if someone here wants to go mad then we're all gonna go mad
in plain terms please so i can follow you
people believe through reasoning right? so umm even the unbelievrs believe through their reasoning
do you get it?
john
PMA said:
I meant John Curl....In any case HF intermodulation is excellent, as evidenced by the low HF THD.
RF rectification?
The proverbial Red Herring springs to mind.
I mean intermodulation with really high frequencies.
I know you meant JC.
I can tell you an example from praxis: the RIAA preamp, NE5532 "plays" radiostations, in the same circuit and wiring the OPA2134 is silent.
Anyway, 5534 a 5532 are not good sounding opamps. They were great improvement in 80-ties and they have very good textbook audio range parameters, that's true and that's the only thing you are interested in, Mikeks.
I know you meant JC.
I can tell you an example from praxis: the RIAA preamp, NE5532 "plays" radiostations, in the same circuit and wiring the OPA2134 is silent.
Anyway, 5534 a 5532 are not good sounding opamps. They were great improvement in 80-ties and they have very good textbook audio range parameters, that's true and that's the only thing you are interested in, Mikeks.
PMA said:
But Pavel, there are many great sounding 5534 circuits that do not "play radio". Some people pay many 1000's of dollars, for example, for a Cello Audio Palette with dozens of 5534's, claiming it is the worlds best sounding control/pre amp.
Instead of blaming the chip, it may be better to have a competently designed circuit & layout? 😉
Jan Didden
Jan,
it was an example of clearly audible effect. The fact it occurs with one opamp and does not occur with another shows to higher sensitivity of the slow BJT opamp to HF residuals.
There may be many steps between these examples, not instantly audible but influencing the sound.
If you'll play with opamps in I/V converters and analog filters of CD players you will see that every of them sounds different. Not a question of textbook parameters, but HF residuals sensitivity.
It is easy to speak only about proper design of PCB (though in case of cartridge it is not the only case). You went through lesson in Bandung, you should go through similar in real circuits behaviour as well.
it was an example of clearly audible effect. The fact it occurs with one opamp and does not occur with another shows to higher sensitivity of the slow BJT opamp to HF residuals.
There may be many steps between these examples, not instantly audible but influencing the sound.
If you'll play with opamps in I/V converters and analog filters of CD players you will see that every of them sounds different. Not a question of textbook parameters, but HF residuals sensitivity.
It is easy to speak only about proper design of PCB (though in case of cartridge it is not the only case). You went through lesson in Bandung, you should go through similar in real circuits behaviour as well.
PMA said:
Sure, but my point was that you can also have the other way around. Have a high-speed opamp playing radio, replace it with the 5534 and it is OK. I agree there are many, many issues around opamp selection, but the fact that it plays radio in one particular implementation for me is NOT a good criteria to select an opamp!
And yes, in Bandung I had quite an experience, but surely you don't imply that all LPs always sound better than any CD??
There is a down-to-earth reason why that LP sounded better than the CD. I intent to find out more about it. That difference was caused by differences in air vibration, which in turn was caused by electrical signal differences at the speaker connection, which in turn was caused by electrical signal differences at the power amp input etc etc. Nothing magical, it's just that I don't know yet what it was.
I am still intending to find someone with a really good turntable and PL, and record from the phono preamp output to CD, and then compare that CD to the LP sound. That should give me some important information, one way or the other.
BTW, I opened a thread on tips for best CD recording. Do you have any for me?
Edit: thanks for the input. Just saw it...
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Jan:
Good to hear from you and to have this thread alive, so much so it connects with the LM4702 thread noting what some consider a watershed declaration in an universally acknowledged technical context like an application note, of the unsolved mystery of DC decoupling capacitor affecting "sonics".
What still mystifies me is the liberal use of the term "better" without an appropiate qualifier to let us know what it is meant to describe.
I will of course readily accept there could be "different" perceptions under different conditions, like LP vs. CD reproduction of the same material with the same gear. This is to be expected.
What is "better" is much more slippery, in my humble opinion at least. Sound perception is such a complex experience with subtle and still poorly understood internal reward mechanisms, that suggest we should be extremely cautious.
Take for example different musical cultures. Most of us, grown within a western cultural environment may find eastern harmonies hard to enjoy to say the least, and most probably the converse is also true. Please I do not want to offend easterners of course !!! Simply point out personal cultural background weights in. And the same could be said with respect to western 20th century musical streams departing from the classical harmonic foundations dating to Bach and earlier.
It is a well known fact on the other hand, single ended even harmonic rich amplifiers do sound "better" for many tube fans, and I do not think they are fools or dummies, they are enjoying it which is perfectly right.
I could go on but better at a latter occasion.
Rodolfo
Rodolfo,
the best comparison is with live, unamplified, unplugged music. To visit many concerts and to make your own comparison.
_____________________
Regarding mastering, there are very good mastering studios and engineers, like Gateway/Bob Ludwig.
the best comparison is with live, unamplified, unplugged music. To visit many concerts and to make your own comparison.
_____________________
Regarding mastering, there are very good mastering studios and engineers, like Gateway/Bob Ludwig.
PMA said:
Absolutely agree Pavel, this is why lacking other solid criteria, neutrality of the whole reproduction chain is the safest bet. Some elements are under control, some not. The ones under control like speakers, amplifiers, DAC's, pick ups, should be targeted to neutrality at least.
Then there is the issue of contents. Philarmonic, camera, jazz can be readily compared "live" vs. "reproduced". This is less obvious with studio mixed material and mostly irrelevant with electroacoustic music.
Not to derise this, simply there is no reference to compare with. Again neutrality is probably the safest bet.
Rodolfo
traderbam said:
This why for me it boils down to "better" to a great extent is in the ear of the beholder...
Rodolfo
could be you dont listen to LP as often as CD umm
hard to believe LP is better than CD or is it
a one off personal observation umm for LP to be
as good as CD two things must happen change it
to optical and digital state
God blessed LP
john
'Better'? not saying either way, but sometimes yes. Imagine a signal source came to us pre-distorted. An amp that added a larger amount of 2nd harmonic, enough to swamp the existing third for example, and distorted the pre-existing harmonics which, odd or even would produce new harmonics that were even relative to the original fundamental, might produce a sound that is less objectionable under the right circumstances.traderbam said:
Tubes better, well not all think so too many harmonics mar the sound, for stereo the best sound is with less harmonics
prof hirusimi
john
prof hirusimi
john
- Status
- Not open for further replies.