Even assuming that they are honest, and, over the years and/or proportional to the price, their designs are asymptotically converging to total transparancy, it still works against them.
Most recordings produced these days are *not* mastered for systems with large dynamic range and flat frequency response. They're tuned to work with iPhone earbuds, car speakers or whatnot, maybe even Bose systems. Play them through your "transparent" system and you'll hear the combined faults of all the systems they were mastered for.
To add insult to injury, the designer removed any form of altering the presentation - no tone controls no nothing. You can only get the pure unadultered c**p - as recorded.
😕
On the upside, the audio pipeline of cell phones (esp the premium models) is pretty darn good. So it's on the headphones/earbuds to keep up.
Most recordings might not be, but of the music I like there is plenty. In fact the resurgence of 5.1 recordings means that the 2 channel mixes on certain labels have lost the low frequency roll off they used to have. But that is for my taste in music. YMMV.
Defeatable tone controls are great. For those of us using digital crossovers there is a whole world of adjustments that can be done. Life is good for the DIY'er.
Defeatable tone controls are great. For those of us using digital crossovers there is a whole world of adjustments that can be done. Life is good for the DIY'er.
For the not perfect recordings you don't need EQ per se. Just a series paper/wax cap paralleled with a mica cap, terminated with a cc resistor with a defeat switch. Make the RC TC pass 5 hz and above. Call it the "mojo switch", "vintage switch" or "mid-fi switch"...whatever. Easy and simple.
Last edited:
Morinix, I like your added EQ. I thought once of making something like this to 'forgive' the less perfect recordings, so long that it could be bypassed for the better ones.
High end gear with a low-fi bypass switch, sounds like a plan but if it went into production and too many people 'favoured the flavour' there's no telling where we could end up. Demand for tone controls etc. It could harm high end sales. Just saying...
It's just about options. Have to make those digitally sourced LP's and Dexterized Beatles pressings sound passable. Don't really care about offending the high end market; life is too short.
That little network saved a SS guitar amp I was modding for a very picky jazz guitar player friend of mine.
That little network saved a SS guitar amp I was modding for a very picky jazz guitar player friend of mine.
Last edited:
Yeh i was being ironic there. Most recordings are far from perfect so something approaching beer goggles for audio can be helpful. I only use digital nowadays and can play about with DSP (but rarely do).
I see that word used in many post here, but I somehow want to ask you about it: What is quality to you? What is your definition of quality?
I don't have a definition for it, it seems to me that quality, like beauty is a subjective impression. I can give an example of how I use the word in context - a high quality sound system is one that delivers immense satisfaction from listening to the widest variety of source materials (recordings).
Mind you, I don't know whether Gerzon and Craven ever submitted their paper to the journal. Maybe they didn't want to go through all the trouble associated with peer reviewed journals, or maybe they did but the peers rejected it. All I know is that you can find their noise shaping theorem in a preprint, but not in the journal.
AFAIK the process is that you submit your paper for presentation at a convention or conference. It is the journal editor who selects journal articles from the submitted papers; there is no separate submission process for the journal.
It used to be an honor if your paper was selected for the journal. But of course journal editors are just people, so they must have their preferences and expertise areas. At the time the Gerzon-Craven paper was published this was still considered, in some quarters, a weird kind of technology and not at all acepted as a good way of doing these things.
Jan
It used to be an honor if your paper was selected for the journal. But of course journal editors are just people, so they must have their preferences and expertise areas. At the time the Gerzon-Craven paper was published this was still considered, in some quarters, a weird kind of technology and not at all acepted as a good way of doing these things.
Jan
Those of us who have been on both ends of peer review know what an imperfect system it is, but it is difficult to think of a better system. In an ideal world peer review would filter out the pure nonsense papers (i.e. the ones which show basic misunderstanding, or are so badly written that it is unclear what they are saying) leaving the rest (which might or might not be true) to be published so people can then see and discuss them. In reality nonsense sometimes gets published (especially in conference proceedings) and good stuff gets rejected.scott wurcer said:
As the (analogous) window manufacturer, we're ready to meet all your window needs! Have you seen our new, more expensive, but even CLEARER windows?!
Although the conversation here has turned to the usual objective / subjective debate, I want to point out that the title of the thread is simply: What is Wrong with Op Amps? And since some op amps measure well, and some op amps measure poorly, I don't think measurements themselves are why some people are categorically opposed to all op amps.
I personally think the reason Hi-Fi manufacturers are opposed to op amps, is because they are viewed as "cheating" in analog circuit design. There is the perception that designing with discrete transistors is more difficult than "just" using an op amp. And since accomplishing the task with discrete transistors, as opposed to using an op amp, was more difficult, the extra work MUST have yielded some sort of sonic benefit right?
It's kind of like arguing between using a hammer or a nailgun when building a house. Both tools can build a wonderful sturdy house, or a terrible one. So the difference isn't really the tool used, but the person holding the tool.
Although the conversation here has turned to the usual objective / subjective debate, I want to point out that the title of the thread is simply: What is Wrong with Op Amps? And since some op amps measure well, and some op amps measure poorly, I don't think measurements themselves are why some people are categorically opposed to all op amps.
I personally think the reason Hi-Fi manufacturers are opposed to op amps, is because they are viewed as "cheating" in analog circuit design. There is the perception that designing with discrete transistors is more difficult than "just" using an op amp. And since accomplishing the task with discrete transistors, as opposed to using an op amp, was more difficult, the extra work MUST have yielded some sort of sonic benefit right?
It's kind of like arguing between using a hammer or a nailgun when building a house. Both tools can build a wonderful sturdy house, or a terrible one. So the difference isn't really the tool used, but the person holding the tool.
I think that's a very good summary. I can design an audibly transparent gain stage using bipolars, FETs, tubes, ICs, whatever, and so can any competent engineer. Which one will get a good review from the usual chimps depends on what fashion or religion appeals to the chimps, since they will never evaluate ears-only.
The other loose variable is people who want an effects box, and admittedly, it's easier (at least for me) to use discretes or even better DSP to achieve effects than it is with IC opamps.
The other loose variable is people who want an effects box, and admittedly, it's easier (at least for me) to use discretes or even better DSP to achieve effects than it is with IC opamps.
To what John said I can add the "exclusivity" factor. I was following the blog of a well known manufacturer, at the time they were looking to introduce a stationary headphone amps. The manufacturer unveiled at a point that they have some prototypes using some chip (op)amps that were sounding very sweet exactly with the most popular "audiophile" headphones.
The fans were in uproar and the apex was reached when a participant pointed out that a DIY kit with the same chips was available from ebay for about $25.
They had to eventually made it with discrete components.
At no point were "measurements" involved and no one bothered to ever compare the ebay kit with the brand name headphone amp, in either incarnation (prototype or final). It seemed to me that it was all about the prospect of getting an exclusive design.
The fans were in uproar and the apex was reached when a participant pointed out that a DIY kit with the same chips was available from ebay for about $25.
They had to eventually made it with discrete components.
At no point were "measurements" involved and no one bothered to ever compare the ebay kit with the brand name headphone amp, in either incarnation (prototype or final). It seemed to me that it was all about the prospect of getting an exclusive design.
Yes, the not-invented-here factor. It's a bit deflating at the high end when you can realize very high performance circuits using a number of < $3 opamps and a thimbleful of surface mount passives. A bit harder to sell a story.
Doesn't make miss-designing for the application any more right, though.
Doesn't make miss-designing for the application any more right, though.
Somehow people really love running off onto tangents, into blind alleys, and just talking about things in hyperbolic/exaggerated terms.
For example there are at least two participants here who have actual real-world opamp design experience, yet the reasonable technical issue/premise raised back a ways of why not use a "separate" power supply for each stage is steadfastly ignored.
Of course, the answer is likely to be that "there is no need", the performance is already "good enough".
But why the avoidance?
You'd rather talk about consumer preferences??
SY's assertion that he can "design an audibly transparent gain stage using bipolars, FETs, tubes, ICs, whatever, and so can any competent engineer." may or may not be true. IF it were true why would anyone want or need anything but an epoxy encapsulated "universal gain stage"? And, don't tell me that's what an opamp is. (after all we do need the encapsulation for "consumer acceptance", right?)
IF one said "essentially transparent" or "virtually transparent", then perhaps, maybe that might be true. Maybe.
Sorry, but I hear differences between all sorts of things, all the time, and I'm not drunk, and I'm sometimes not pleased to hear this sort of thing at all. It's not my desire. But there are pretty darn clear tonal balance, spatial balance, and what appears to be "dynamics" heard rather regularly in these parts.
Frankly, and quite directly, I'm more than happy to participate in a reasonable DBT, assuming of course that the system used is capable of showing these diffs in a sighted audition in the first place. Furthermore, if you're not hearing this, or have never heard anything like this, imho there's something wrong - either the system(s) being used are putting through so much hash/distortion that everything is being swamped (aka most consumer gear) or colored, masked in other words, or simply stated you hearing does not permit you to detect this sort of thing.
This may not be a message that you believe or want to believe, but really, I have no clue what most of the participants here are listening to, or can hear. So, either what happens here and with a whole lot of other people's systems that I know is entirely in the twilight zone, or else something is happening on your end. It just doesn't seem possible that so many here appear to be saying more or less that they do not hear differences in "gain stages" at all.
For the record, at my present age, my hearing simply is not as good as it was when I was younger, so IF I can still hear this stuff, I'm incredulous that so many here seem to find that more or less "everything sounds the same"!
For example there are at least two participants here who have actual real-world opamp design experience, yet the reasonable technical issue/premise raised back a ways of why not use a "separate" power supply for each stage is steadfastly ignored.
Of course, the answer is likely to be that "there is no need", the performance is already "good enough".
But why the avoidance?
You'd rather talk about consumer preferences??
SY's assertion that he can "design an audibly transparent gain stage using bipolars, FETs, tubes, ICs, whatever, and so can any competent engineer." may or may not be true. IF it were true why would anyone want or need anything but an epoxy encapsulated "universal gain stage"? And, don't tell me that's what an opamp is. (after all we do need the encapsulation for "consumer acceptance", right?)
IF one said "essentially transparent" or "virtually transparent", then perhaps, maybe that might be true. Maybe.
Sorry, but I hear differences between all sorts of things, all the time, and I'm not drunk, and I'm sometimes not pleased to hear this sort of thing at all. It's not my desire. But there are pretty darn clear tonal balance, spatial balance, and what appears to be "dynamics" heard rather regularly in these parts.
Frankly, and quite directly, I'm more than happy to participate in a reasonable DBT, assuming of course that the system used is capable of showing these diffs in a sighted audition in the first place. Furthermore, if you're not hearing this, or have never heard anything like this, imho there's something wrong - either the system(s) being used are putting through so much hash/distortion that everything is being swamped (aka most consumer gear) or colored, masked in other words, or simply stated you hearing does not permit you to detect this sort of thing.
This may not be a message that you believe or want to believe, but really, I have no clue what most of the participants here are listening to, or can hear. So, either what happens here and with a whole lot of other people's systems that I know is entirely in the twilight zone, or else something is happening on your end. It just doesn't seem possible that so many here appear to be saying more or less that they do not hear differences in "gain stages" at all.
For the record, at my present age, my hearing simply is not as good as it was when I was younger, so IF I can still hear this stuff, I'm incredulous that so many here seem to find that more or less "everything sounds the same"!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.