|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.189.217.4
In Reply to: RE: Favorite output transformers? posted by Triode_Kingdom on October 20, 2014 at 14:09:52
But by the same token you will hear the total accumulation, so if it sounds good it is good. Granted, it might be harder to track down the problem if there is one, but you should still hear it (or them).
Follow Ups:
"If it sounds good, it is good." Only if you have perfect ears, perfect electromechanical transducers and a perfect environment. Otherwise it's only good *to you*. Tune it however you want, but (your) speakers suck compared to good headphones. Seriously, maybe that's why you can't hear the difference between Magnequest and Hammond.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. Head phones take all the reflected sounds out of the equation so what you are hearing is nothing like what you will hear when you are listening to music normally. I want to hear the final product. "Good to me" is what I am after; I am not building these to sell.
The other reason I may not be able to hear too much difference between the Magnequest and the Hammond is that the difference is more subtle than overwhelming. As I have mentioned before, better ears (like Don Garber) than mine have stated that the 125ese sounds surprisingly good.
Another possible reason is that the 845 is a better sounding tube and is making up the difference between the outputs. I am going to do what Tre' suggested and try hooking up the FS030's to the 845 amp and see what difference I can hear then. Should be educational.
Have you ever actually listened to 125ese's in a working circuit?
Edits: 10/21/14 10/21/14 10/21/14 10/21/14
"Sorry, not buying that. Head phones take all the reflected sounds out of the equation so what you are hearing is nothing like what you will hear when you are listening to music normally. I want to hear the final product."
This raises an interesting point, and one that I haven't thought, or read, too much about. And I don't have much experience of "serious" listening on headphones. But at first sight it would seem, surely, that the "ideal" situation is where the audio system causes the sound-pressure waves in the ears to be essentially a faithful copy of the sound-pressure waves picked up by the microphones in the concert hall or recording studio where the musical performance was taking place? In which case, headphones would seem to be likely to provide a more faithful rendition of the sound-pressure waves at the performance. Not to mention the fact that loudspeakers tend to introduce a lot of distortion.
In particular, it would seem that the "reflected sounds" you are referring to, associated with acoustic reflections in the listening room, would be tending to make the reproduction of the original performance less faithful, not more faithful?
Chris
"the "ideal" situation is where the audio system causes the sound-pressure waves in the ears to be essentially a faithful copy of the sound-pressure waves picked up by the microphones in the concert hall or recording studio"
That's not what he wants. He wants to tune the amplifier so that the combination of system and listening environment is pleasing to his ear. That means the listening experience will be undefined and highly inaccurate, but that's one of the options for DIY. Everyone's goals are different. Let's just not make the mistake of referring to his process as optimization of the amplifier.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Have to yell foul on "undefined and highly inaccurate". Just what exactly do those phrases mean anyway? Any recording is inaccurate from the stand point of it not being a true reproduction of what was played where it was played. We should not kid or selves into thinking an exact reproduction is even possible. If we want live sound we need to go to the place it's being played when it's being played and listen to it there.
So what does that leave us with? We can make recordings and play them back in a way that pleases us. That is all. Trying to do anything more than that is an exercise in futility.
" Any recording is inaccurate ....[and not a true representation]...of what was played where it was played"
If that's what you meant to say....I agree.
However, as the end user (the guy with a copy of the recording in hand and a home stereo with which to play it on) I have no wish to try to correct for the inaccuracies of the recording.
Anything I do to correct for the inaccuracies of one recording will only exacerbate the inaccuracies of the next recording. No two recording are flawed in the same way.
My goal is to reproduce the recording (with all of it's flaws) as accurately as I can.
Now, as a recording engineer I am in a position to reduce the inaccuracies of a recording that I'm involved with but as the end user....it's out of my hands.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
We both know that some gear is more forgiving of less than perfect recordings than other equipment. I see no point in having equipment that limits you to audiophile grade recordings to be able to enjoy the music.
That's why I listen to several different kinds of music when I am finishing up an amp, to see if it will do well with most of what I listen to. Numbers alone will not tell you that.
"We both know that some gear is more forgiving of less than perfect recordings than other equipment."
Vinnie, you and I have different goals.
I like brutally non-forgiving playback.
If the recording is lush and warm and rich then that's what I want coming out of the speakers.
If the recording is thin and edgy and bright to a fault then that's what I want coming out of the speakers.
Each to his own.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'll drink to that.
"Trying to do anything more than that is an exercise in futility."
Optimizing an amplifier so that the signal impressed on its input is faithfully reproduced at its output is not a futile gesture. On the other hand, I predict that your attempt to take what you believe to be flawed program material and sculpt it into something more palatable with vacuum tubes will prove to be both an impractical and impossible task.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
What I am saying is that if numbers are the only thing that matters we would all be listening to solid state gear. Obviously there is more to it than that and your ears are the only thing that can tell you when you finally have it right.
" if numbers are the only thing that matters"
No one said any such thing, nor is that what we've been talking about.
You've made it clear that in your opinion, the performance of the amplifier itself is of no importance except as you yourself are able to ascertain it by ear within the system (including environment) as a whole. That concept simply couldn't be more wrong or misguided. You will never assemble a truly high-end system until you've first ensured that each individual component can truly contribute the absolute best of which it is capable.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
".... we would all be listening to solid state gear"
That's not true at all.
SS gear produces high ordered HD and even if it's at very low percentages, it's audible.
I think it's safe to say, if THD was the only thing that matters we would all be listening to solid state gear. But THD tells us almost nothing about how an amplifier will sound.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
"Norman Crowhurst wrote a fascinating analysis of feedback multiplying the order of harmonics, which has been reprinted in "Glass Audio," Vol 7-6, pp. 20 through 30. He starts with one [ideal] tube generating only 2nd harmonic, adds a second tube in series (resulting in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), and then makes the whole thing push-pull (resulting in 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), and last but not least, adds feedback to the circuit, which creates a series of harmonics out to the 81st. All of this complexity from "ideal" tubes that only create 2nd harmonic!""D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC Research Labs and Norman Crowhurst both proposed weighting harmonics by the square or cube of the order to [better] reflect audibility and annoyance-factor, and it's a shame their suggestions were never carried out. To this day, it's the 2nd harmonics that dominates THD device measurements, but it's the ones that are higher than that (even though they may be 20dB lower) that we hear. That's why a THD spec, without reference to the complete spectrogram, is essentially useless, and not only that, potentially quite misleading."
From Lynn Olson webpage.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 10/21/14
Ah, but it is. It's optimization of MY amplifier for MY use. Let's not make the mistake of thinking there is only one right way to optimize an amp : )
What you're describing is skewing the performance of the amplifier away from its ideal potential in order to suit a different purpose. That's a self-defeating goal, and (again) I predict you'll be very disappointed with the results.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
That is not what I am describing, but I see we are going around in circles. You do it your way and I will do it mine. That is why Heinz makes 57 varieties.
"That's not what he wants. He wants to tune the amplifier so that the combination of system and listening environment is pleasing to his ear. That means the listening experience will be undefined and highly inaccurate, but that's one of the options for DIY. Everyone's goals are different. Let's just not make the mistake of referring to his process as optimization of the amplifier. "
Indeed, I think you are right. And there is nothing wrong with tuning the system in such a way that one has a listening experience that one finds more pleasing. Just as long as one does equate that with being truer to the original sound.
Chris
Chris
If you are listening to a blinkin recording how in blue blazes are you ever going to know what the original sound was like. Just because the amp is technically on the money does not mean it will reproduce the sound you would have heard if you had been sitting there when the recording was made. There are too many variables besides the amp.
What are you listening to in a concert hall Chris? Reflected and direct sound. They both play their part in the overall effect and are both part of the original performance. If you are not hearing both of them you are not hearing the original performance.
Edits: 10/21/14 10/21/14
"What are you listening to in a concert hall Chris? Reflected and direct sound. They both play their part in the overall effect and are both part of the original performance. If you are not hearing both of them you are not hearing the original performance."
But that is my point. The recording microphones in the concert hall will already have picked up not only the direct sound, but also the reflected sounds, and furthermore they are characteristic of the specific concert hall. So you will already be hearing direct and reflected sounds when you listen to the recording on headphones. If you then add in further reflected sounds created within your own listening room when you listen on loudspeakers, then it seems like that would be "painting the lily." And what is more, these additional reflected sounds would be characteristic of your listening room, not of the original venue, and thus would seem to represent a departure from greater realism, rather than an improvement.
Chris
The microphone will never pick up what your ears would have heard had your head been where the mic was. You might as well just go for what sounds good to you because an exact reproduction just isn't going to happen no matter what numbers you get testing your amp.
"The microphone will never pick up what your ears would have heard had your head been where the mic was. You might as well just go for what sounds good to you because an exact reproduction just isn't going to happen no matter what numbers you get testing your amp."
I don't see why the microphone would be likely to selectively exclude the reflected sounds in the concert hall, in contrast to the direct sounds. So as a "best attempt" at reproducing what you would have heard had your head been where the microphone was, I would have thought that trying to reproduce as accurately as possible what was recorded off the microphone would be the best bet.
But I totally agree, that if accurate reproduction is not the goal, and instead one wants to produce a sound that is pleasing to the ear, then that is perfectly fine too. Perhaps I had misinterpreted what you meant when you said
"Reflected and direct sound. They both play their part in the overall effect and are both part of the original performance. If you are not hearing both of them you are not hearing the original performance."
I had assumed you meant you were wanting to capture the original reflected sound in the concert hall, in order to recreate for your ears an experience that was as close as possible to the original performance. I was just making the point that the nearest you will get to experiencing the original reflections is to play as faithful a reproduction as possible of what comes recorded on the CD, without adding other colourations from the listening apparatus.
But as has been said, if one instead sets the goal of achieving a pleasing sound, albeit maybe less faithful to the original, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Chris
What you will get doing that is a faithful reproduction of what the recording engineer captured; influenced by the setting he used on the recording equipment and the equipment itself. I just take issue with folks thinking that if the numbers for the amp are right on that's all there is to it.
the measurements tell the truth.
here is my undestanding and I'm sure some people here can explain it much better.
the reason minimum THD% is thrown out in general is because people weren't looking at the spectrum and which harmonics dominated the THD measurement.
if you see a reduction in distortion while keeping a ratio of higher 2nd order vs 3rd order you will hear an improvement. (in SE amps in this case)
PP being a different animal since it cancels second order harmonics.
my own direct example was measuring 5% distortion, predominantly second harmonic with Hammond 1628SE with DC 2a3 circuit. after swapping ONLY OUTPUT TRANSFORMERS that measurement dropped to < 1.5% THD, again predominantly second order.
before I measured I knew it sounded considerably better. my ears were my first "measurement". after I measured I found a correlation with a reduction in total distortion being an improvement, assuming more even order than odd order.
another example being a cheap SE amp I built with Edcor 15w SE output transformers.
before adding feedback I measured 5% distortion. after several different adjustments I found a "moderate amount of feedback" reduced THD and allowed 2nd order to dominate. it sounded better. if I used more feedback to lower THD but didn't watch the ratio of 2nd to 3rd then the sound became sterile. the middle ground gave me 2.2% THD at 1 watt and sounded considerably better than 5% THD without feedback.
now when I setup an amp with feedback I don't even listen until after I've tweaked the feedback resistors with distortion analyzer/spectrum analyzer. its a major time saver and was a pretty big break through for me.
Then please explain why solid state amps can have great numbers but sound terrible?
modern solid state gear sounds great.
So then why are all of us on this forum are building tube gear? Nostalgia?
"So then why are all of us on this forum are building tube gear? Nostalgia?"
Well, in my case yes, I suppose that is the reason, actually. I haven't personally experienced any superiority of tube sound over solid-state sound, and I would in any case only believe it if it was verifiable in double-blind testing. I tend to be naturally sceptical about unverified, or unverifiable, impressionistic claims.
But I do like the nostalgic feeling, and the warm glow of the tubes. And since I mostly build OTL amplifiers, there is plenty of warmth in the glow!
Chris
To each his own, but if you do a double blind with a good se amp vs solid state I am willing to bet you will be a convert.
"To each his own, but if you do a double blind with a good se amp vs solid state I am willing to bet you will be a convert."
There was an interesting set of listening experiments reported, under the name of the "Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge." Apparently Richard Clark, and audio engineer, offerd serious money to anyone who could demonstrate the ability to discriminate, under double blind conditions, between their favourite amplifier and a fiducial amplifier he supplied. More or less the only restrictive conditions were that the distortion of the challenge amplifier had to be less than about 2%, and that he (Clark) would make a simple RC network to balance any deficiency in the frequency response of the challenge amplifier against that of the fiducial amplifier. The challenger could control other things, like choice of sound source, choice of recordings, etc.
Apparently thousands tried the challenge, including "serious" audiophiles, and nobody succeeded.
The "take home" from this would appear to be that if the SE amp were indeed to prove to be distinguishable in double-blind testing, it would either be because of some frequency-response deficiency that could easily be mocked up with a solid-state amplifier and a simple RC network, or else because of high distortion. If somebody finds they prefer high distortion then that is absolutely fine, but it could hardly be called a high-fidelity reproduction of the original signal.
I know that this is just a report of one set of experiments. But I find it puzzling sometimes that some audiophiles seem to display a considerable reluctance to trying to get to the bottom of why they find the sound of the SE amplifier more pleasing. (Even if it is a real and verifiable difference.)
Again, I'm not meaning to be critical. I just feel that if there are discernable differences, it would be good to know why they exist.
Chris
How about a double blind, in home, long term test?Rig it so the listener doesn't know which amp he's listening to, day to day in his normal routine, for 2 weeks and then switch for 2 weeks and then switch back.
I bet many would take Richard Clark's money under those conditions.
Sitting in a room, with the listener's hearing ability being "tested", switching back and forth is just too unnatural a situation to prove (or dis-prove) anything.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 10/21/14
I think the distortion is a part of the appeal of the SE amp. The type it has is more pleasing than the type a push pullamp has.
As for solid state, the biggest complaint I had with them was listener fatigue, a very real problem. I can listen to SE amps for hours without any fatigue, but that was never the case before I switched from solid state.
No one told you to set up the amplifier with numbers. You're throwing out a smokescreen to cover the insane idea that you can fix the entire system - including the listening environment - by kludging one component. As a matter of fact, you started arguing the minute I said you should tune the amplifier first - by ear. Make up your mind, Vinnie. You either want the amplifier right, or you don't. If you want valid advice and suggestions from people here with years more experience than you at this sort of thing, I suggest you don't give them a hard time when they try to help.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
Let's not go there again. You have a tendency to think that your way is the only right way. It's not.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: