A logically unwarranted presumption.
You have no way to know much of anything about the conditions there.
I can suggest several (albeit unlikely) scenarios where the "best" sounding recording was NOT the one chosen, and what sounded "best" to a majority of listeners may indeed have been replete with less-than-desirable artifacts.
-------------------
Why not drive over here Scott? we can plug in your 797 vs. a 5534 vs. "another" opamp - there's only one in the signal path, and you can decide what you are hearing for yourself? I doubt that you will be swayed much by seeing me grab 8 pin chips at a distance of 8-10ft or so... impossible to see what they are... maybe you will find them all the same?
I'll be 100% fair about it. And, if you don't want me to say what happened, I'll keep it private.
I don't see the purpose in your current line of constant questioning. The people present were not random subjects, many of them were somewhat maybe even very experienced listeners. I see no reason to believe that there was not some thoughtfulness and experience applied in setting up the listening test. If you don't see that your use of "best" renders it meaningless, I don't know what to say.
BTW you can't roll 5534 vs 797 in the same socket/circuit.
Scott, you don't "get it".
But that's ok.
your conclusion/presumption remains unwarranted.
It may be probable, but that is not known.
Put it another way, with the same sources, played on another system, the one adjudged "best" may have been a different recording.
Assume your distortion cancelling cap is present? - or pick a different opamp for your comparisons?
But that's ok.
your conclusion/presumption remains unwarranted.
It may be probable, but that is not known.
Put it another way, with the same sources, played on another system, the one adjudged "best" may have been a different recording.
Assume your distortion cancelling cap is present? - or pick a different opamp for your comparisons?
Maybe I missed something, Jan could clarify if anyone said, "I can tell those bad little 8-legs are in there".
What was my conclusion/presumption? It's true, I don't know if IC's were involved in any of the other 7 setups.
Let me repeat, I've been sitting here for years reading things like replacing a single naked Vishay with a Dale RN60 makes so and so's preamp sound like do-do, "anyone would have to be deaf or a liar to not hear it".
Well I don't know what to say. If the pundits just had any clue about what a recording is, the factors that go into it, the mike characteristics, the positioning, the relative distance and level of the instruments. Then the replay, the speaker system, the positioning and angle of the speakers, the amplifiers. The volume of replay; the the type of music, the selection, even the order of play (at the final, the other candidate asked if he could go last because it 'would make his cueing up easier', yeah sure, I was not giving away THAT advantage ;-), all these factors that determine the impact of the replay and the aesthetic judgement of a group of partly experienced listeners.
In this situation, just mentioning the effect of a stage somewhere in the chain that had either an opamp or a discrete stage is, well, ludicrous and would immediately mark you as clueless and you would not be given any attention for a loooong time.
Jan
Jan, there's an unfortunate breakdown in communication, coupled with folks who are simply here to foment and cast aspersions.
Add to that entrenched ideologies, and well, here we go.
I hope our ultimate goal is great audio (recording AND playback). Opamps, transistors, passives, etc are tools to that end.
Add to that entrenched ideologies, and well, here we go.
I hope our ultimate goal is great audio (recording AND playback). Opamps, transistors, passives, etc are tools to that end.
Hey, I NEVER said anything about an opamp in anyone's recording chain at the ETF 2016.
Where I differed was in terms of some of the statements made subsequently.
Now, Scott, as far as what people have been "saying".
let's review:
- we have this thread
- yadda yadda yadda, people talk
- I say, I hear something
- I say, here's a way to possibly TEST and MEASURE
- Few seem interested, and imo prefer to spout rhetoric and dogma (regardless of position)
- SY, Dr. Yaniger (I think) belittles the proposed test, and in the process cites HIS article on testing.
- wherein HE documents that he hears 6 not 5 "buffers" in series, and furthermore essentially "violates" ALL of the vaunted testing principles that he uses to beat others over the head with, and is also the nominal subject of his LA article!!
- Simon, Ed, akak Simon7000 (no not Simon 6999, a FULL 7000), inquires how it is possible that SY could even hear 5,6 or N "buffers" since "everything" ought to be below the hearing threshold/THD levels.
- SY goes AWOL... (unable or unwilling to face up?)
- Then the discussion goes OT for a while, interesting, but not terribly relevant to the topic...
- Now I invite you to come and hear for yourself, you respond by saying that you've "been reading things for years..."!!
So, you've got access to bins of opamps, more expertise than I will ever get, WHY NOT actually do some experiments and tests? I'd be more than pleased to collaborate with almost anyone who is on DiyAudio WRT exploring these issues. Why not move the "ball down the field"?
Where I differed was in terms of some of the statements made subsequently.
Now, Scott, as far as what people have been "saying".
let's review:
- we have this thread
- yadda yadda yadda, people talk
- I say, I hear something
- I say, here's a way to possibly TEST and MEASURE
- Few seem interested, and imo prefer to spout rhetoric and dogma (regardless of position)
- SY, Dr. Yaniger (I think) belittles the proposed test, and in the process cites HIS article on testing.
- wherein HE documents that he hears 6 not 5 "buffers" in series, and furthermore essentially "violates" ALL of the vaunted testing principles that he uses to beat others over the head with, and is also the nominal subject of his LA article!!
- Simon, Ed, akak Simon7000 (no not Simon 6999, a FULL 7000), inquires how it is possible that SY could even hear 5,6 or N "buffers" since "everything" ought to be below the hearing threshold/THD levels.
- SY goes AWOL... (unable or unwilling to face up?)
- Then the discussion goes OT for a while, interesting, but not terribly relevant to the topic...
- Now I invite you to come and hear for yourself, you respond by saying that you've "been reading things for years..."!!
So, you've got access to bins of opamps, more expertise than I will ever get, WHY NOT actually do some experiments and tests? I'd be more than pleased to collaborate with almost anyone who is on DiyAudio WRT exploring these issues. Why not move the "ball down the field"?
Now as far as Jan's recording, which no doubt sounds great - well placed mics and live recordings generally sound fabulous - my challenge was to encode the master tape into digital, and do a comparison.
Nobody said "boo".
My presumption is that no one is interested.
Why?
Because everyone knows what the outcome will be in advance.
That digitized version is going to range from pretty close to the original, all the way to not really close to the original. Doubtful that anyone would confuse the two.
That's why nobody is speaking up seconding the idea.
Tell me otherwise?
Nobody said "boo".
My presumption is that no one is interested.
Why?
Because everyone knows what the outcome will be in advance.
That digitized version is going to range from pretty close to the original, all the way to not really close to the original. Doubtful that anyone would confuse the two.
That's why nobody is speaking up seconding the idea.
Tell me otherwise?
I'm actually quite concerned now about his well being. I have this "gift" to say something silly and after some time it actually happens - to the dismay of all the witnesses.
So now that I had the imprudence of suggesting he was abducted by aliens with probes, maybe we should check his local press for strange events..... Jan, can you check on him, please? I am really worried now....
Scott: That ADA4841 is a rather neat little bit of silicon. Scanning through the data sheet there is an awful lot of WNTL about it for single rail low power low noise operation. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
No work is to big for the man who does not have to do it.
You wrote in 35 pts font size last week that great deeds needed
to be done, and 2 pages later you complained that you barely
have the time for your mass postings.
I don't have the master tapes, no machine to play them, no acceptable
digitizer and I won't invest anything in this hardware unless I see a
steady source of program material.
But instead of mass posting fact-free opinion I have spiced today
the compound preamp design by LePaissant e.a. .
In short, it works as advertised, even though I replaced a CFB with an
op37, it was good enough. And I used BF862 instead of 2sk170.
It delivers 65 pV/rt Hz. With some simplifications I approached 55 pVrtHz.
Removal of the outer fb loop via the transformers, 2 * BF862, less resistance
in the input transformer secondary (that alone costs 5 pV) etc.
There are some hairy resonances outside the passband.
And Lepaissant gives away some noise advantage with diff input just
for feedback, using the FETs as followers w/o gain. Nevertheless, nice!
But it cannot escape the 1/f.
regards, Gerhard
Last edited:
Spice is a verb now? I approve 🙂
I think I know which design you are talking about, but do you have a link in case I am being dumb again?
Bill
I think I know which design you are talking about, but do you have a link in case I am being dumb again?
Bill
"What is wrong with opamps?"
From 90125 Mike in the "kenwood-ka-4006-upgraded-burson-v4-opamp-2." thread:
An IC op-amp is entirely constructed on a single slice of silicon wafer smaller than a grain of rice. Limited by size and heat dispersion it’s impossible to incorporate top quality audio components. Regular IC op-amps are designed to be as versatile as possible. To achieve that the densely-packed circuits inside an op-amp have too much micro transistors and other micro-components that are chemically formed and inferior in every way to discrete components. Many of built-in components and corrective networks in IC’s aren’t even used for audio amplification further spoiling the signal. The conductive layer in commercial op-amps is formed with a layer of aluminum-vapor that’s thinner than the water vapor left on a foggy windshield. The close proximity of components creates electromagnetic interference or EMI that further dirties the audio signal. Furthermore, all components in the commercial op-amp’s silicone are formed by droplets of chemicals like an inkjet printer. This process just can’t create parts like precise low%-tolerance resistors, or the super-stable capacitors. Since they’re all integrated, they can’t be individually tested and matched.
What sound could you get if try to build an audio circuitry using cheapest components with a dispersion of parameters and connecting them with an aluminum or steel wire?
From 90125 Mike in the "kenwood-ka-4006-upgraded-burson-v4-opamp-2." thread:
An IC op-amp is entirely constructed on a single slice of silicon wafer smaller than a grain of rice. Limited by size and heat dispersion it’s impossible to incorporate top quality audio components. Regular IC op-amps are designed to be as versatile as possible. To achieve that the densely-packed circuits inside an op-amp have too much micro transistors and other micro-components that are chemically formed and inferior in every way to discrete components. Many of built-in components and corrective networks in IC’s aren’t even used for audio amplification further spoiling the signal. The conductive layer in commercial op-amps is formed with a layer of aluminum-vapor that’s thinner than the water vapor left on a foggy windshield. The close proximity of components creates electromagnetic interference or EMI that further dirties the audio signal. Furthermore, all components in the commercial op-amp’s silicone are formed by droplets of chemicals like an inkjet printer. This process just can’t create parts like precise low%-tolerance resistors, or the super-stable capacitors. Since they’re all integrated, they can’t be individually tested and matched.
What sound could you get if try to build an audio circuitry using cheapest components with a dispersion of parameters and connecting them with an aluminum or steel wire?
Wow I haven't seen so much FUD and stupid in a single paragraph since before I put the offender on my ignore list!
Do people seriously believe that sort of stuff?
Do people seriously believe that sort of stuff?
< Low?noise preamplifier with input and feedback transformers for low source resistance sensors >
It is behind a pay wall, but I think it floats around.
/Gerhard
Yes that was the one. Scott posted a link to the circuit about 3 months back. IIRC needs very low source impedance to work well, so is self defeating for (say) phono use as low impedance cartridges are lower output. But handy if you happen to have an ortofon MC2000 hanging around 🙂
The source impedance must be small for any low input voltage amplifier,
or the thermal noise of the source would dominate. There is no way
to design around that, except maybe cooling.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.