Integrated better than separates? I think so...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave,
Why are you using tech sounding jargon? :confused:That’s the only thing that frustrates me slightly on here. You give a technical explaination, example or experience to people who have never seen the pointy end of a probe and think audio circuits are somehow different from other electrical circuits so they “don’t buy it”.
I can only speak to those who have at least some real electronics experience. Without that, if someone's going to believe audio circuits have special properties not found in every other kind of circuit, there's nothing I can do to convince them otherwise.
 
Why do you think so?
Empirical observation. I do more than look at datasheets, stroke my chin and declare outcomes.

Provide a couple examples of the best sounding gear you've heard using op amps for analog output. This should be interesting.
 
Why do you think so?

Not saying this is E’s case but a lot of people seen to be spec number warriors. I tend to be to a point but just as a guide for making decisions. If I went truely by numbers I probably would not be running tubes.
 
Empirical observation. I do more than look at datasheets, stroke my chin and declare outcomes.

Provide a couple examples of the best sounding gear you've heard using op amps for analog output. This should be interesting.
I've never heard any audio gear. I'm completely deaf. I'm only in it for the spec sheets.
 
Not saying this is E’s case but a lot of people seen to be spec number warriors. I tend to be to a point but just as a guide for making decisions. If I went truely by numbers I probably would not be running tubes.
Point taken, but at the same time, some of the "discrete uber alles" brigade seem to ignore recognised attributes -- and benefits -- of integrated circuits, which are why integrated circuits are now used almost exclusively over discrete components in sensitive test equipment, low-signal-level RF amplifiers, and the like.

To ignore that is to effectively attribute magic to audio circuits, which is obviously wrong.
 
attribute magic to audio circuits, which is obviously wrong.

Since joining the world of Internet audio forums I have noticed this a lot from seemingly intelligent people. But intent and meaning rarely come across in a post. I prefer face to face technical discussions. Also, just a quick rant. Why is it that these discussions get slapped down for diversions off topic? If we where discussing these topics in someone’s living room over a beer and music then it would be taking all kinds of turns. Just an observation.
 
Last edited:
Empirical observation. I do more than look at datasheets, stroke my chin and declare outcomes.

Provide a couple examples of the best sounding gear you've heard using op amps for analog output. This should be interesting.

Empirical observation? In otherwords, your evidence is merely anecdotal. ..This hobby will never be fully respected as a true scientific endeavor (ie., accurate reproduction of a musical event) until it embraces even basic validity controls such as blinded testing. ..So you replaced the op-amps in your DAC? .Well, it's then predictable - after doing all that work - that you hear a difference. ..But that doesn't really prove there is a difference, much less an improvement. Ditto someone who trades in their well-engineered modern integrated for separates.
 
Empirical observation? In otherwords, your evidence is merely anecdotal.
And that of the best designers in the industry including Nelson Pass, John Curl, William Z. Johnson, et. al. Even McIntosh!

..This hobby will never be fully respected as a true scientific endeavor.
Music appreciation is not a scientific endeavor.

So you replaced the op-amps in your DAC? .Well, it's then predictable - after doing all that work - that you hear a difference.
It literally took minutes to swap them out since they are socket mounted. And I could have returned them if I didn't find a valuable improvement. I've purchased a number of audio components to try out that I either sent back or sold. While it didn't transform the modest Music Hall DAC into the performance of the Audio Research, it certainly brought it closer. :)
 
Last edited:
Music appreciation is not a scientific endeavor.
On one hand, that's good, because it's meant to be a fun hobby, not a rigorous endeavour.

On the other hand, audio could do with a little more scientific method, at least comparable to the automotive hobby's use of dynamometer testing. Flawed as it may be, it has all but eliminated subjective "seat of the pants" claims of power improvements. The audio equivalent is (ideally, double-) blind testing, but few use it even though we know listening reports are no better at identifying subtle audio quality differences than one's arse-'n'-eyeballs are at measuring horsepower.
 
And that of the best designers in the industry including Nelson Pass, John Curl, William Z. Johnson, et. al. Even McIntosh!


Music appreciation is not a scientific endeavor.


It literally took minutes to swap them out since they are socket mounted. And I could have returned them if I didn't find a valuable improvement. I've purchased a number of audio components to try out that I either sent back or sold. While it didn't transform the modest Music Hall DAC into the performance of the Audio Research, it certainly brought it closer. :)
Which op amps did you use? I may be looking to swap the BB opa2134pa, they’re not a good match for the circuit in my player.
 
On the other hand, audio could do with a little more scientific method, at least comparable to the automotive hobby's use of dynamometer testing.
There have been many who have worked to correlate measured performance to what we perceive. Richard C Heyser was an early pioneer whose words continue to ring true today:

“Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact.”

Today, John Atkinson of Stereophile runs a rigorous set of measurements for reviewed components in that same pursuit. While some measurements like frequency response succeed, other simplistic ones like THD fail miserably to deliver useful knowledge. There is no magic involved - only that which we don't fully understand. The perceptual senses are far more complex than your example of test gear where the result has no qualitative aspects. The resulting metrics simply are.

Similarly, Floyd Toole spent his career attempting to quantify what makes a truly good speaker. His research on uniform directivity has helped illuminate a very important aspect to delivering realism. Which is one reason why I've been a full range electrostat enthusiast. What you hear is cut from a single cloth. One pebble in the pond.

Are we to the point where any analysis of test results can fully describe what experienced music lovers perceive? Not even close. Still much work to be done.
 
Are we to the point where any analysis of test results can fully describe what experienced music lovers perceive? Not even close. Still much work to be done.

Having actually had to teach people to listen on some really great playback equipment ( 25 or so a month over 3 years). IMO no amount of measuring or science will define what people hear. Class of 10 people maybe 2 on a average had the chops to pick out differences.
 
And that of the best designers in the industry including Nelson Pass, John Curl, William Z. Johnson, et. al. Even McIntosh!

Music appreciation is not a scientific endeavor.

Are you suggesting that these designers provide evidence about op-amps that support your claims that changing them leads to audible improvements? ..I'd love to see it. Though i love my Mac amp I (sadly) don't think McIntosh is any more interested in supporting their claims w/ validity testing than any other high-end company. ..If they did, they'd sell a mere fraction of their gear and would sell only to those like me who appreciate the build quality, aesthetic and features (ie., tone controls, mono) but otherwise don't believe it to sound better than any other modern day amp that is operating w/ in it's limits for power.
 
I pine for the day when people who buy audio gear require the same sort of proof of improvement that the FDA expects of Pharma companies seeking approval for a new med. With Pharma, claims about this molecule working better than that molecule (kinda like the banter hear about electrons) mean NOTHING. What matters is whether a statistically significant percentage of those who don't know whether or not they are taking the new med (i.e., are "blinded") report an improvement in symptoms. In otherwords, they take the necessary steps to make sure the improvements are real and not imagined. In audio, we pretend such testing would be impossible to conduct. ..nonsense. As I said, this mentality keeps our hobby from being fully respected. .
 
Are you suggesting that these designers provide evidence about op-amps that support your claims that changing them leads to audible improvements? ..I'd love to see it.
Hmmm. You previously complained about my presenting "a lot of techy sounding jargon" and yet that is what you want to find? Ok. Click here for a great document to digest about nonlinear distortion, it's causes and effects. Note that most op amps have from 60 to 100 db of open loop gain which must be reduced using 40-60 db of corrective feedback.

Maybe one day you'll chill out and learn to listen. All you need do is audition the products their decades of experience have culminated in. Then perhaps you'll understand.
 
I pine for the day when people who buy audio gear require the same sort of proof of improvement that the FDA expects of Pharma companies seeking approval for a new med. With Pharma, claims about this molecule working better than that molecule (kinda like the banter hear about electrons) mean NOTHING. What matters is whether a statistically significant percentage of those who don't know whether or not they are taking the new med (i.e., are "blinded") report an improvement in symptoms. In otherwords, they take the necessary steps to make sure the improvements are real and not imagined. In audio, we pretend such testing would be impossible to conduct. ..nonsense. As I said, this mentality keeps our hobby from being fully respected. .

I don’t think it really would matter. People are going to hear what they hear and like what they like. Plus having done a lot of measuring of other electronics, you can always get the results your trying to achieve. And once the marketing people thier spin on it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom