Replace OP amps. Completely pointless, or not?

[antcollinet]

I thought to myself, "yeah, clicks aren't too unlike a stick hitting a cymbal.

Even cymbal strikes are not as fast as you think...

Speaker "Speed"

I know on ASR, they are so big on measurements and basically saying if you can’t measure it it’s not real, but this seems like a pretty fundamental example for how not everything can be measured. Not agreeing on what to measure != not able to measure it.

audiosciencereview.com

Assuming clicks are impulses (Single high level sample) they are way faster, and way higher (infinite) bandwidth.

 

[SIY]

Single high level sample

Of course, impossible in a bandwidth (Shannon-Nyquist) limited system.

 

[DanielT]

Protip: Never-ever-ever upload WAV files to the ol' interwebs if you can help it. They're just pointlessly bigger than FLACs.

Okay! In my reply to cgallery below you will see which thread I took those files from.

That isn't the sort of track where I'd have expected to hear a difference, though.

As I said earlier, I'm hearing a difference very specifically on cymbals in recordings of trios. This is my original post describing the difference:

Replace OP amps. Completely pointless, or not?

You listen to music with half of its power at 6 kHz or above? Or you are just interested in measurement for measurement's sake? There is a valid argument for those of us who like measurements and that comes for the very class D amp's companies as in their evolution they state higher and higher...

www.audiosciencereview.com

When I later found the thread where the audio club members were using recorded noises like clicks to differentiate chips, I thought to myself, "yeah, clicks aren't too unlike a stick hitting a cymbal.

Maybe I heard a difference on vocals, I've listened to a handful of tracks with vocals after the first change, that was it.

But I know I hear a difference on cymbals.

The difference between them is 85.3 dB (0.0056%) vs 68.3 dB (0.04%) in THD+N. Files that pkane posted. If there wasn't a second difference in length between them, you could rename them (and darken the url link) and mix the cards in different ways and do various blind tests with them. But with that said, I just thought it might be an interesting thing to test the files as they were.

Pkane's post about those files can be found on page 13, #245 of this thread:

Are tubes more musical?

I have offered three possibilities, all of which have met up with gaffaws: 1) model the Tiger amp 2) model the Adcom GFA565 in bridged mode 3) since my main assertion has been and is still that DvsF can cause brightness, I proposed a model where 1KHz was the cutoff frequency and distortion...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[cgallery]

Even cymbal strikes are not as fast as you think...

Speaker "Speed"

I know on ASR, they are so big on measurements and basically saying if you can’t measure it it’s not real, but this seems like a pretty fundamental example for how not everything can be measured. Not agreeing on what to measure != not able to measure it.

audiosciencereview.com

Assuming clicks are impulses (Single high level sample) they are way faster, and way higher (infinite) bandwidth.

Not a terribly exhaustive analysis. Not only are there other cymbal sounds on that page with far faster attacks, it is a collection of MP3 files w/o any notes on how they were recorded or processed.

For all we know, they were processed with a transient shaper.

 

[solderdude]

When you want to get ASR members on-board you will have to find an audio sample that has a really fast rise-time.
Cymbals usually aren't as 'fast' as music lovers think they are for electronics nor transducers.
Think BW limiting of digital (and analog) music sources are getting in the way.

I suggest to look closely at recordings you find to have 'fast transients' and have a look at them using freeware programs like Audacity.
When you find such a rare sample post them (not if it is just 1 sample on an entire song or the music is terribly clipped)

This exercise is highly eye-opening for one self.

 

[cgallery]

When you want to get ASR members on-board you will have to find an audio sample that has a really fast rise-time.
Cymbals usually aren't as 'fast' as music lovers think they are for electronics nor transducers.
Think BW limiting of digital (and analog) music sources are getting in the way.

I suggest to look closely at recordings you find to have 'fast transients' and have a look at them using freeware programs like Audacity.
When you find such a rare sample post them (not if it is just 1 sample on an entire song or the music is terribly clipped)

This exercise is highly eye-opening for one self.

Except I never said the difference was down to transients, only compared a click sound to hitting a cymbal with a stick.

 

[antcollinet]

Not a terribly exhaustive analysis. Not only are there other cymbal sounds on that page with far faster attacks, it is a collection of MP3 files w/o any notes on how they were recorded or processed.

For all we know, they were processed with a transient shaper.

Feel free to send me a clip of a song you listen to with cymbals you beleive you can hear the difference in. I'm prepared to bet we won't find anything close to the limits of even redbook sampling. Let alone whatever higher res files you are listening to. And certainly nothing that will challenge the gain/bandwidth product of any of the op amps you are proposing to swap in and out.

 

[cgallery]

Feel free to send me a clip of a song you listen to with cymbals you beleive you can hear the difference in. I'm prepared to bet we won't find anything close to the limits of even redbook sampling. Let alone whatever higher res files you are listening to. And certainly nothing that will challenge the gain/bandwidth product of any of the op amps you are proposing to swap in and out.

I'd take you up on that, if it would prove anything.

 

[antcollinet]

I'd take you up on that, if it would prove anything.

Well certainly not if you're not prepared to accept any engineering based evidence that contradicts your own uncontrolled listening. In whcih case the only person who can prove something is you - by passing a properly controlled listening test.

As you point out above though - that is really high effort for a result with such little value to anyone's listening experience.

 

[cgallery]

Well certainly not if you're not prepared to accept any engineering based evidence that contradicts your own uncontrolled listening. In whcih case the only person who can prove something is you - by passing a properly controlled listening test.

As you point out above though - that is really high effort for a result with such little value to anyone's listening experience.

It isn't evidence (engineering or otherwise) of anything pertinent to this discussion.

And we've already embarked on controlled listening tests.

 

[antcollinet]

It isn't evidence (engineering or otherwise) of anything pertinent to this discussion.

And we've already embarked on controlled listening tests.

OK

 

[DanielT]

Speaking of those links with different levels of amp THD +N in #598.

I think it seems pretty pointless to compare 85.3 dB (0.0056%) vs 68.3 dB (0.04%) amp THD +N distortion with speakers that can have a hundred times more distortion. Then those speakers can even be considered to have low distortion, (0.0056 x 100=0.56).
Difference then between 85.3dB vs 68.3dB is only a fart in the HiFi space.

 

[DanielT]

Here a "blind test" with different op amps. You can see in #61 and #62 page 4 in the thread below set up and results. They heard differences.

Some thoughts about that test:
-I don't know if that person's DAC was technically suitable for popping in and out of the op amps tested.Although it is mentioned that: We tested four op amps. Each was scoped out before we began listening and confirmed stable.

-It not a good idea to have the person changing the op amps in the blind test room with the participants. This switcher may unknowingly signal to them things that affect the outcome (hence double blind testing is preferred to minimize that risk).
The switcher, which also by the way, participates in the test.

-I don't know if they level matched.

-They report no static analyses. It does not say how many tests were done.

What I mentioned above may be addressed later in that thread:

Op Amp blind test: Burson, ADA4627, NE5534

We did our event this weekend and it was a lot of fun. This is the first of two posts where I talk about how it went. Gear involved I am running one of the Miro AD1862 DAC's (LINK). My build features Antek transformers and 78xx + 79xx regulators as per Miro's PSU1. The AD1862 chips each have...

www.diyaudio.com

It may have already been linked to that test in this thread, if so, sorry I missed that.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

When the ridiculous Danny Richie touts it this hard, you can be sure it's audiophool nonsense!

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Since I'm sure it will be summarily nuked in short order, here's my comment under that video:
_____

Well, that was certainly predictable. After all, literally *dozens* of ordinary "jelly bean" monolithic opamp ICs were in the signal paths of 90+ percent of the mixing desks used to produce recorded music over the past 30+ years, so there must be a dire need for an "upgrade" if any of those gawdawful things are found in the home audio gear we use to reproduce that music. Thanks, Danny -- I'm sure that makes total sense to folks who think they can hear steel binding post nuts!

 

[I Got A Letter]

Came to this thread to see if this Danny video was being discussed..
To any of the forums venerable experts, what do you think this is? Is this op amp making a big difference? is it making a small difference that he's exaggerating?

 

[solderdude]

Came to this thread to see if this Danny video was being discussed..
To any of the forums venerable experts, what do you think this is? Is this op amp making a big difference? is it making a small difference that he's exaggerating?

That would indeed depend on who you ask...
When you ask me (venerable but not an 'expert') ...
These kinds of op-amps are measurable different from other regular op-amps in the same way as all op-amps differ amongst themselves.

On top of that it depends on the circuit they are used in, for a microphone, MM or MC pre-amplifier, output stage directly driving headphones, buffer stage, I/V converter in a DAC it matters what you put in there and even the supply voltage(s), current draw, required frequency range, max output voltage/current.
In certain cases the differences can become audible. Also some op-amps are not 'drop-in' replacements

Also some op-amps are very sensitive to power supply conditions and even PCB design, especially the higher bandwidth ones.

Add to that the fact that some input/output configurations (FET/MOSFET/BJT) are more (or less) suited for certain applications and may not be usable in buffer (1x gain) situations.

So... it depends... on some electrical aspects but mostly on 'if you believe' (however tacky or condescending that may sound).
When you believe in sonic differences you are very likely to hear improvements and if that is worth the money to you (regardless if it is real or placebo) it might be worth a shot.
From a technical/measurements p.o.v. is absolutely pointless to spend that kind of money on a 'wet dream' of 'increased sound quality'.

 

[DanielT]

When the ridiculous Danny Richie touts it this hard, you can be sure it's audiophool nonsense!

Danny boy again.

I thought high hifi was only true in fairy tales
Meant for someone else but not for me
Snake oil was out to get me
That's how it seemed
Disappointment haunted all my dreams

And then I saw this op amp
Now I am a believer
And not a trace
Of doubt in my mind
I'm in love
I am a believer
I couldn't leave this op amp if I tried

Joking aside, I agree with Solderdude in the post above and can add that why not test if Danny's superlatives can be translated into measurable results and or via blind test done with suitable stuff to pop that op amp in, level matched and so on. Blind test performed according to all the rules of the art of blind testing.

 

[Mnyb]

To reiterate the somewhat polarized OP :

Yes it's conditioanlly pointless if its a part of some audiophile hobby strategy to somehow get better sound ? sh*t does not work that way . Get well performing gear to begin with and work with your room and speakers .

For the tinker and electronics hobbyist with knowledge or curiosity and equipped with measurement gear proper solder station circuit diagrams etc enjoy rescuing some old component from the bin or something .

 

[antcollinet]

Is this op amp making a big difference?

No, probably no audible difference at all, when used in line level circuits (DACs and Amps)

Unless it is royally screwing up, oscillating and causing all sorts of distortion.

is it making a small difference that he's exaggerating?

As I say - nothing audible. Bear in mind most of the devices you would put one of these into is already outright audibly perfect (DACS), or audibly perfect in real world listening conditions (speaker amps). Even if it made a measurable difference it can't make something "more perfect"

He is most likely either being economical with the truth, (after all his income relies on him coming up with this type of BS) or he is letting his perceptive biases run away with him - and not putting up too much of a fight.