Serious Question: How can Op Amp rolling improve the sound of an already well measuring device? Are that many confused? (Master Thread)

[Doodski]

You missed to say: But you write in this thread so..?
It's a bit of a gray area for me.I can't help but do write in op amp threads like this even though it doesn't really bother me that much. Fun to argue though.
Otherwise, what you say, you have a point. However, in practice it can become a lot if you constantly have to argue about small, relatively insignificant things. Wasn't it Doodski who started a thread about some damn stubborn neighbor he was constantly arguing about electronics with? A neighbor who apparently knew nothing about electronics but didn't give up his position, view of whatever it was, no matter how objectively wrong he was? Arguing with such a person can suck the energy out of anyone. Wait...I'm doing a search...I thought of this thread:

Interpersonal technical stuff and stubborn people that take the expert position but are not experts. This is like a Ann Flanders post!

I have a friend that is a ranting technophile that knows little to nothing about audio electronics, audio files and what sounds good and why and he constantly rants and raves about flac files and MP3 being inferior as he listens to 50 year old crappy recordings and claims flac is so much better...

audiosciencereview.com

I ghosted him. know it all, has to have the last say on everything annoying person.

 

[lini]

I've seen that movie.

"Sausage Orgy III - the Lyoner"?

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

P.S.: Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

[johny_2000]

DAC and op amp chip maker Texas Instruments wrote about the characteristics of op amps that affect the dynamic performance of sound:

* this is a quote from the PCM1792 datasheet.

 

[KSTR]

To compare by listening, you must apply a set of controls. One of those is fast switching,

Quick switching between them is essential since our auditory memory isn’t reliable enough for comparisons with a 10-minute gap.

This is absolutely not correct. Fast switching is neither required nor typically beneficial for blind testing, especially when combined with short snippets. The only thing that is required is following a proper blind test protocol, say for example ABX protocol. It is perfectly valid to listen to one setting for a week, make a break of a few days, then listen again and repeat that over the course of weeks or even months to complete an ABX, ABC/HR or what ever protocol.

And the notion that auditory memory fades after a few minutes is wrong, too. You do remember the vocal timbre of your mother's voice even after a week not having phoned her, don't you (even when talking AI-generated nonsense, these days)? Even though timbre differences in audio comparisons will be rather small (if any, of course) this does not mean you cannot reliably tell things apart once you've learned the characteristics.

 

[Purité Audio]

I find fast switching far more effective and I believe the ‘mothers voice’ is an entirely different mechanism to short term echoic memory.
But as you say there are no time limits as long as you remain unaware which you are listening to.
Keith

 

[Old_School_Brad]

This is absolutely not correct. Fast switching is neither required nor typically beneficial for blind testing, especially when combined with short snippets. The only thing that is required is following a proper blind test protocol, say for example ABX protocol. It is perfectly valid to listen to one setting for a week, make a break of a few days, then listen again and repeat that over the course of weeks or even months to complete an ABX, ABC/HR or what ever protocol.

And the notion that auditory memory fades after a few minutes is wrong, too. You do remember the vocal timbre of your mother's voice even after a week not having phoned her, don't you (even when talking AI-generated nonsense, these days)? Even though timbre differences in audio comparisons will be rather small (if any, of course) this does not mean you cannot reliably tell things apart once you've learned the characteristics.

I get where you're coming from, but also think there’s some nuances here. I believe it's long-term memory, not short-term, that helps me recognize my mother's voice.

Fast switching isn’t required for blind testing, but it’s generally the best way to catch subtle differences. The longer the gap, the more memory bias kicks in, which is why ABX tests usually involve quick comparisons rather than weeks-long listening.

Auditory memory works for familiar voices or general timbre, but recalling tiny sonic details over long periods is a different challenge. Research shows that short-term auditory memory fades fast -within seconds to minutes, so fast switching helps minimize guesswork and bias.

That said, longer listening tests can still work if done properly, but for detecting small differences, quick A/B switching is hard to beat. IME.

 

[JeremyFife]

This is absolutely not correct. Fast switching is neither required nor typically beneficial for blind testing, especially when combined with short snippets. The only thing that is required is following a proper blind test protocol, say for example ABX protocol. It is perfectly valid to listen to one setting for a week, make a break of a few days, then listen again and repeat that over the course of weeks or even months to complete an ABX, ABC/HR or what ever protocol.

And the notion that auditory memory fades after a few minutes is wrong, too. You do remember the vocal timbre of your mother's voice even after a week not having phoned her, don't you (even when talking AI-generated nonsense, these days)? Even though timbre differences in audio comparisons will be rather small (if any, of course) this does not mean you cannot reliably tell things apart once you've learned the characteristics.

Happy to learn, so I'll follow this and read up a bit more.

I'm pretty sure that short term and long term memory works differently. For comparison between items we call on short term memory, which is very short.

I do agree though, that the important parts are level matching and that comparison is double blind.
That and repeated tests, documented, so that a difference can be shown (or not).

 

[DanielT]

Yet my preamp with a 5534 a side has a wide and deep soundstage *if it's there in the recording* and I discovered my cobbled fifty year old Spendors can actually reproduce it slightly better than a rather more modern take on the speaker basic design. The sound can be sweet or acidic from track to track or album to album and after a direct vs. through-preamp comparison years ago when I felt my 'ears' were better, I'm damned if I could hear any difference if volume levels were as accurately matched as I could get them (scientifically matched, there'd be no difference at all I'm certain).

That Ayima puff linked to, actually puts me off their products - we're not in the tech-ignorant 80s and 90s now!

How convenient, there seems to be a correlation where the more positive or elaborate descriptors are used, the higher the price of the op-amp.

But who will take the delusional bullshit prize in a match between Aiyima or Danny? You can decide that yourself. Starting at 7:33 in the video, Danny describes the incredible improvement in sound that an op amp swap made:

 

[Jim Taylor]

This is absolutely not correct. Fast switching is neither required nor typically beneficial for blind testing, especially when combined with short snippets. The only thing that is required is following a proper blind test protocol, say for example ABX protocol. It is perfectly valid to listen to one setting for a week, make a break of a few days, then listen again and repeat that over the course of weeks or even months to complete an ABX, ABC/HR or what ever protocol.

The only reference I have is my own experience.

The rule for me is this: THE FINER THE DISCRIMINATION NECESSARY, THE MORE I BENEFIT FROM FAST SWITCHING AND SHORT SNIPPETS. This has been my experience in comparing speakers and, to a certain extent, electronics.
This is backed up by this extract from Wikipedia (I know ... not the most reliable authority, but usually serviceable):

"Since auditory tests and many other sensory tests rely on short-term memory, which only lasts a few seconds, it is critical that the test fixture allows the subject to identify short segments that can be compared quickly."

And let me repeat that this has been my own experience. I have never conducted tests for other people, but only been a subject. If you believe that your experience is different, it would be beneficial to undergo two separate double-blind tests, one with fast switching of short snippets, and one with slower switching of longer snippets. Not only that, but fatigue is an important factor in testing of any sort. You must discipline yourself to opt out if fatigue sets in.

 

[pkane]

You do remember the vocal timbre of your mother's voice even after a week not having phoned her, don't you

Hehe. I've heard only my mother's voice for months before I was born and a number of years after. I've learned to recognize it because my life and well-being depended on it. And this was during a period when my brain was forming and had the highest plasticity and capacity to learn. Somehow I don't recall any op-amps playing a similar role in my life

 

[Doodski]

But who will take the delusional bullshit prize in a match between Aiyima or Danny? You can decide that yourself. Starting at 7:33 in the video, Danny describes the incredible improvement in sound that an op amp swap made:

Best thing since sliced cheese for sure! LoL... It was just a matter of time that he sympathized with the OP amp rollers and get them on his side.

 

[Audionaut]

Somehow I don't recall any op-amps playing a similar role in my life

The appropriate test procedure would be: Listen to your mother's voice through different OP amps under otherwise identical conditions.

 

[maxliii]

JSmith

Thank you JSmith, here I am. Why hold a negative view on swapping op-amp is negative?

 

[JSmith]

Thank you JSmith

No problems.

Why hold a negative view on swapping op-amp is negative?

Have you read the thread yet?

Based on your last quoted post in the other thread... do you think it's appropriate for @Fosi Audio to claim different opamps are required based on genre of music based on zero data?

Nothing is to be gained from opamp rolling, it's an exercise in folly.... everything is to be gained with speakers, positioning, the room, measurements and PEQ.


JSmith

 

[DreaminquE]

OK, we don’t need to dance around this. We (The Moderator Team) hijacked your @DreaminquE thread. We did it in an attempt to make the issue more understandable and to include a broader rage of related issues. We work as a team here and your initial post was very helpful in organizing the crew to address this issue head on and to make a specific thread directly relevant to your questions/inquiries. Now it will be used as a collection thread for future inquiry posts. This is the new Master Thread for all things “Op Amp”. One stop shopping. Thank you @DreaminquE for your contribution and you should feel proud that your post rallied the crew to action.

I am happy. The topic I opened may be sacrificed for you.

 

[xray]

I am happy. The topic I opened may be sacrificed for you.

Think of it as being featured not sacrificed

 

[Cbdb2]

But who will take the delusional bullshit prize in a match between Aiyima or Danny? You can decide that yourself. Starting at 7:33 in the video, Danny describes the incredible improvement in sound that an op amp swap made:

Please dont watch this, it only encourages the moron

 

[hoovey]

Assuming cloned op amps have different specs than genuine ones, in the case that your amp or DAC uses non-genuine op amps, is there any merit to replacing them with genuine ones?

 

[Mnyb]

Assuming cloned op amps have different specs than genuine ones, in the case that your amp or DAC uses non-genuine op amps, is there any merit to replacing them with genuine ones?

That would be hard to tell without measuring equipment, they copies could work just fine or they could be worse . Who knows ?
Most copying is done to skirt licensing money and lowering other costs how bad is the copy ? And there is also licensed clones that should be as good as original ? Many older components has had several different manufacturers over the years without it being anything wrong .

If there is little money involved you could do it for piece of mind ?

But then again it probably takes some skill to weed what’s different batches from different manufacturers of the same OP amp and what’s a counterfeit component ?

You could end up with another set of counterfeit OP amps

it’s also a risk fiddlying with electronic repair when you don’t do it very often, I have not used a soldering iron in 20 years should I have a go ?

Long term avoid brands that put such components in thier products.

 

[antcollinet]

Assuming cloned op amps have different specs than genuine ones, in the case that your amp or DAC uses non-genuine op amps, is there any merit to replacing them with genuine ones?

Plus - how do you know your amp has cloned op amps?

I seriously doubt the brands who send devices for measurement here are doing it.