No, if you are saying that running through the 12AX7 and then into the opamps will sound the same as the opamps then into the 12AX7.
Clearly, if one uses a circuit to produce "nasty" harmonics and then goes to a LP filter, the result is not the same as a LP filter feeding the same circuit. Just to exaggerate for clarity.
You are confusing the artistry of creating music with the engineering of creating a playback system a totally inept analogy really...
I dunno guys, I'm reading Kirchoff's play on my comment about CERN (which Abrax willfully ignored in order to selectively paint me into his desired corner, but, hey, what do you expect from him?), as I intended. 🙂
Namely, taking a good poke at the nonsense of the "NO MEASUREMENTS!" crowd.
Namely, taking a good poke at the nonsense of the "NO MEASUREMENTS!" crowd.
Derf, old boy... first off that's hyperbole, I don't know of any "NO MEASUREMENTS" folk in these hills.
Secondly, measurements, as you likely well know are merely tools. They are useful and serve to characterize certain aspects, and hopefully help to perfect things, as well as to make visible the invisible (like a scope, to keep it simple).
But, in practice, when a driver steps into a race car the measurements are only the precursors to how the driver feels the car...
Here's something else that occurred to me.
I do some metalwork/machining. There may be some useful analogy to be drawn.
Speaking of measurements.
Surface tolerances.
One can spec a tolerance.
Say for this example 0.001"?
This is sort of akin to "0.001% THD".
In some cases nothing more needs to be spec'd.
But are all parts made to the spec the same? Talking about the same shape part now.
Of course, one could make the part out of different material.
But assuming the same high quality tool steel, then there are quite a number of other
aspects not taken into account.
Things like surface finish, surface roughness/smoothness, hardness...
...multiple techniques can be used to arrive at the end results.
An interesting aspect of this is that someone familiar with the different finishing techniques could likely visually determine what has been done to the part. Rather unlikely that one could merely feel that!
From 25ft back, maybe some of the finishes would look the same...
So, all 0.001" tolerance tool steel parts are equivalent ?
...wonder if anything like this applies to audio?
I do some metalwork/machining. There may be some useful analogy to be drawn.
Speaking of measurements.
Surface tolerances.
One can spec a tolerance.
Say for this example 0.001"?
This is sort of akin to "0.001% THD".
In some cases nothing more needs to be spec'd.
But are all parts made to the spec the same? Talking about the same shape part now.
Of course, one could make the part out of different material.
But assuming the same high quality tool steel, then there are quite a number of other
aspects not taken into account.
Things like surface finish, surface roughness/smoothness, hardness...
...multiple techniques can be used to arrive at the end results.
An interesting aspect of this is that someone familiar with the different finishing techniques could likely visually determine what has been done to the part. Rather unlikely that one could merely feel that!
From 25ft back, maybe some of the finishes would look the same...
So, all 0.001" tolerance tool steel parts are equivalent ?
...wonder if anything like this applies to audio?
And when he talks to his mechanics about how it feels do you think he uses nebulous non related terms as in audio reviews or does he use technical terms that his crew understands and can probably measure?
cbdb, suggest you hang around a pit for a while and find out?
In the meantime, the measurement remains the tool set, not the determinant.
In the meantime, the measurement remains the tool set, not the determinant.
You're conveniently forgetting to mention that it's already mangled by the recording studio.
Agree with cbdb. The analogy just doesn't work. For a start in anything other than clubman racing there will be a team of people analysing the performance of the car in real time. If a driver complains about an issue (say understeer in one part of the circuit) there will be models that can be used to see how the car can be adjusted and how that will affect the overall lap time.
Back in the 70s it was seat of the pants 'twiddle this and see', but today that's not the case. Bit like JC and his comments about op-amps. They were valid at the time, but things have moved on.
Back in the 70s it was seat of the pants 'twiddle this and see', but today that's not the case. Bit like JC and his comments about op-amps. They were valid at the time, but things have moved on.
@Kirchoff: Not forgetting that at all, just reminding you of the purpose of 'high fidelity'. If the recording is rubbish then it should sound that way on your system. If you want things to sound 'nice' however messed up the signed off master is, then you have a musical instrument not a hifi. And no problem with people who do want to bask in the warm glow of euphonic colourations and wibbly wobble frequency response, as long as they claim preference and not superiority.
They're not "musical instruments" - they don't produce sounds by themselves, and a musician can't "play" them.
As for "hifi" as in the "purist" approach (look ma, 0.00000001 THD, no tone controls or anything to stay in the way of the pure unadultered pristine sound), that's quite a sterile approach. The room and speakers will take care that it will never sound quite right.
If something significantly modifies the sound, its an instrument. I include fuzz boxes, equalisers, reverb units etc in that as they are used in the creation of the product. Not my definition BTW, but often used on this site and a good one IMO.
Defeatable tone controls are a good thing. A hifi that has non flat FR that is fixed (like really expensive valve amps) is a bad thing.
As for the speakers and rooms, yet they are the limiting factor, which neatly shows that getting angsty about the electronics is pointless. BUT there is good work being done on that area in DIY and progress is being made.
Defeatable tone controls are a good thing. A hifi that has non flat FR that is fixed (like really expensive valve amps) is a bad thing.
As for the speakers and rooms, yet they are the limiting factor, which neatly shows that getting angsty about the electronics is pointless. BUT there is good work being done on that area in DIY and progress is being made.
I was feeling good! The early rev. of MKII had some shunt reg's and populated with dale RN55 resistors and the high speed op amp.
Then this came along like a knife in my chest,
"As usual, my search for the perfect (and affordable) phono pre continues. I like my instrument detail of the Cambridge, but the Lounge paints a more realistic picture of a symphony orchestra---😱just from several more rows back than I prefer to sit.😱 The Lounge does everything well, and some things very well. It may be a very good fit in a system that is already highly detailed."
The above was written in Oct of 2011 on Audiocircle BTW.
The guy was right. Now a fare amount of the loss of his upfront feel was artifacts that are present in something like the Cambridge but not in the LCR design at that time. I had abandoned the op275 with the MKI design and now the cleaner LT1358 in MKII was showing me how drab the passives really sound.
Yet the question remained: How could I get a thicker, more tangible sound without doing things that just paste obvious distortion on the signal? Not easy! And almost no T&M will point in a nice, neat direction. All T&M will do is point one to less and less THD, noise... But IME if you just follow that path you get a result like what the guy was complaining about.
This made me totally rethink everything. I took nearly a month doing changes ONE AT A TIME and let the unit burn in for 24 hours. Check freq response, noise floor. I had no distortion meter. Then the next evening I would put records on and lay on the floor with headphones. This is where I really started to digest the sound of one resistor or cap....
I am fortunate in that I have a wicked memory of sound in context with decay and harmonics. I started noticing such things when I learned how to patch a sound on Moog Modular gear in the early '80's. I know things are getting better when tail end of a note hangs on a little longer in a distinct manner.
And sure, there are things I have revisited just like you say.
In the end, for me now, I have no employer to please or justify designs to. It's just me and the customer. The customer does not care very much about a spec. But if the sound is not right, I get a return. I don't like returns 😉
Last edited:
Think of it this way, and you'll feel better. For each person in the audio field who doesn't understand
what you are doing, there is one fewer potential competitor.
I was feeling good! The early rev. of MKII had some shunt reg's and populated with dale RN55 resistors and the high speed op amp.
Then this came along like a knife in my chest,
"As usual, my search for the perfect (and affordable) phono pre continues. I like my instrument detail of the Cambridge, but the Lounge paints a more realistic picture of a symphony orchestra---😱just from several more rows back than I prefer to sit.😱 The Lounge does everything well, and some things very well. It may be a very good fit in a system that is already highly detailed."
The above was written in Oct of 2011 on Audiocircle BTW.
The guy was right. Now a fare amount of the loss of his upfront feel was artifacts that are present in something like the Cambridge but not in the LCR design at that time. I had abandoned the op275 with the MKI design and now the cleaner LT1358 in MKII was showing me how drab the passives really sound.
Yet the question remained: How could I get a thicker, more tangible sound without doing things that just paste obvious distortion on the signal? Not easy! And almost no T&M will point in a nice, neat direction. All T&M will do is point one to less and less THD, noise... But IME if you just follow that path you get a result like what the guy was complaining about.
This made me totally rethink everything. I took nearly a month doing changes ONE AT A TIME and let the unit burn in for 24 hours. Check freq response, noise floor. I had no distortion meter. Then the next evening I would put records on and lay on the floor with headphones. This is where I really started to digest the sound of one resistor or cap....
I am fortunate in that I have a wicked memory of sound in context with decay and harmonics. I started noticing such things when I learned how to patch a sound on Moog Modular gear in the early '80's. I know things are getting better when tail end of a note hangs on a little longer in a distinct manner.
And sure, there are things I have revisited just like you say.
In the end, for me now, I have no employer to please or justify designs to. It's just me and the customer. The customer does not care very much about a spec. But if the sound is not right, I get a return. I don't like returns 😉
So, do you believe there is something that's not measurable that creates these differences you perceive?
If its really not able to be measured that would imply its magic or placebo. However I'd suggest its measurable but not yet in the current suite of measurements.
It's probably possible with very resolving equipment. But take that data, like maybe the DA and reactance from 10khz on up of a film capacitor. It would take almost un-human insight to take that data and predict what that cap will sound like in a specific application like a tone control for example.
I would think the appeal of SET would be measurable fairly easily, or how about actually determining that the differences exist (hint: it will never happen).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.