everytime we come to the same conclusion 🙂
if its good for me it doesnt mean its also good for u 🙄
if its good for me it doesnt mean its also good for u 🙄
Guys, like on real life, thruth is somewhere in middle between your opinions. Most of comercial amps have tone control, which if you switch on = catastrophe and what lead people for leaving this. But how I was reading in some interwiew with Mark Levinson and I agree with him, corrections was leaved by hifi community unnecessary. I think, that well designed tone control must not bring only negatives and they may help. By the way Carlos, try to count, by how many tone controls must go ( in mixing consoles ) this CD which you are listening at this time 😀 .
Upupa Epops said:
I know.🙄
And how many NE5532s.
And how many cheap pots.
And dynamics compression.
And resamplings...
The point is, like the example on that Vincent amp, bypassing all the tone control crap the amp was in another league, even comparing with the "source direct" (or "tone defeat") on.
You may think that the sound doesn't pass by the tone controls, but it still has to travel a long way.
Trace inductance and capacitances affect the sound.
The smaller path the signal has to travel, the better.
While I always search for the best sound for me, I also know that you never really know what's in the disc.
Oh, btw, the best recordings I've heard were in vinyl (no surprize), classical, direct recordings to two-track analog tape.
The less you fiddle with the signal, the better.
sss said:
That is usually an answer used when you want to cop out from a deeper discussion.
But the arguments you are using are deceiving, because they do not try to find a more acceptable answer that will explain things a little better instead of apparently setting matters as if they were just personal opinions.
First of all tone controls do influence the signal in a bad way, adding distortion, noise and lot more to it. This is a fact, not opinion. People do not use them because, among other reasons, if you do you would be changing what the original recording was like. It's not really that important how many eq stages or chips the original sound went through during recording, because when a record was produced taking care on that area it will sound better.
Second, biasing an output into class A or using real class A is certainly not the same as "doing something" to the signal using a tone control so it can "sound" as if it is class-A. It's like those circuits that use transistors in such a way to "imitate" the sound of a tube. It is not the sound of a tube, it's a fake.
So let's set the limits there: you are proposing a fake (using tone controls), and if you have a good audio chain it will certainly not sound the same as biasing a chip onto class A or using class-A stages. That is also a fact, not an opinion.
So you think some people prefer tubes or turntables because they like distortion? I am afraid you never listened to a good system based on tubes or turntables that was balanced as it should.
A good turntable, with a good arm and a good cartridge playing a well pressed record will run circles on many hi-end CD players! So please do not put CD on a place it does not belong into. CD is much more practical to use and better to manufacture than LPs ever were, they are also more durable, and I certainly like them. But a digital system that you could compare to a good analog recording and LP pressing should use higher bits (24) and more oversampling (400Khz) than what they presently do.
So your association of distortion to turntables is wrongly put. As all systems they are imperfect, but please do not say that CD incarnates perfection because it's very, very, very far from being so. Turntables are just more impractical. but may sound closer to the original recording.
Tubes may not be the last vogue, but they still hold their own. Not because they add distortion, but because they seem to bring more reality to the sound. That doesn't mean that you can not do the same with solid state, which you certainly can. As long as you agree on what should be looked for.
Low distortion figures do not mean that much for audio listening, particularly when that distortion is lowered using feedback, which in many circumstances may sound awful. There's a quite known amplifier book where the task of the author was to lower all distortions, and several people that built those amps found them cold, uninvolving and tiring to listen to.
Where did you get that? Haven't you changed the output IC used on most CD players and see how the sound changes for the better when you do? Do you really think that all chips sound the same because the datasheets tell you so?
If you do then you are on the wrong forum, because what people do here is try different chips in different layouts and tell here what changed. Then others try it and new implementations are created. Do you know that many chips now used in audio are really video chips? Concepts like linearity and slew-rate and bandwidth tend to say more about the sound quality than distortion figures.
People are using the LM3875 and 3886 and others in inverted way because they found it sounds different/better than the non-inverted, when the datasheets always show the non-inverted circuit. Does that mean we are all wrong?
Where did you get the idea that for a sound to be like the original recording you simply used ANY audio chip and you won't hear any difference? I think you should start doing tests, using very high quality equipment, to learn a bit more on what makes something sound like the original. Some chips actually can make the original sound worst, not better.
This is an endless and probably pointless discussion, because if you really see things like you say then your opinion is already formed. What we try to do here is look at things with an open mind.
Some will say that the most important influence comes from the source you are playing, and the speaker and the room are the end of that chain. Most of us already have good quality speakers and know them, and we found different op-amps to SOUND different, we didn't THINK they did. We listened to a chip, told here about it, and others came back to the same conclusion or improved on the original. Once again a fact, not an opinion.
Read the comments on the different buffers people used on their gainclones. Do you really think people imagined what they heard?
Carlos
Carlos, you quoted some posts that passed unnoticed to me, thanks.
My my...
What a mess...
Let's make one thing clear:
The source is the most important component of a system.
I've never seen a pair of speakers making a miracle out of a bad source.
Trash-in trash-out.
Consider the signal path on a system and you get, from most to least important:
1. The source (CD, turntable, whatever).
2. Preamp
3. Amp
4. Speakers
I would spend more money on the source than anything else, and this is the importance I give to each component.
I've heard horrible sounding systems with very expensive speakers and bad cdps and amps.
Some cheap speakers can give good results, while cheap cdps or turntables or dvd (A) or sacd players sound like crap.
Crap crap crap crap crap!
Oh and the op-amps... make me a cheap JRC4560 sing like an OPA627, pleeeease.
My my...
What a mess...
Let's make one thing clear:
The source is the most important component of a system.
I've never seen a pair of speakers making a miracle out of a bad source.
Trash-in trash-out.
Consider the signal path on a system and you get, from most to least important:
1. The source (CD, turntable, whatever).
2. Preamp
3. Amp
4. Speakers
I would spend more money on the source than anything else, and this is the importance I give to each component.
I've heard horrible sounding systems with very expensive speakers and bad cdps and amps.
Some cheap speakers can give good results, while cheap cdps or turntables or dvd (A) or sacd players sound like crap.
Crap crap crap crap crap!
Oh and the op-amps... make me a cheap JRC4560 sing like an OPA627, pleeeease.
Re: Rule 1:
Carlos, you give very thoughtful responses to a complicated issue. I was trying to point out in a lighthearted way the problem of discussing an issue when there is no agreement on basic terms, such as "accurate". I think your definition represents what I also enjoy in recorded music, but it may not be accurate in the engineering sense. For instance, the ability to clearly distinguish the various parts of a musical piece is better on most recordings than it would be in most live venues. I agree that it makes the recording much more enjoyable, but does that make the recording more accurate? I've enjoyed live concerts where the acoustics were poor, because the energy of the crowd and other elements come into play. Were the concert recorded at my listening position, I would not tolerate it for replay. So, what I'm looking for is a recording that creates an illusion of a live performance in my living room, or maybe takes me to what, in my imagination, is the live venue. What creates that illusion or feeling for one person, may be different for the next. Some of those elements appear to be very subtle by gross measurement standards. Therein lies the art in this hobby.
From a practical standpoint, my guess is that the easiest way to consistently get to a good endpoint is to start with something that is accurate in the engineering sense (linearity, phase accuracy, etc.) and tweak from there. But I'm much newer to this than most of you, so I'm glad for the opportunity to learn from your experiences.
Sheldon
carlosfm said:You never really know what's in the disc.
Accurate reproduction means that you can understand the music, you clearly listen what every performer is playing, all the details are always there.
Your brain doesn't have to work hard to understand the music.
The human brain fills the gaps, that's why you can listen to music on portable radios.
But if you are trying to enjoy the music on a junk like that you soon get tired and shut it off or lower the volume.
Accurate reproduction is not cheap to achieve and we are talking about the whole system here.
If you like accurate or not, that's another story.
If it's similar to a live performance and I can follow and easily understand everything, for me it's good.
Other people may like a "coloured" or even a "smoother" sound.
Live (unamplified) music is not necessarily smooth.
Conclusion: accurate for me is not accurate for everyone.
Carlos, you give very thoughtful responses to a complicated issue. I was trying to point out in a lighthearted way the problem of discussing an issue when there is no agreement on basic terms, such as "accurate". I think your definition represents what I also enjoy in recorded music, but it may not be accurate in the engineering sense. For instance, the ability to clearly distinguish the various parts of a musical piece is better on most recordings than it would be in most live venues. I agree that it makes the recording much more enjoyable, but does that make the recording more accurate? I've enjoyed live concerts where the acoustics were poor, because the energy of the crowd and other elements come into play. Were the concert recorded at my listening position, I would not tolerate it for replay. So, what I'm looking for is a recording that creates an illusion of a live performance in my living room, or maybe takes me to what, in my imagination, is the live venue. What creates that illusion or feeling for one person, may be different for the next. Some of those elements appear to be very subtle by gross measurement standards. Therein lies the art in this hobby.
From a practical standpoint, my guess is that the easiest way to consistently get to a good endpoint is to start with something that is accurate in the engineering sense (linearity, phase accuracy, etc.) and tweak from there. But I'm much newer to this than most of you, so I'm glad for the opportunity to learn from your experiences.
Sheldon
a crossover is also some type of tone controllcarlmart said:
thats your personal opinioncarlmart said:
carlmart said:
well i've tested the op amp chips
i'm saying nothing about lm3886 in I or NI mode because i didnt test it
ahacarlmart said:
its very easy and cheap to change op amps in sockets 🙂carlmart said:
thats why people do that
changing speakers or listening rooms is far more expensive
QUOTE]Originally posted by carlmart
First of all tone controls do influence the signal in a bad way, adding distortion, noise and lot more to it. This is a fact, not opinion. People do not use them because, among other reasons, if you do you would be changing what the original recording was like. It's not really that important how many eq stages or chips the original sound went through during recording, because when a record was produced taking care on that area it will sound better.
[/QUOTE]
You can do IC tests after you get to a high resolution system and one which you know the sound of. Then you can identify what sounds different and in what way.
And what's wrong on people doing such changes if things get improved?
The question is what is your task when you want to improve your system. Mine, as a professional recordist, is to make the sound more similar to what I listen or listened when recording non-amplified instruments. Even more, what you listen without any electronics in the way, with your plain ears, in a music hall.
When I read comments here I try to pay attention to how people describe the changes they found compared to their previous setup. Many times it sounds worst, and going back re-establishes what you recalled.
Carlos
First of all tone controls do influence the signal in a bad way, adding distortion, noise and lot more to it. This is a fact, not opinion. People do not use them because, among other reasons, if you do you would be changing what the original recording was like. It's not really that important how many eq stages or chips the original sound went through during recording, because when a record was produced taking care on that area it will sound better.
[/QUOTE]
sss [/i][B] a crossover is also some type of tone controll [/B][/QUOTE] Certainly said:
You can do IC tests after you get to a high resolution system and one which you know the sound of. Then you can identify what sounds different and in what way.
And what's wrong on people doing such changes if things get improved?
The question is what is your task when you want to improve your system. Mine, as a professional recordist, is to make the sound more similar to what I listen or listened when recording non-amplified instruments. Even more, what you listen without any electronics in the way, with your plain ears, in a music hall.
When I read comments here I try to pay attention to how people describe the changes they found compared to their previous setup. Many times it sounds worst, and going back re-establishes what you recalled.
Carlos
sss said:
Most of the times it's not enough to just put a socket in and change op-amps.
Much more to be done.
You seam to give more importance to the end of the chain.
Instead of tweaking the motor, you are changing the weels of the car.
Will it drive faster?
sss said:
No, crossover does not control the tone.
But the principle of avoiding usage of redundant circuits that deteriorate phase/transient response applies. The less of crossover you use, the things get better.
Pedja
How about changing the analogy to a sailing boat.
If you have sails but no rudder you will go round in circles. If you have a rudder but no sails you can steer but you will not go far.
Balance in all things
(with thanks to Kahlil Gibran) 😉I know a guy that has a 15-year old cheap Denon CDP and two cheap Denon amps to biamp a pair o Kef Reference speakers.
How's the sound, I hear you ask?
Crap.
The huge amount of money he spent on those Kefs alone would buy a much better system IMHO.
Yes Nuuk, this is "unbalance".😀
How's the sound, I hear you ask?
Crap.
The huge amount of money he spent on those Kefs alone would buy a much better system IMHO.
Yes Nuuk, this is "unbalance".😀
Phonoclone
I did phonoclone as the enclosured schematic but it's not work. It generates some kind of noise when I turn on switch 😱. I didn't supply any audio input to the phonoclone, in fact, it should be quiet and should not has any signal out. I have checked my PCB but It's correct.
I did phonoclone as the enclosured schematic but it's not work.
It generates some kind of noise when I turn on switch 😱. I didn't supply any audio input to the phonoclone, in fact, it should be quiet and should not has any signal out. I have checked my PCB but It's correct.Attachments
carlmart said:
What's the use of recording in 24 bits when it's impossible to get more than 21 bits of useful dynamic range? Below that is just thermal noise, and you'd be very lucky to get more than 80dB (14 bits) out of a good vinyl setup. The *fact* is that 80dB is more than adequate to get perfect silence in an average listening room, which would probably have 20dB background noise.
Also, 400kHz bitrate would give 200kHz bandwidth. Again, I defy anyone to show any sound other than noise that that frequency from an LP, most of which taper off from 12kHz. After all, there's only so much acceleration a stylus can cope with. At the other end of the range, abience information and sub-bass does not need to be mixed to mono in a digital setup.
The problems with digital are nothing to do with dynamic range or bandwidth, but more to do with the quality of the reconstruction filters - that's the real reason why 96/192kHz recordings can sound better than CD - the engineering of a good filter is less challenging.
As for priorities about where money should be spent in the chain, of course speakers produce the most distortion... after all, drivers are specced to 1%THD, but it's pretty tough to find an opamp specced to worse than 0.1%THD over the audio range. So without any room interactions you're going to get 10x more distortion from the speakers. I'm not saying sources have no influence, far from it, but in terms of absolute difference, spending money on the room in terms of absorption of standing waves etc. will have a much bigger influence.
In any event, your right in that this is the same old series of arguments that fill up countless gigabytes of message boards all over the world. Like interaith communication, there's only so much common ground between the participants, but at the end of the day we have to accept that other's have differences of opinion on the subject. No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition 😉
A.
arniel said:
Analog has infinite resoution, while digital is always limited by numbers.
You can't compare directly the two things.
A good vinyl source passes 20khz without problems, and has a slow roll-off at the upper frequencies.
SACD is mosty noise above 20khz.😀
I say listen with your ears.😉
Now my phonoclone could sing a song 😀 but it sing too loud 😱, almost made my speaker broken. I think that the problem may be 1. gain is too much
2. VR is too low value. I use VR = 10K Ohm.
2. VR is too low value. I use VR = 10K Ohm.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.