Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own? - Page 4

post #46 of 103


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megaohmz View Post

Yea there is a bunch of overpriced bulloney out there, but just because a company will overprice a wire or a tube amp doesn't mean that they are selling snake oil. There are genuine differences in using different transistors even. All transistors are rated differently and will sound completely different, just like tubes. Some transistors impart more noise than others. Even resistors sound different. A metal film resistor will sound completely different than a carbon for instance.  

 

This audio critic seems to be implying that a cheap amp made exclusively with carbon resistors, cheap capacitors, cheap transistors, etc. will sound the same as a great tube amp made with elna silmic caps and vintage carbon resistors, like the ones used in old Marantz amps. I think he went overboard a bit, and I wouldn't take that article too seriously.     

 

To quote the audio critic "Yes,you only have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, insulation, etc.," I do believe that though he exaggerates a little with the clothes hanger part, you are blatantly misinterpreting him and missing the point made in the article.
 

He did say that spending a little above rock bottom for say, metal film resistors will make a difference but not spending HUGE mollah on parts which provide no audible benefit. Anyways, I'm doing a diy project and the most expensive metal film low noise resistors in the project cost only $0.15!(not like i can pass a judgement but you get the point). Fact is that in modern times and not the old days, there are much better alternatives for parts with great price to performance ratio. Anyways I do think a 15c metal film resistor is gonna outperform vintage carbon ones and so is a cheap opamp based amp outperforming tube amps costing say 5 to 10 times of the opamp based one if built properly. After all, the deciding factor in audio AND electrical performance is not the parts itself but how well integrated the circuit is. If your remain unconvinced, I again beseech you take that course in electrical engineering to find out or build an O2. 

 

Anyways I will stop posting here since we do not want to derail this thread(oops) if you want to convince me, we can always look over your(future) AB/X results in other threads. 

post #47 of 103

Well, we're going to find out how right the Audio Critic was when the 1000 O2 boards that were ordered are built into amps.

 

I've said this before but it bears saying again. 

 

I will be extremely ticked off if I can't tell the difference between my GS-1 and the O2.

 

And, if that turns out to be the case, the Audio Critic will have been right and I will completely ignore subjective reviews and go back to buying by specifications (if they have been verified) and features.

 


Edited by upstateguy - 10/16/11 at 1:22pm
post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by upstateguy View Post

I will be extremely ticked off if I can't tell the difference between my GS-1 and the O2.


Will you be doing a blind test between the two? That would make for a nice feature in a review.

post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Will you be doing a blind test between the two? That would make for a nice feature in a review.



I'm going to start off just listening and comparing.  If I can't tell the difference, I'm done right there.  If I hear differences, I will make some Audio DiffMaker recordings to see what's really there.

post #50 of 103

so, can you hear the difference?

post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by customcoco View Post

so, can you hear the difference?



I don't have the O2 amp yet.  It's being built.  I expect to have it in a few weeks.

post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by firev1 View Post

 

To quote the audio critic "Yes,you only have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, insulation, etc.," I do believe that though he exaggerates a little with the clothes hanger part, you are blatantly misinterpreting him and missing the point made in the article. 

He did say that spending a little above rock bottom for say, metal film resistors will make a difference but not spending HUGE mollah on parts which provide no audible benefit. Anyways, I'm doing a diy project and the most expensive metal film low noise resistors in the project cost only $0.15!(not like i can pass a judgement but you get the point). Fact is that in modern times and not the old days, there are much better alternatives for parts with great price to performance ratio. Anyways I do think a 15c metal film resistor is gonna outperform vintage carbon ones and so is a cheap opamp based amp outperforming tube amps costing say 5 to 10 times of the opamp based one if built properly. After all, the deciding factor in audio AND electrical performance is not the parts itself but how well integrated the circuit is. If your remain unconvinced, I again beseech you take that course in electrical engineering to find out or build an O2. 

 

Anyways I will stop posting here since we do not want to derail this thread(oops) if you want to convince me, we can always look over your(future) AB/X results in other threads. 

I actually do have a degree in electronics engineering, but what I meant about the vintage carbons is that they have a unique sound that people like. My Marantz 2270 sounds amazing for being built in 1950's. I've built a few radios, robots and amps in my time. I even built a cool headphone bass guitar amp that sounded pretty awesome from plain old radio shack parts. I am working on a headphone tube amp right now, but I am still researching the right parts for it, and make it run on a wall wart instead of batteries. But right now I am concentrating on getting my second degree in welding, so I don't have loads of time to engineer more amps. I usually just remaster my music with adobe audition cs5.5 and listen to the am radio anymore.

 

 

post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Br777 View Post
TO CONVINCE EVERYONE, PLEASE GO SOMEWHERE ELSEgiven that assumption, lets make some amp and dac recommendations.and yes that means tubes are right out...also, if you have built your system around their information id love to hear what you have.
 
Again im not looking for convincing arguments one side or the other, i just want to know whats recommended ASSUMING the audio critic is totally correct


1: check

2: check

3: check

4: check

5: check (I think - I can't imagine Yamaha wouldn't do this for a $400-400 stereo receiver)

6: check (Though it has been largely unchanged for a year)

7: check

8: check (though it uses the same UPS my computer does - more a feature of living in a college town with bad power)

9: check

10: very much a check

 

 

System:

Mac pro, USB out to 0404 USB, unbalanced outs to Yamaha RX-797, driving a pair of Boston Acoustics VR-M60 bookshelves stand-mounted on my desk and coax to a Klipsch KSW 12, placed to minimize room peaks as much as possible. Headphones are a pair of AKG k240mkii's run out of the RX-797's onboard out either directly or through a pay-DIY mogami starquad extension cable if I feel like lying on the floor. There are a pair of Beyer DT250-250's hung next to the k240, mostly for practicing bass but occasionally I'll listen through the Beyers when I want a change. The 0404 has an optical in from my laptop and the analog ins are currently connected to an iphone 4/4s dock. I dual boot my desktop machine and like the flexibility of the 0404 as a mixer. When it finally goes I'll have to replace it with something similar, probably something from presonus.

 

There are some other speakers about in the condo attached to airport expresses and apple tvs and whatnot, but most of my active listening is in this chair (or on the floor).

 

None of the components are popular either in the mainstream or audiophile worlds. That's okay.


Edited by ph0rk - 10/22/11 at 6:56am
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megaohmz View Post



I actually do have a degree in electronics engineering, but what I meant about the vintage carbons is that they have a unique sound that people like. My Marantz 2270 sounds amazing for being built in 1950's. I've built a few radios, robots and amps in my time. I even built a cool headphone bass guitar amp that sounded pretty awesome from plain old radio shack parts. I am working on a headphone tube amp right now, but I am still researching the right parts for it, and make it run on a wall wart instead of batteries. But right now I am concentrating on getting my second degree in welding, so I don't have loads of time to engineer more amps. I usually just remaster my music with adobe audition cs5.5 and listen to the am radio anymore.

 

 


There's nothing special about vintage carbon resistors.

They have their unique sound because they drift with heat and use and eventually permanently change value.

Guitarists love them because that adds to the distortion.

Which isn't something I want in audio gear. I remove all the old carbon comp resistors from my projects. Having pulled probably over 1,000 of them, I can't remember one that was still in spec.
post #55 of 103
Schiit Audio headphone amps, any of them. The Audio Critic is not totally against tubes, just ones with crazy prices. I think he specifically says if you have a cheap tube amp, just use that. So I think Schiit is a good example. Another is SPL Phonitor, because it truly does change the sound of the signal compared to other amps. Another would be the Smyth Realiser. Remember, Peter is not against spending money, just not wasting it :) Next, any headphones that both measures and sounds great. Examples would be beyerdynamic dt1350, Denon d20000, Shure 535 iem, Stax 009, audeze, hifiman, sennheiser he60, etc. Lastly, I'm pretty sure Mr. Aczel would be against most aftermarket headphone cords, like the $400 - $700 cords offered by ALO, Stefan Audio, and CablePro. I'd like to give some special appreciation to Tyll at InnerFideliy, I think he is doing some great stuff and at least somewhat in the vein of The Audio Critic.
post #56 of 103

I really agree with this and try to base all my purchases on fuctionality, so far i've been just purchasing headphones and running them through amp's i already have, integrated receivers, i might buy a tube amp just for the color but im probably going to DIY it to keep any extra cost of gimmick out.  I also will get a DAC beyond my perfectly okay motherboard output, and phone output but because it also comes with a MIDI interface and an ADC.

Anyways just wanted to follow this thread so im posting something.

post #57 of 103

I have to agree with Uncle Erik--no,The Audio Critic is not completely right;as an lifelong disciple of the old-school,fix-it-yourself,make-it-yourself milieu,I,too,refuse to burn serious  money on CD players and other disposables.Sticking(mostly) to the electro-thermionic-mechanical route for the same reasons UE mentioned, I prefer old choppers and  rat rods,applying their philosophy to audio.While most of the stuff in The Audio Critic makes perfect sense(especially when it came to obvious snake oil),so much of it appears to be intolerant of diverging views and/or experiences.Perhaps I'm missing something;if so,please feel free to call me on it.

 

 

post #58 of 103



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megaohmz View Post

I have to aggree with some (verry little) of the stuff the audio critic says. But that is the best way to lie, just mix some truth in! If he mentions the Nyquist-Shannon theorem again, I might throw up in my mouth! He just seems to me to be a person who likes music, but wants to pull everyone down to his level. His whole "tubes don't sound better than transistors" thing is completely ridiculous on its face. I guess some people can't really discern the difference of one thing or the other. But to say people who have "golden ears" are not being truthful is like saying "all people are born with the exact same brain". You listen with your mind, not your ears. The ears are just a device to transmit the signals to the brain, so that you can interperet them. This guy is just having a fit or an outburst of some sort. Pretty weird. I guess we can all just go and buy some Bose headphones and paint Sennheiser on them and kid ourselves. After reading this I wanted to replace all my copper wire with some iron wires (coat hangers)? Geeze! This guy need some physics and metalurgy classes.

 

I guess the 10 biggest lies are really the 10 biggest lies! He is a tricky sort.


First, what an odd premise for a thread. 

Second, I am thankful to re-visit that article, it is wonderful reading.

Third, The last time I read that article, he was batting about 50% with respect to actual science.  Unfortunately, in the intervening years, I have learned a tad more, and now that article is batting about 10%, mainly because there are a few accurate statements within, but none of the 10 are correct.

 

Sigh..

 

ps.  I didn't elaborate on any of the 10 items in this post, the OP didn't wish it.  If he changes his mind, then ok.

pps..megaohmz, you're spot on

 

Cheers, jn
 

 


Edited by jnjn - 12/28/11 at 6:34am
post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjn View Post

ps.  I didn't elaborate on any of the 10 items in this post, the OP didn't wish it.  If he changes his mind, then ok.

pps..megaohmz, you're spot on


You just called Megaohmz right. Now you have to elaborate.

post #60 of 103



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post


You just called Megaohmz right. Now you have to elaborate.


He said:  ""He is a tricky sort.""

 

I agreed.

 

 

Honestly, Peter wrote what he understood to be correct at the time.  It's just not accurate.  I'll say a little here, full elaboration is beyond a simple post.

 

1.  He assumes all the signal return current flows in the IC shield, that is not correct.  It goes back to source along the lowest impedance path, which includes ALL paths including line cords.

2.  Vacuum tubes push very low currents at the output stages in general, so produce less chassis-internal magnetic fields.  Solid state suffers from this, especially class B circuits where the coupling will be signal current polarity dependent..

3.  Anti-digital:  when he wrote this, did any dacs have a math package to remove the inter-sampling time errors?  Image generation requires interchannel timing accuracy much better than 20uS.  Nyquist requires an infinite length sequence for reconstruction.

4.  ABX is flawed whenever a switchbox is used.  Changes in the system caused by even putting the box in renders comparisons meaningless.  This is from EMC concerns.

5.  High feedback implies an area in the input circuitry which has full circuit gain, this area is susceptible to chassis currents and fields.  Also, star grounding is NOT a low impedance design concept, but a high impedance one better suited to vacuum tubes but used in solid state recklessly.

6.  Partially correct.  Obviously he's never formed or re-formed an electrolytic. It doesn't "form" immediately upon power on, it will charge.  Forming is an entirely different phenomena.

7.  Biwiring..he doesn't understand physics, so should not be invoking it.  I cannot detail the issue in a single line, nor even a single post, and it is beyond the scope of any forum. The best of the best out there get this wrong.

8.  Power conditioners force the user to use a common ground point that doesn't reach the service panel.  That can drastically reduce the ground loop area for trapping magnetic flux.

9.  CD treatments, another partial.  Green pens are silly of course.  Scratches on a CD can be remedied if the solution used has the same dielectric coefficient as the polycarb, it eliminates specular reflections caused by the scratches.

10. The golden ear...People can be trained to hear things..lateralization for example, subjects can be trained to detect 2 uSec interchannel delays.  I personally can train myself to hear subtle piano runs in the music I listen to, or bass lines, etc..to assume that some can hear better is folly.  To assume that audio tests which do not provide half the stimulus humans are sentisitive to but have to computate around is folly.

 

Sorry for the little blurb lines, but I tried to be brief as the OP wanted none of this..

 

Cheers, jn

 

 


 

 


Edited by jnjn - 12/28/11 at 8:23am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What if the audio critic is completely right? What would you own?