Fosi Audio V3 op-amp rolling, has anyone tried it? Snake oil? Or are there actual differences?

[SIY]

No rolling of op-amps advised ?

Only if they're spherical.

 

[antcollinet]

Only if they're spherical.

And then only if you are going to race them downhill, or play marbles with them. Both of these activities potentially having some entertainment value.

Unlike trying to modify the sound of your amp.

 

[olieb]

Only if they're spherical.

There are many other forms that can do the trick nicely, besides cylindrical there are Reuleaux-Polygons. Sadly non of this exists as op-amps, I am certain they would sound much "rounder".

Reuleaux polygon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SIY]

There are many other forms that can do the trick nicely, besides cylindrical there are Reuleaux-Polygons. Sadly non of this exists as op-amps, I am certain they would sound much "rounder".

Reuleaux polygon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Roll us both down the mountain and
I'm sure the Fat Man would win.

 

[Down South]

I also experienced distortion in i think the mid-high frequencies which are only apparent when there is something "going on" in these frequencies and wonder what it could be / how I can solve this / need another amp.

My system:
Denon CD player > smsl su-1 DAC > Fosi Audio V3 (36v/5a psupply)) > Quad 21L floorst.

Just how old is this Rotel amp?

 

[LeoGB]

Just how old is this Rotel amp?

There is no Rotel amp

The Fosi Audio V3 replaced my 30+ year old Yamaha R300 which broke down a couple of days before a family christmas party at my house (distortion + all inputs connected - which might be repairable)

I have some op-amps available... and consider...

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hello.

I quote 'antcollinet' ->

"...I'm not trying to prevent anyone playing with op amps. If you are having fun - have at it. But don't you also want to understand if what you are percieving is scientifically valid? Especially when the science/engineering says the sound characteristics you say you heard are quite unlikely to the point of impossibility. Surely that is why you are posting at a science focussed forum?..."

For my part, I think that this is just your own interpretation of science.
Science isn't as impervious as you seem to be, thankfully.
You can't pretend (under the guise of 'your' science) that if you can't (for now) prove something, it doesn't exist...

I say this because for most human beings that I know, and there are many, all agree that they hear sound differences when replacing operational amplifiers.
For example, a friend who frequently comes to my house and with whom we listen to music (he is a musician but not at all a technician) asked me what I had changed as a 'setting' on my system because he found it improved.
It is since that day that he has known the word 'operational amplifier'.

Don't take my intervention as a personal attack but I just wanted to say that I find quite curious this way that some people have to deny what is obvious though ?

There is an interview on YOUTUBE with the creator of the PURIFI power modules, he has, I think, a fairly 'advanced' knowledge of science, at least in this field, and he is talking about operational amplifiers.
I'll let you discover it to know what she said. I'm sorry I can't give you the link to this video, but it should be pretty easy to find. And science is not designed precisely on research...

Good luck.

 

[Killingbeans]

For example, a friend who frequently comes to my house and with whom we listen to music (he is a musician but not at all a technician) asked me what I had changed as a 'setting' on my system because he found it improved.

Don't take this intervention as a personal attack either, but the above seems like a very likely example of the Clever Hans effekt.

Your body language was, in all likelihood, signalling to your friend that he should expect an improvement. And so, he simply heard what he expected, even though no improvement was actually there.

Just a different take on an obvious thing being denied

 

[BDWoody]

I just wanted to say that I find quite curious this way that some people have to deny what is obvious though ?

I agree...for example when people believe uncontrolled subjective impressions make for meaningful comparisons.

People like to tell and believe stories though...

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

I really don't understand this insistence on denying what is pure reality ?
It is necessary systematically to oppose by science what is obvious and observable by everyone ?
Do you think that if someone laughs at a moment when they see that something is because they have to be 'influenced' by someone or something ?
I have a Cartesian mind but he is still open to what he does not explain, on the contrary...

 

[BDWoody]

I really don't understand this insistence on denying what is pure reality ?

Uh huh...

I have a Cartesian mind but he is still open to what he does not explain, on the contrary...

When there is evidence beyond mass anecdote, let's try again. Until then, you are just repeating yourself. Claims are easy...

 

[Killingbeans]

It is necessary systematically to oppose by science what is obvious and observable by everyone ?

Yes, when those things being observed are extremely improbable and aren't doing any good.

There was a time when vampires and werewolves were "obvious and observable" by everyone, but we moved on and found the actual explanations for these claims of supernatural encounters.

The countless reports we see from hi-fi hobbyists pointing to the idea of "everything matters" are easily explained by neuroscience, and they absolutely do give a picture of people enjoying themselves while spending time and money on something they love, but they do not give any indication of what should be given most resources in the pursuit of real advancements in audio reproduction technology.

 

[antcollinet]

I quote 'antcollinet' ->

First if you want to quote someone, it is far better to do it using the forum "reply" feature, Like I have here. You can either hit reply at the bottom, and quote the whole post, or select part of a post and reply just to that.

When you do it that way, a link is provided which allows people to check what you are quoting - or, in this case, misquoting.
For example -

You can't pretend (under the guise of 'your' science) that if you can't (for now) prove something, it doesn't exist...

I didn't suggest or pretend this - what I actually said was:

You perceived a difference in sound. The "level matched" test you described, you have already been informed was significantly flawed to the extent of being meaningless.

Therefore neither we, nor you, know if that perception actually came from the soundwaves reaching your ears, or if it was modified by your subconscious brain by the "bias" systems we all have. The much more likely case is the latter.

In other words - without a properly level matched and blind test we don't know if what the person is hearing is real or not.

Can you see the difference between what I posted, and what you said I posted?


Please don't reply to me again - i'm not particularly interested in a discussion where I have to correct what someone is saying that I said.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I say this because for most human beings that I know, and there are many, all agree that they hear sound differences when replacing operational amplifiers

There are two possible reasons they hear these differences. The most likely is that there are no differences yet their brain has convinced them that there are (cf biases).

The other reason is that there is a difference and the difference is that they have downgraded their equipment. Designers have to deal with the design constraints of the active device. Operational Amplifier specification sheets give clear instructions on how to optimize the performance of the device. Each set of instructions is specific to a particular device, so a circuit optimized for one type will be wrong for another. When you take an op amp out of a highly optimized circuit and put in a different op amp, you will increase the risk of greater noise, distortion and even oscillation (including way above your hearing range). What you will not do is make an improvement, unless you redesign the circuit to optimize for the new op amp.

Enjoy your degraded amplifier.

 

[burkm]

Quite often the circuit designer has - in this discussed case - even approved the OP-amp rolling as stated i.e. by Fosi Audio. The circuit designer might even have chosen "his" OP amp for economical reasons (company), being the "cheapest" for the current task.
If for better or worse ("upgrade" or "downgrade") is a decision the user has to make then by himself
I'm just wondering about this "fierce" debate about the effects of OP amp rolling then...
Everyone is allowed the doubt, if that will influence the sound to the better or worse, but nobody can judge this effectively without being the "real" listener, as "hearing" is as subjective as anything else, because no one can be in the same position (and situation) as the listener himself.
Thus each and everyone can handle this as he likes it the best...

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Everyone is allowed the doubt, if that will influence the sound to the better or worse, but nobody can judge this effectively without being the "real" listener, as "hearing" is as subjective as anything else, because no one can be in the same position (and situation) as the listener himself

Or they can deploy the much more obvious approach of an oscilloscope, REW and a quality ADC (or a proper measurement set).

Amir compared Op Amps in a Purifi power amplifier. Search for it, it's an excellent read.

 

[burkm]

But this will only show a set of "measurements" and not the subjective personal hearing impressions one (the actual listener) is experiencing...

 

[Sokel]

Quite often the circuit designer has - in this discussed case - even approved the OP-amp rolling as stated i.e. by Fosi Audio.

I wouldn't rely on fosi's expertise in particular.
There are cases here where they have shown - how can I put it mildly - lack of scrutiny about stuff.

For the ones that want to do op-amp rolling:
Cut a couple of them of your budget and buy a measuring interface with that money.

That can be enlightening on one hand and a gear saver on the other.
And it's fun,the results are there to see!

 

[JSmith]

For my part, I think that this is just your own interpretation of science.

What is this interpretation of science you speak of? Established scientific principles are not just subjective opinions, they are grounded in empirical evidence and rigorous testing. When you can supply evidence of a new and unknown discovery about op-amps, please, let us all know.


JSmith

 

[Verig]

But this will only show a set of "measurements" and not the subjective personal hearing impressions one (the actual listener) is experiencing...

A plastic cup holds water. A glass looks better, has better specs in certain areas... but still it just needs to hold water, which it does fine be it crystal, Ikea glass or plastic. And sometimes the "worse" component, a plastic cup, is just what was specified for the job and lasts longer and serves better.
Mixing and matching components is meh.