[upstateguy]

Quote:

I would also, based on the design it is based on, assume it would sound just like the M^3. However, as you reported a clearly audible difference and said you had taken volume matching ect into account, I looked at other options. 
 
Regrettably, highly-regarded does not equate to actually good. I mean, the Hifiman DAPS measure considerably worse than an ipod (and this from the Stereophile resident audio engineer, hardly someone to bash audiophile equipment). Not saying there is anything wrong with the GS-1, but can't rule it out. The differences you say you are hearing (which we are assuming are nothing to do with cognitive bias ect so that we might have a meaningful discussion) seem relatively large - thus I would conclude that they would be represented in the measurements. Unfortunately, speculating as to exactly what in the measurements it could be, as we don't have any measurements of it, is not hugely productive.
 
An amp can still sound perfectly clean/clear ect and be doing weird and wonderful things to the signal. The thing is, doing something to the sound often sounds subjectively better - but rather than acknowledge that many people seem obsessed instead with proving that the modified sound is in fact more accurate which clearly proves science is stupid.(thankfully, you don't seem to number amongst them)

What does an M^3 sound like?  The 823 sounds like it has a thumpier bass and a brighter treble than the 637/627s....and the 8065 sounds brighter as well.
 

 

[Willakan]

Well, assuming the measurements on the AMB website were not in fact made up, it sounds exactly like whatever you feed it, but louder. I don't believe in opamp sound signatures (not the same as "all opamps sound the same always") as you can see from the...interesting...discussions in the opamp thread on this board.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Well, assuming the measurements on the AMB website were not in fact made up, it sounds exactly like whatever you feed it, but louder. I don't believe in opamp sound signatures (not the same as "all opamps sound the same always") as you can see from the...interesting...discussions in the opamp thread on this board.

How do you figure that???

 

[Willakan]

It is possible for an opamp to be bad enough to affect the signal audibly - very easily possible. Modern, low-distortion IC opamps generally are not. This is assuming you are driving the headphone directly with the opamp - if you have a MOSFET buffer or something the opamp becomes even less significant. Saying that an OPA627 "rolls off the treble" makes no sense at all - you seriously think Texas Instruments would have one of  their most expensive, clearly-aimed-at-audio opamps have an uneven frequency response when implemented properly in an audio circuit? The engineer that designed it would probably be very upset at the mere suggestion.
 
Opamp "sounds", due to the time taken to swap an opamp (considering stupidly short memory for audio) are stupidly bias prone. Additionally, the tendency for people to "roll" opamps because they have vaguely the same voltage requirements could lead to all sorts of problems which could manifest themselves audibly. You know audiophiles, give them a crapload of distortion and a wonky frequency response and half of them declare it's a revolution in sound production.
 
Of course, any opamp can sound "different" if you don't give it enough voltage, don't take account of it's input impedance, do various other things a competent designer shouldn't do...
 
(Amusing fact: the Benchmark use NE5532 opamps, which various people will tell you they can hear in its signal (not audiophile-approved IC opamps so obviously "corrupt" the sound). That is the equivalent of me saying I can read size 5 font written on my doormat from space...okay, not quite, but you get the idea.
 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

It is possible for an opamp to be bad enough to affect the signal audibly - very easily possible. Modern, low-distortion IC opamps generally are not. This is assuming you are driving the headphone directly with the opamp - if you have a MOSFET buffer or something the opamp becomes even less significant. Saying that an OPA627 "rolls off the treble" makes no sense at all - you seriously think Texas Instruments would have one of  their most expensive, clearly-aimed-at-audio opamps have an uneven frequency response when implemented properly in an audio circuit? The engineer that designed it would probably be very upset at the mere suggestion.
 
Opamp "sounds", due to the time taken to swap an opamp (considering stupidly short memory for audio) are stupidly bias prone. Additionally, the tendency for people to "roll" opamps because they have vaguely the same voltage requirements could lead to all sorts of problems which could manifest themselves audibly. You know audiophiles, give them a crapload of distortion and a wonky frequency response and half of them declare it's a revolution in sound production.
 
Of course, any opamp can sound "different" if you don't give it enough voltage, don't take account of it's input impedance, do various other things a competent designer shouldn't do...
 
(Amusing fact: the Benchmark use NE5532 opamps, which various people will tell you they can hear in its signal (not audiophile-approved IC opamps so obviously "corrupt" the sound). That is the equivalent of me saying I can read size 5 font written on my doormat from space...okay, not quite, but you get the idea.
 

Who said an OPA627 "rolls off the treble" ? 

 
You realize that you are saying that all opamps sound the same when implemented properly?
 
Comment on Tangent's opamp comparisons.

 

[bigshot]

People always talk about improvements in the treble and bass, but these are the areas that are the most forgiving. Proper balance in the middle is MUCH more important, but no one speaks of that. Sometimes I wonder if people know what balanced response sounds like.

 

[Willakan]

No, that wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular, more a general example of how many very common observations on opamp "sounds" make no sense. Should have made that clearer in hindsight.
 
Tangent's "results" were from driving a headphone directly, which is something that opamps don't normally have to do (so otherwise well-measuring opamps can have problems), but even then I would say that I do not believe in sound signatures for (well designed) opamps (always feel a little weird saying that, as science is not a matter for belief in the same way that religion is IMO, but don't want to digress into philosophy), and hence I cannot support those observations.As much as I am in awe of Tangent's DIY related work, I can only treat that article in the same way I would treat any other opinions on the effect a component has on the sound, otherwise I would be guilty of hypocrisy. 
 
 
And to what you said I'm saying, yes, but with the additional caveat that there are obviously bad IC opamps out there which have the potential to sound different.The first IC opamps to come out measured horribly, but technology advances and here we are. Yes, defining the boundary between good/bad is difficult, but when everything is far, far beyond what evidence suggests the threshold for audibility is, we can safely call that opamp well-designed. 

 

[leeperry]

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Some things may sound similar, but there are too many variables for everything to sound the same.   What do you guys think?

 
I think that even when using two samples of the same component coming from two different batches, there's a still good chance that they won't sound the exact same based on manufacturing discrepancy. Yes, opamps/caps/resistors all carry manufacturing tolerances...the very reason why some of them exist in several grades, up to the holy milspec that guarantees getting golden samples.

How do you figure that???

I'm not sure he's figured anything out by now, he's mostly speculating based on a lack of real world experience.

 

[Willakan]

@leeperry
Yes, because once you've "heard it for yourself" through your unique bias-proof ears with ten times the listening capabilities of anything manmade, everything becomes clear...
 
Accusing me of "speculation" is a tad rich. You haven't given a half-plausible reason for anything on the opamp thread, and now you've spilled over into other threads to spread your giant pile of anecdotes, misinformation and hearsay on the subject, whilst acting as if everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is an idiot.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Well, assuming the measurements on the AMB website were not in fact made up, it sounds exactly like whatever you feed it, but louder.

I would not be terribly shocked if the numbers on the M^3 turned out make up, calculated on the back of an envelope, fudged, or otherwise wrong...
 
By virtue of the interchannel IMD that the M^3 probably has, I would be surprised if the GS-1 was measurably better when properly tested.

 

[Mad Max]

 
Quote:

@leeperry
Yes, because once you've "heard it for yourself" through your unique bias-proof ears with ten times the listening capabilities of anything manmade, everything becomes clear...
 
Accusing me of "speculation" is a tad rich. You haven't given a half-plausible reason for anything on the opamp thread, and now you've spilled over into other threads to spread your giant pile of anecdotes, misinformation and hearsay on the subject, whilst acting as if everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is an idiot.

 
So how do you explain bias when the user has no knowledge beforehand whatsoever of what to expect from x opamp being rolled into his gear?  Then he asks someone what that other person thinks of that opamp in his own gear, and voila, same impressions before the first guy says anything?  Subconscious telepathic link?

 

[leeperry]

Subconscious telepathic link?

uh oh!

 

[mrspeakers]

Quote:

@leeperry
Yes, because once you've "heard it for yourself" through your unique bias-proof ears with ten times the listening capabilities of anything manmade, everything becomes clear...
 

No offense, mate, but I think your perception is that everything sounds the same that isn't outright terribly implemented, unless you can measure it.  I have been around in the biz a pretty long time, and done enough circuits to know that topology does change sound.  It's often quite subtle, but it's there.  It's seldom "in your fact," it's often the low level details, ambience and harmonics.  These are the kinds of things that are often 40-60dB down relative to the primary signal, and are also, as I said earlier, exactly the data that is tossed in lossy compression.  
 
I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd simply accept that maybe some people do perceive vieling, distortion and grain, compression of ambience, and that it is precisely because these are often very low level signals relative to the dominant tones that it is incredibly hard to quantify.  You might not through your gear, or your perception that biases you towards "it's all the same," but that's fair and valid to.
 
I think we can all agree there's always hype and exageration around the effects of rolling, cables, software, and unfortunately much mysticism and "voodoo engineering" (don't get me going on cables), but to just lay it out and say all opamps are the same as long as they're within voltage parameters in a "good" circuit flies in the face of my experience.  And my experience is I can AB a difference in gear but also that conventional tests often can not show it (nulling, THD, TIM, frequency response, impulse response, FFT, you name it).  It may not be so much the resolution of the test gear as the fact that the tests themselves are better at showing performance against steady state or transient signals, but don't reflect real-world conditions and loads all that well (again, how each circuit behaves into complex loads WILL be different, sometimes more than others)....
 
Sitting down and moving my LCD-2s between the DACport, D12, and Burson, it is easy to hear differences, and yes, I have done it blind.  And they are all very nice little circuits with quality parts.  
 
If you can't hear it that is fine, and I certainly get the desire to prove or quantify it, but you're kind of taking this to the point of being a zealot, and putting people down isn't called for.
 

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

 
 
So how do you explain bias when the user has no knowledge beforehand whatsoever of what to expect from x opamp being rolled into his gear?  Then he asks someone what that other person thinks of that opamp in his own gear, and voila, same impressions before the first guy says anything?  Subconscious telepathic link?

 
These anecdotes sadly lack serious rigor in the administration and recording department. For starters the subject ***always*** knows that something has been changed, you can easily more hear a change when you know a change has been made, - when folks do cheats amazingly people hear massive differences between A and A, secondly these tests seldom randomise the order of presentation or require that the subject repeat the analysis without foreknowledge of changes. The subject is never required to identify the different items blind having heard them once. Then there is the Clever Hans effect - testers frequently subconciously (Being generous)  prime subjects to react to stimulae, also someone says something and we reinterpret it to meet our own beliefs - the language of audiophiles makes this almost inevitable. Since opamps are by definition gain devices then simply not ensuring that the levels are matched renders comparisons invalid even assuming you can accurately hold the memory of a musical rendering that may be 5 or 10 minutes prior which is very difficult unless you are comparing Led Zeppelin with Mahler.
 
If opamps are audibly different (which is highly possible) then that difference should survive much more rigorous testing, for instance record some samples with different opamps in circuit, trim, align and level match and then blind test - this is not rocket science - make samples available for others to audition - seriously it is not difficult - it is a bit time-consuming 
 
 
 
 

 

[Mad Max]

As well as splurging on a good recording device.  =x