Thank you, yes, this encouraged the suggestion but only for discussion, first, and if reasonable then/perhaps measurement :=)Then there are quite a few 'brick' manufacturers which ones to pick for that test ?
Thank you, yes, this encouraged the suggestion but only for discussion, first, and if reasonable then/perhaps measurement :=)Then there are quite a few 'brick' manufacturers which ones to pick for that test ?
Last try, promissed! See my post #463, pointing to a real scientist on youtube. Why do you still try to educate people wiith an engineering approach? Those to be addressed simply do not accept it. Not because they are ignorant in the first place, it is another philosophy. They are right in some aspects. See for instance google "Zeteticism - The Flat Earth Wiki" (exact word).However op-amp trolling seems fine![]()
The engineer aims for a target. To lower distortion follows a prejudice on what the listeners need. The science would ask, is it true? As a word of caution, it was shown that it is not as natural as it seems. What is it worth to minimize HD for instance way beyond the threshold of audibility?It's irrelevant though, as part the goal of high fidelity audio literally is minimal distortions and noise.
What?To lower distortion follows a prejudice on what the listeners need.
What else, JSmith? Follow the science.What?![]()
![]()
None.What is it worth to minimize HD for instance way beyond the threshold of audibility?
Not very far. As I keep saying, the onus is on the op-amp swap boosters to show that their claims of audible differences are repeatable in controlled conditions.Then again ... how far does one have to go to convince some folks that say ... weeelllll... ?
Ah, you are aware that this is subjective but a (relevant) impression and your whole system and room needs to be taken in context/consideration (alot of variables there, isn't there?) because it is subjective and an impression. Perhaps, the question/s that could be asked of Hypex/Sparkos is what are the technical reasons and why? Fortunately, in this instance, your situation was sufficiently resolved but were technical reasons and why they were resolved, provided to you by them? If they haven't provided this information to you then it can only be received as, in this instance, it sufficiently resolved your situation and may not be beneficial/helpful to others.... that is a reasonable conclusion, isn't it? Know that measurements are helpful/needed, especially when well/accurately applied and interpreted, aren't they?I've been distained a good many times for reporting my purely subjective and impressionistic findings, so I'm used to the abuse. I've rolled op amps a few times and have found subtle differences.
Most striking was my recent experience with my VTV Purifi 1ET400A stereo amp. Originally I ordered this from VTV with the Hypex Eval I/O buffer. Immediately and spontaneously I was disappointed with at least one aspect of the sound versus my previous Hypex NC252MP amp; the top end, especially and higher volumes, was "screamy" and unnatural. Almost right away I ordered VTV's own I/O buffers with Sparkos SS3602 (discrete) dual op amps. The VTV buffers that accommodate 8 pin DIPs and larger form factor "pro" op amps.
With the VTV buffer with the SS3602's the sound was improved in that top end respect: "screaminess" gone. However I proceeded to try several other op amps I had lying around from previous experimentation, including OP2134, the venerable OPA247, the Burson V6 Vivid discrete, plus I ordered the OPA1612.
My personal, subjective conclusion after much swapping back & forth was that I preferred the Sparkos SS3602's for having the nicest transparency and natural top end. Runner up was probably the OPA1612. It's worth mentioning that the VTV buffer was designed by the same designer as the Sparkos op amps, (which I didn't know at the time), so the fact might have optimized the buffer and op amp combination.
But I note & emphasize that difference among these op amps were extremely subtle excepting for the Hypex buffer that was distinctly awful in context of my VTV Purifi amp. (I knew but now don't recall the surface mount op amp used in the Hypex.)
I like the word impressionistic in this context.I've been distained a good many times for reporting my purely subjective and impressionistic findings
I wonder why anyone would do such "abuse" when You emphasized "subjective, impressionistic..", and then added "subtle". All that would, to me anyway, indicate you might even believe chance might be good that in DBTs, you might find that subtle difference become more subtle or disappear, or unsure if it is there.I've been distained a good many times for reporting my purely subjective and impressionistic findings, so I'm used to the abuse. I've rolled op amps a few times and have found subtle differences.
Last try, promissed! See my post #463, pointing to a real scientist on youtube. Why do you still try to educate people wiith an engineering approach? Those to be addressed simply do not accept it. Not because they are ignorant in the first place, it is another philosophy. They are right in some aspects. See for instance google "Zeteticism - The Flat Earth Wiki" (exact word).
The problem here is that they have already 'proven' that the differences exist and have confirmation from the manufacturer and countless people.As I keep saying, the onus is on the op-amp swap boosters to show that their claims of audible differences are repeatable in controlled conditions.
The testing and measurements are important/even critical, aren't they? but the delivery/expression of them (it could be suggested?.... :=)) is equally as important/even critical and subjective assumption is not objective assumption, is it? (is that even an expression? Perhaps, 'to Assume makes an Ass out of U and Me' provides more clarity).Never going to happen (well maybe a handful) so the 'opposing views' will continue and nothing would change.
The Hypex NC500 Evaluation board/buffer was designed for engineering evaluation only, and lacked the necessary components (capacitors in the feedback path and at the inputs to the op-amps) to limit the signal bandwidth and is therefore much more susceptible to RF interference. Using it in production amplifiers (which was, AFAICT, not Hypex intention) is one of the reasons VTV got its bad rap early on on this forum. The omission can certainly lead to poor performance in real life applications.I've been distained a good many times for reporting my purely subjective and impressionistic findings, so I'm used to the abuse. I've rolled op amps a few times and have found subtle differences.
Most striking was my recent experience with my VTV Purifi 1ET400A stereo amp. Originally I ordered this from VTV with the Hypex Eval I/O buffer. Immediately and spontaneously I was disappointed with at least one aspect of the sound versus my previous Hypex NC252MP amp; the top end, especially and higher volumes, was "screamy" and unnatural. Almost right away I ordered VTV's own I/O buffers with Sparkos SS3602 (discrete) dual op amps. The VTV buffers that accommodate 8 pin DIPs and larger form factor "pro" op amps.
With the VTV buffer with the SS3602's the sound was improved in that top end respect: "screaminess" gone. However I proceeded to try several other op amps I had lying around from previous experimentation, including OP2134, the venerable OPA247, the Burson V6 Vivid discrete, plus I ordered the OPA1612.
My personal, subjective conclusion after much swapping back & forth was that I preferred the Sparkos SS3602's for having the nicest transparency and natural top end. Runner up was probably the OPA1612. It's worth mentioning that the VTV buffer was designed by the same designer as the Sparkos op amps, (which I didn't know at the time), so the fact might have optimized the buffer and op amp combination.
But I note & emphasize that difference among these op amps were extremely subtle excepting for the Hypex buffer that was distinctly awful in context of my VTV Purifi amp. (I knew but now don't recall the surface mount op amp used in the Hypex.)
Bit of an exercise in futility doing it all again thenI've been distained a good many times for reporting my purely subjective and impressionistic findings
Still - why let that stop you.My personal, subjective conclusion....
It's because tubes physically roll.Why is to roll the verb for this component swapping? And how did that come about?