[bln]

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_Dedalus What matters is the sound, so don't comment on the topology of the amp and how it is similar to another amp's, because in the end most amps that use opamps and buffers are going to share relatively similar designs.

This might take us off-topic, but imagine if you said this in any one of the recent Singlepower threads. You'd be deemed a fanboy for asking everyone to focus on the sound.
Edit: actually, that goes for a good number of the posts in this thread, now that I reread it. But I guess that makes this a "conspiracy theory," so bye-bye post.

 

[S_Dedalus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bln This might take us off-topic, but imagine if you said this in any one of the recent Singlepower threads. You'd be deemed a fanboy for asking everyone to focus on the sound. Edit: actually, that goes for a good number of the posts in this thread, now that I reread it. But I guess that makes this a "conspiracy theory," so bye-bye post.

This is a pointless post, I'm not a Ray Samuels fanboy, I don't own any of his amps. I'm talking about the fact that any amp that uses an opamp to amplify the signal, and a buffer to drive the headphones, is going to have a similar design. There are many other issues involved, such as how the ground signal is dealt with, parts, matching of parts, power supply, and the goals of the builder for how the amp should sound.
The singlepower issues is not one of topology, it is one of build quality, and I'm not going to talk about it.

 

[gsferrari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bln This might take us off-topic, but imagine if you said this in any one of the recent Singlepower threads. You'd be deemed a fanboy for asking everyone to focus on the sound. Edit: actually, that goes for a good number of the posts in this thread, now that I reread it. But I guess that makes this a "conspiracy theory," so bye-bye post.

When jude says "Stay on topic" everyone decides to go off topic

I dont see why you felt the need to make that post bln ?

I just did an AB between the Gilmore V2-SE and the Emmeline SR-71. The SR-71 is smoother on the treble but doesnt lose out in detail. Easier to listen to by the way...the V2-SE is aggressive but certainly NOT as aggressive as, for example, the V2 or the MINT, CHA-47...

 

[GainHead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_Dedalus Ray Samuels has already explained that the topology of the SR-71 is a very simple opamp gain stage, buffer ouput stage amplifier, this is used in almost every headphone amp I've seen, and has very little to do with the overall sound or quality of a headphone amp.

Well, if this is so, then the SR-71 is simply a well executed buffered CMOY. I have never commented on the sound of the SR-71 because I have never heard one and I am sure that it sounds very good. That is not the point. What I was making known here, in response to the comment that "no one knows what opamps are in the SR-71," was that Prue over at HeadWize had figured out what the opamp and buffer were in the SR-71 and Prue's findings mesh with my own observations.

What if, in fact, Prue and me are correct? Can this reportedly superior sound quality of a buffered CMOY design really exceed that of a PIMETA or a PPA or some other amps, as has been claimed/observed, simply because of some good design? Or is it just placebo effect from the RS logo and good build quality? Is it the result of parroting fanboy praise? Or is it possibly some of each?

There are quite a few SR-71 owners here who deserve to know the answer to this question.

 

[S_Dedalus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsferrari When jude says "Stay on topic" everyone decides to go off topic I dont see why you felt the need to make that post bln ? I just did an AB between the Gilmore V2-SE and the Emmeline SR-71. The SR-71 is smoother on the treble but doesnt lose out in detail. Easier to listen to by the way...the V2-SE is aggressive but certainly NOT as aggressive as, for example, the V2 or the MINT, CHA-47...

When I got to listen to the SR-71, my impression was that it was very smooth sounding, but not smoothed over, like my mint is, but my mint also has coupling caps, so I'm not sure what one without the caps would sound like.

 

[S_Dedalus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GainHead Well, if this is so, then the SR-71 is simply a well executed buffered CMOY. I have never commented on the sound of the SR-71 because I have never heard one and I am sure that it sounds very good. That is not the point. What I was making known here, in response to the comment that "no one knows what opamps are in the SR-71," was that Prue over at HeadWize had figured out what the opamp and buffer were in the SR-71 and Prue's findings mesh with my own observations. What if, in fact, Prue and me are correct? Can this reportedly superior sound quality of a buffered CMOY design really exceed that of a PIMETA or a PPA or some other amps, as has been claimed/observed, simply because of some good design? Or is it just placebo effect from the RS logo and good build quality? Is it the result of parroting fanboy praise? Or is it possibly some of each? There are quite a few SR-71 owners here who deserve to know the answer to this question.

Read what I wrote instead of taking in only parts of it. I said that an SR-71, like a Pimeta and a PPA since they all have an opamp for gain, and a buffer for driving headphones, all have generally similar designs, but when you look at the whole picture, are very different amps.

 

[mikeg]

I just spotted this thread for the first time, and that's after spending too much time on the "SinglePower threads." I'm amazed by this ongoing movement of trashing wonderful fabricators of outstanding amps. I've heard several of Ray's amps, and to my ear, they have wonderful sound. In reading the posts on this "Ray thread", and the ones on the "Mikhail threads", it seems that some of the people who were most negative regarding circuitry-related aspects of Mikhail's amps. (e.g., chumley and gsferrari), are the greatest defenders of Ray's amps. It also seems that, while Mikhail was criticized for the appearance of his circuitry (but not for the sound of his amps), Ray is criticized for the sound of his amps (but not for the appearance his circuitry). I wish that we'd all cut the fabricators of these wonderful devices a bit more slack, and stop condemning them.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bln This might take us off-topic, but imagine if you said this in any one of the recent Singlepower threads. You'd be deemed a fanboy for asking everyone to focus on the sound....

This is what irks me. I am taking no sides in this matter, because, frankly, I have no idea why there are even sides in this matter in the first place.

But I will say this: How can you compare this thread with the others you're trying to compare it to? Where the issue of Singlepower is concerned, I considered the discussion of its circuit design hardly the main point (at least in terms of whether or not it was a copy -- I do consider manufacturer claims of the class of operation a rather valid point), and, as I said in at least one of my posts during the heat of it all, nobody had produced any proof one way or the other that Singlepower's circuit design was a copy of anyone else's. What was the main point, in my opinion, was that the photos that lextek and TrevorNetwork posted did raise what I think are very valid concerns -- concerns that, in my opinion, were definitely worth examining (I'd never seen photos of the insides until then either), and that just focusing on the sound didn't make any less valid.

This off-topic part of this discussion -- pushed along by someone who seems to come to Head-Fi only to fight this point, and who is a local acquaintance of another manufacturer (as acknowledged to me by that manufacturer) -- is not tantamount to the photo discussions of the last couple of weeks, but is similiar to the discussion of whether or not the circuit design is derivative, or a direct copy, of someone else's design (again, with no proof).

Read the thread topic. Stay on topic. If you guys continue to make this, once again, about this idiotic war of fans, then I will simply lock the thread and/or delete off-topic posts.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GainHead Well, if this is so, then the SR-71 is simply a well executed buffered CMOY.

Every op-amp based amplifier could be called that: just a well executed buffered CMOY.

Quote:

Can this reportedly superior sound quality of a buffered CMOY design really exceed that of a PIMETA or a PPA or some other amps, as has been claimed/observed, simply because of some good design?

The PIMETA is just another well executed buffered CMOY, as is the PPA. In the case of the PIMETA, the layout is improved by a third channel, but the trade off is less real estate for the power supply. The SR-71 makes the opposite design choice, devoting the equivalent space to a better bypassed power supply. Hence the difference in sound. Other differences in sound come from how deeply the op-amps in each design are biased into class A, the specifics of the Jung multiloop topology, and the grounding schemes.

 

[jude]

GainHead, I've already PM'd you, and you clearly know why. You won't be participating in this discussion any further, because, frankly, whereas I feel I can only assume about most others' agendas, yours seems pretty obvious to me. Now, damnit, everyone, keep this thread on-topic.

Forget it. This thread is closed.