Recordings.
They first set levels in a trial, and then substituted discrete resistors of the right values for the controls
during the actual recording.
Last edited:
Same deal here ?...Couldn't find anything to prove the heckling ?...Same old, same old.
Dan.
Last edited:
Can’t find anything on Youtube, but some traces from the past events are here
George
Attachments
Dan, say what?
SY published a paper that apparently goes against his own position, fails to provide the vaunted measurements that he demands of everyone else, and also fails to do the "tests" he publishes in the proper manner that the very article itself nominally calls for, and you call that heckling??
Oh, and wait, he is the one who cited it.
And, it speaks specifically and directly to this topic itself.
Last edited:
Nothing comes out on Youtube either as Wendy or as Walter
But have a look on this
Wendy Carlos, Lost Scores 1
Wendy Carlos, Lost Scores 2
George
But have a look on this
Wendy Carlos, Lost Scores 1
Wendy Carlos, Lost Scores 2
George
- Status
- Not open for further replies.