The diary entries of a little girl who is now 30! ~ Part 2 - Page 183

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalFreak 

Hey gang, after almost 2 years on here it finally happened. I just lost my freaking mind and made the jump. Ardgedee, I feel faint and woozy and need a strong drink. My God, I hope the impressions I send them work out and these new CIEM's work for me.

I think you're the third of the diary regulars to get an Heir 4.A. Welcome to the club, and cut back on your drinking so that you can start saving your pennies now for your second set of customs...

What some people have done (and which Heir has sometimes asked people to do) is take photos of the completed ear impressions and mail those to Heir for inspection and approval, before you go through the hassle of shipping them off. Which doesn't guarantee that what you ship them is going to be acceptable but it should cut back significantly on the potential for an expensive misfire.

I remember sending my impressions to Sensaphonics (Chicago) for customs and they came back with satisfactory remarks (C grade). I called them up to give a heads-up that these bad boys are coming back. Glad I did. That Popcorn call turned consultation resulted in a 15 minute Q&A session. 

I received them with a 10 day turn around and a perfect fit (A grade) on their second attempt.

I was feeling a little bored and decided to post some early impressions concerning the Leckerton UHA 6 MK II and op amp rolling. I dunno some on this thread might find it an interesting quick read.

Originally Posted by DigitalFreak 

I was feeling a little bored and decided to post some early impressions concerning the Leckerton UHA 6 MK II and op amp rolling. I dunno some on this thread might find it an interesting quick read.

They wrote a half-decent article here - http://www.leckertonaudio.com/2012/11/choosing-output-op-amps/

It's true that battery life is a concern with op-amps in portable amplifiers, it's just you don't notice it until you've decided on your 'perfect' sound and then your music dies in 3 hours and then you're like...

"The goal is to have a “transparent” amplifier which faithfully reproduces the input signal without adding anything of its own."

For some reason they put transparent in quotation marks.  Well, the OPA1612 sounds more transparent than the OPA627, that I'm pretty certain of, doesn't mean I'm going to use it.

Having transparency as the ultimate goal in amplifiers, let alone transducers, is only an intuitive fallacy, people mock 'coloured' sound without realising it's more revealing, transparency != revealing.  Let alone, it's more artistic, and music is art, we're not CC couplers in a studio, and even in that instance, studios have veered to use 'coloured' monitors at times, like the Yamaha NS10 with +7dB at 1.7kHz.

"So what would happen if we ignored the measurements and put together a blind listening test which allowed us to switch instantaneously between all the different op-amps which made the list? You’d find something maybe a bit unexpected: the differences are not that great. In fact, you might have trouble hearing ANY differences"

Yes, I can answer that with one word... why?

People talk about op-amps more deeply and descriptively than cables, capacitors and power supplies, the latter three are more colourful, aesthetic, subject to marketing, and cost a hell of a lot more.  So why do small black chips under $10 take the cake for all the illusion and snake-oil!?, and then you can't hear **** in a blind test ABX, uh-huh...

Cables have never passed 'any' blind-test, from everything I've read on head-fi, and yet very often, from what I can tell, they use 'tricks' in them which make them sound so different, they even should measure different, in FR that is.

So what this all comes down to is the popular blind tests, or the testees, and audio science in general just sucks.

Glad you liked my short musings on op amp rolling. I never expected to get such an involved and thought provoking response from you on it. Welcome back to the thread and please stay awhile this time. Your presence is a breath of added fresh air.

Originally Posted by Coq de Combat 

 

This is where I sit:

 

That was cool, I should share a pic of my office!

Originally Posted by ardgedee 

Originally Posted by DigitalFreak 

Supposedly the new db utilizes a AKM chip instead of the original Wolfson chip the first CLAS used. I wonder why Cypher Labs dropped Wolfson for AKM?

 

I don't get the Wolfson cargo cult, to be honest. Yes, the digital-to-analog chip itself is important, but it's not the only most-important thing.

Originally Posted by 333jeffery 

I've used DAC's with Wolfson chips(Arcam FMJ) and AKM chips(Gungnir/Bifrost). It's the implementation that counts, not the chip itself. In fact, the Bifrost sounded exactly like the Arcam when I first got it, even though the chips were very different. As far as I know, the Bifrost and Gungnir use the same AKM chips, yet they are worlds apart in sound. Folks shouldn't fixate on a specific chip.

People are using the word "implementation" a lot due a certain blog without knowing quite what they're indicating, it's more accurate to say it's the total design which counts first, and the components used second.

If you put an Intel i7 chip in a computer which can't take advantage of it compared to an Intel i3, then of course the chip doesn't count, in that specific design.  That doesn't somehow imply the chips never count, that's only a fallacy from the whims of audionihilism, correlation != causation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magick Man 


After numerous DBTs my audio club concluded that swapping cables and opamps, if they're all within spec, made no audible difference at all. There was a lot of disappointment and disbelief, but the results were there, staring us in the face.

I dunno, I definitely think the 8610 is warmer then the 209 and the 627 was smoother and more melodic sounding. Of coarse I wasn't blind folded at the time so maybe I was just hearing what I wanted to hear. Still, I'm usually cynical about these sort of things.

Originally Posted by DigitalFreak 

Glad you liked my short musings on op amp rolling. I never expected to get such an involved and thought provoking response from you on it. Welcome back to the thread and please stay awhile this time. Your presence is a breath of added fresh air.

Let's see how it goes, I'm pretty busy outside of h-f these days since my lifestyle has changed a lot, I feel quite anxious when spending too much time online or listening to music. =/

By the way, while we're on the topic of DAC's, you wrote Cypher Labs have changed to AKM, and it seems like the Leckerton has changed to the Cirrus Logic CS4398 is that right?

It's nice I think that Leckerton are using components which they think sound better, even though they can't quite evidence why, at all.  It looks like iBasso concedes to this concept as well, and even National Instruments (now TI), well at least one of the audio EE's which were there.

I asked NwAv about that once and all he replied was "well, you read all kinds of stuff on diyaudio and head-fi".  In other words he was saying "prove it, or who gives a flying..."

Leckerton has the same $10,000 dScope equipment at hand as NwAv.  So there are two EE's which disagree with NwAv right there - using more advanced, and the same equipment, respectively.

Just a side note, in the original diary thread of 9/2011 to 1/2012, I used to rave about the Teclast T51, which uses the Wolfson WM8740.  Since then, I've also changed my preference to AKM and Cirrus.

I've tried the ESS ES9023 (before the ODAC existed, impartial) and some non-oversampling designs too, they didn't quite cut it for me.  I don't have the necessary experience to say AKM and Cirrus are better than Wolfson or anything, I'm just saying.

Originally Posted by Magick Man 

Originally Posted by kiteki 

People talk about op-amps more deeply and descriptively than cables, capacitors and power supplies, the latter three are more colourful, aesthetic, subject to marketing, and cost a hell of a lot more.  So why do small black chips under $10 take the cake for all the illusion and snake-oil!?, and then you can't hear **** in a blind test ABX, uh-huh...

Cables have never passed 'any' blind-test, from everything I've read on head-fi, and yet very often, from what I can tell, they use 'tricks' in them which make them sound so different, they even should measure different, in FR that is.

So what this all comes down to is the popular blind tests, or the testees, and audio science in general just sucks.

After numerous DBTs my audio club concluded that swapping cables and opamps, if they're all within spec, made no audible difference at all. There was a lot of disappointment and disbelief, but the results were there, staring us in the face.

It sounds like you placed too much faith in the blind testing itself.  How do you know your blind test didn't reveal the differences, which really are there and audible at other times?

Have a look at my link, no one is going to convince me all cables sound the same, when a lot of them measure different.

Likewise no one will convince me all op-amps sound the same, according to what data?  To which tests?  Why is an EE at National saying they sound different, why is Leckerton saying they sound different?

Everyone has really high expectations in blind tests, without realising they can induce illusions of their own, or they just lack the sophistication to reveal the differences.

If you want to defend the null hypothesis (a.k.a. prove it or I'm not listening) then that's a way of living life, but it's quite limited and not real life so you'll miss out on a hell of a lot which isn't proven,... yet. 

Let's take jitter as an example, it used to be snake-oil, nonsense, unproven, right?  "digital is digital, it's all 1's and 0's, they send and arrive", now our understanding of jitter is more sophisticated, so all of a sudden it's not snake-oil?  That doesn't make any sense, at all, since the jitter never changed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

It's true that battery life is a concern with op-amps in portable amplifiers, it's just you don't notice it until you've decided on your 'perfect' sound and then your music dies in 3 hours and then you're like...

More to the point: It is a consideration that the amp designer has to always be mindful of and be willing to compromise better sound for. The user can elect to override that compromise based on their own preferences and needs.

For example, for the first year that I used my UHA-6S, I only ever listened to it while it was plugged into the USB output of a computer. Battery performance wasn't even relevant, so I could have dropped one of any number of power-hungry op-amps into it without noticing its effect on anything besides sound.

Currently I have to run it off its own battery, so these compromises are relevant again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

Cables have never passed 'any' blind-test, from everything I've read on head-fi, and yet very often, from what I can tell, they use 'tricks' in them which make them sound so different, they even should measure different, in FR that is.

 

So what this all comes down to is the popular blind tests, or the testees, and audio science in general just sucks.

One of my favorite quotes in audio, and I've cited it before, is: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magick Man 

Less than half of us in the DBT could tell the difference between a $150 Pioneer receiver and a $20000 Levinson preamp/amp combo (Wilson MAXX speakers). It was a watershed moment for me.

That sounds more like a demonstration of the law of diminishing returns than a validation of any school of skepticism regarding amplifiers or cables.

I don't feel an alliance or have much faith in either the objective or subjective ideological camps; they both seem to me, in their own ways, to be willing to sacrifice most-probable causes in order to stay true to their ideals. And, principally, if I have to expose myself more to heated arguments that escalate the stakes purely through the the entrenchment on either side, I want to get paid overtime for it.

Originally Posted by ardgedee 

 

More to the point: It is a consideration that the amp designer has to always be mindful of and be willing to compromise better sound for. The user can elect to override that compromise based on their own preferences and needs. /

Yup, It all depends if you want to take something powerful to a Hi-Fi store in your pocket for quick auditioning, or if you want 60 hours of battery life next month after the nukes have hit, hint hint.

Originally Posted by ardgedee 

 

One of my favorite quotes in audio, and I've cited it before, is: "If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."

Yeah, but people don't think that applies any longer today, since we think we've achieved some kind of ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxKYfTvZFb8#t=1m06s

Using $10,000 dScopes and calling yourself an EE is too gauntly to reconcile, so... that's why I highlighted that Leckerton holds the same 'titles' and thinks op-amps sound different, for reasons he can't, you know... see.

The other person was supposed to make a non-profit, snake-oil saving salvation - it costs more than the UHA-6S MKII, what's up, hip-hop!

Originally Posted by ardgedee 

 

That sounds more like a demonstration of the law of diminishing returns than a validation of any school of skepticism regarding amplifiers or cables.

 

I don't feel an alliance or have much faith in either the objective or subjective ideological camps; they both seem to me, in their own ways, to be willing to sacrifice most-probable causes in order to stay true to their ideals. /

I think user Lee Perry put it quite well...

Originally Posted by leeperry

Originally Posted by donunus I'm not gonna join in the argument of what computer audio needs but I know one things for sure... The OS matters in the way the music sounds

it's completely pointless anyway...see the 6 pages of threadcrap in this topic.

there's 2 sides:

-those that think that bit-perfect is exactly that..and that the OS/player/type of renderer does not matter, and that ppl who hear differences should stop smoking thai stick.

-those who hear differences between players/renderers/OS and think that non-believers have wooden ears and/or crappy gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magick Man 


Less than half of us in the DBT could tell the difference between a $150 Pioneer receiver and a $20000 Levinson preamp/amp combo (Wilson MAXX speakers). It was a watershed moment for me.
I'm not saying there's no difference in opamps, or even cables for that matter, just that in the tests I've been involved with, no audible differences could be found.

I think it's safe to say once you hit a certain level of performance the differences become negligible at best.

I'd like to respond to some of the AKM Cirrus Wolfson debating going on the thread for the last day or so. I think it's safe to say I started it all when I posted some early impressions from a user concerning the new CLAS db. Truthfully I really don't care what chip is installed into my gear as long as it sounds good I'm happy. The only reason I posted the original impressions of another user from the new CLAS thread was because I was surprised the user had found the sound of the DAC had so noticeably changed from the original CLAS. If the original posters findings hold true then there's been a notable change in implementation of the db and a notable change of the general sound. I was rather curious as to why Cypher Labs would do any drastic changes to the sound of their CLAS considering it was so well received and also curious why they would change from Wolfson to AKM.

Next up kiteki's Cirrus Logic question on the UHA 6S MKII. Nick Leckerton, the guy who designed the amps and created Leckerton Audio, from what I know is an engineer who works for Cirrus designing and implementing Cirrus Logic solutions for various applications. Also from what I know the Cirrus Logic DAC used in the MK II is supposed to be one of their top of the line solutions. That's fine, I find the MK II DAC a step up from both my iPod and laptop sound but it pales when compared to the DAC on my Studio V. Others have said it on the appreciation thread and I'll say it here. It seems as if 90% of design of the MK II went into the amp section and the DAC was only an after thought which is a shame considering I think the MK II is a very nice amp. As an amp I think the UHA 6S MK II easily matched my ALO RX MK II in performance and it accomplished that feat at a far cheaper price to boot.

I would also like to add I find it rather interesting and short sighted that certain people seem to go sour on gear based on what chip is used to the point they will call it down and spread misinformation all for the sake of defending their beloved Wolfson or whatever chip maker of choice. The more I hang in this forum and other type's of forums the more I'm starting to realize people really need to start walking away from certain patterns of thinking and realize a stupid inanimate object doesn't deserve to be defended like it was your first born

Just my 2 cents