What is wrong with op-amps?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#2,582
bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dunno Bear, his paper looks to me of such importance that I think it deserves its own thread.... like the Blowtorch one.... 😉
 
#2,583
Tisk tisk SY.
2275378_orig.jpg


He will figure some way to worm out of it.
 
#2,592
Markw4 said:
Not at all. The op-amps might be quite Hi-Fi. But the Nagra may add a little subtle touch of just-right euphonic distortion. Too small to be obvious, but just enough to sound better than the competition.
Click to expand...

I was told my cheap mikes had a fat midrange which gave me the edge.
But I used a very deliberate strategy which played out exactly the way I planned.
Any ideas?

BTW there was one more Nagra, a Stellavox, a Studer A700, a Telefunken M5. And various digital/software based solutions.
Miking varied from artificial head to a forest of 5 mikes for a few particpants. I used ORTF set-up.
I beat the head in the final by just 2 votes out of a total of 52.

Jan
 
Last edited:
#2,594
bear said:
the definition of "fidelity" is slightly ambiguous in this context.

On one hand it appears to mean "accuracy", when applied in a narrow way to an electronic signal.

However, this is not the full scope of the term, when used WRT "high fidelity sound" which was "coined" anyhow.

In that scope it also means faithfulness to the original event.
Was the event the recording, or the actual thing being recorded?

I think if the phrase was intended to be limited it would have been "high accuracy" instead? Maybe?
Click to expand...

High fidelity | Define High fidelity at Dictionary.com

Quite simple, no ambiguity, no need to read more into it than require.
 
#2,595
rayma said:
Yes, "high fidelity" is faithfulness to the original event. The entire recording and reproduction chain
is involved in the process. A poor recording, perfectly reproduced, is not high fidelity.
The term is not relevant when there is no original acoustical event. Then it is a matter of taste.
Click to expand...

No its the original signal... fed to a piece of equipment.
Recreating the original event is rather tricky with just 2 speakers, and as so much music is created electronically these days what do you compare it to?
 
Last edited:
#2,598
jan.didden said:
I was told my cheap mikes had a fat midrange which gave me the edge.
But I used a very deliberate strategy which played out exactly the way I planned.
Any ideas?

BTW there was one more Nagra, a Stellavox, a Studer A700, a Telefunken M5. And various digital/software based solutions.
Miking varied from artificial head to a forest of 5 mikes for a few particpants. I used ORTF set-up.
I beat the head in the final by just 2 votes out of a total of 52.

Jan
Click to expand...

So it wasn't exactly "flatness of frequency response" that won the hearts of the jury? 😉

OTOH the audience was nearly equally split between two different presentations?

What does this make out of the theory that "if it measures better it's better"?
 
Last edited:
#2,599
Kirchhoff said:
What does this make out of the theory that "if it measures better it's better"?
Click to expand...

As often discussed a neutral sounding system that is as accurate as possible does not feature greatly in the audiophile hobby, many people often find imperfect solutions more palatable (I myself like the presentation of SET mono-blocks through full range drivers, as well as the more clinical approach of SS amped 3 way conventional speakers).
If it does measure better then generally it will be better and one would hope nearer what hi-fi means, true fidelity.
 
#2,600
marce said:
If it does measure better then generally it will be better and one would hope nearer what hi-fi means, true fidelity.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As opposed to 'I find that this sounds better - to me' which can't be measured (scopes don't 'listen' like ears), and which is a totally personal and individual experience.

Maybe we should go away from subjective and objective but instead use 'universal' (which should be measureable, giving the same results when repeated) and 'individual' which is person-bound and may or may not give the same result when repeated.

I, as a person, am free to swear by the sound as produced by my SET amp, and at the same time measurements may show significant deviations from the ideal 'straight wire with gain', mesurements that give the same results whenever and when and by whomever performed.

Jan
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom