The DIY'rs Cookbook

[atomicbob]

Ok, here is an update. Not everything may be correct because I don't have everyone of these headphones to measure and must also rely on what (sometimes limited) specifications are published by the respective manufacturers. I spent a good portion of today measuring headphone sensitivities. Some things to keep in mind:
1. websites can mis-quote manufacturers specs and/or report them incompletely. I may post a few examples in another post
2. some manufacturers are more complete with specs and how they were measured, others leave the reader guessing.
eg: SPL 102 dB
Was that measured at 1mW and accounting for the headphone impedance or 1 Vrms?
3. in the table below if a headphone was measured, then the power calculations are taken from the measurements. Otherwise they are taken from the published specifications with best guess as to what reference was used.
4. The Sennheiser published 1Vrms SPL are calculated for the next column which typically assumes dB/mW, for comparison to other values in the column.
5. Measurements were made with 1000 Hz, 1.00 Vrms stimulus. SPL are in dBC.
 

 
 
Equipment used for testing:
ACO Pacific 7046 measurement mic capsule on 7012 mic preamp body (NIST traceable cal)
NTI AL1 Acoustilyzer acoustic measurement system (NIST traceable cal)
Bruel & Kjaer 4231 sound level calibrator (NIST traceable cal)
Fluke 189 DMM (NIST traceable cal)
Schiit Bifrost MB DAC (toslink input)
Schiit Asgard2 Amp
Gustard U12 USB to toslink DDC
Cool Edit Pro 2 DAW
Custom BlockHead(TM)
 
Here are pictures of the overall test setup:

 
Mic - Measurement system sound level calibration

 
Headphone SPL measurement at 1Vrms delivered to headphones

 
Mic - headphone interface

 
Headphones are carefully placed such that the transducer is centered over the mic. BlockHead(TM) material has been made of material with the same density as a typical human head. Width of the BlockHead(TM) is 15.5 cm, similar to a typical human head, allowing realistic pressure on the headphone - mic interface from the head band.

 

[landroni]

IOW the cable plugs into and connects two transceiver chips (one at each end) which both transmit and receive data packets interchangeably. How the chips 'deal with' the various electrical and signal characteristics, in real time, and especially in the USB realm where audio and video present very different requirements (ie. real time streaming) to what its original design intent was, also adds more complexity to this already complex situation.
 

A related discussion on USB's suitability for audio streaming, and some thoroughly unquotable stuff by Mike Moffat (as recalled by Jason Stoddard):
http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/690#post_10441924
“But USB sucks. It just sucks. It was never meant for audio. It’s an all-purpose, packet-based grab-bag that might be fine for printers or hard drives, but it’s just crap for streaming. You can recover the clock from the packet clock, barf, or you can have the computer and DAC do some negotiating and guess at the clock, barf, or you can turn the whole car around and drive it from the back seat with the computer providing the clock, barf.
 
Note: the above, for the more technical, is Mike’s take on isosynchronus, adaptive, and asynchronous USB implementations.” 

 

[johnjen]

What really is amazing at least to me, is how well it actually does work, despite the technical foibles.
I mean streaming has much more complexity to it than merely sending a file from one device to another and making sure it arrives intact.

And some M-B manufacturers are actually building in a dedicated audiophool 'rated' USB port with special 'handling' (extra clean USB power, and separate dedicated bus and controllers etc.) to help address these very issues.

It really is too bad that USB has become such a defacto 'standard', one that wasn't and still isn't really meant for music streaming.
And what is even more amazing is outside of the pro audio level stuff there really isn't a single standard for data streaming that meets all of the requirements (now and into the future) for streaming music.

I mean how many computers even have an option of adding an AES/EBU port?

I guess we're the step child of computer based data management capabilities, and from that perspective it's fortunate that USB works as well as it does.

JJ

 

[gefski]

Stepchild is putting it kindly. We music lovers/audiophiles are way less important than that to the sovereign states of Redmond and Cupertino. Maybe 5th cousin??

But dedicated companies like Wavelength, Empirical Audio, and many others have wrung great performance out of the usb interface. Even Mike Moffat, in his Robert Hunter thread, has recently described a Mac/usb rig he apparently "likes", despite Schiit's history of semi-trash talk about usb.

And it's only been a few years of development. Just 5-ish years ago, my first real dac for computer use, the Cambridge Audio DacMagic, provided crisp and clean, yet flat and lifeless sonics via their usb input, but came to life with Musical-Fidelity's V-Link outboard usb. It just took a few smart people to say "hmmm, this usb interface sounds like crap, can I fix it?"

And now, usb-ing to Yggy, I'm re-listening, slack-jawed, to the thousands of 16/44 albums I already own (mumbling "don't need no hi-rez"). Yep, it actually works amazingly well now.

 

[johnjen]

And when using the original Wyrd Schiit USB decrapifier, USB seems to work quite well, not to mention using several at once, let alone one (or more) of its cousins.

I figure that between cleaning up the 'dirty' power feed and resequencing the data stream, not to mention using 'better' USB cables (larger gauge wires for less signal loss, even if they become more 'stiff'') all seem to do their bit to help.
Sorta like the total sum of using better parts is greater than just the parts themselves.

And yeah Dacs have come along way in the recent past, especially when the '$/performance = value' aspect is taken into account.

But what seems rather strange is how few AES/EBU cards there are, and how costly they are.
Let alone the question of how much of an improvement they might make.

S/PIDIF in either of its flavors has some advantages but AES/UBU has many more advantages, except for being affordable.

Oh well, at least USB has come of age a bit and can stand on it's own now.

JJ

 

[johnjen]

DIY’rs run amok
or
What happens AFTER it breaks is what separates the meek from the true, dyed in the wool, total gonzo audiophool tweaker.

Yes my experiments have taken a turn toward the complex side of tweakdom.

And things were proceeding so smoothly and were quite nifty on my latest project,
until…

This is the side of screwing around with audio stuff where few dare to tread.
And where taking responsibility for those pesky, oooppppssss, which is followed closely thereafter with that stark in yer face realization, that yes indeed, I now own the remnants.
And that repair parts are now right up there on the ‘to do list’ along with attempted repairs.

Just being willing to, let alone actually start taking this stuff apart to figure on what could be done to change things, and hopefully for the better, does entail certain ‘risks’.
But even if the results don’t exactly result in ‘improvements’, there can be valuable information gained.
Like, Well That Doesn’t Work fer nuth’n.

But then there is the situation where when things get broken they either need to be replaced or repaired, or in this case both, hopefully.

And so far the body count is up to 3, but really only 2 of the 3 are truly dead, at least at this point.
And I’m figur’n on a Phoenix type experience to happen here for those 2 near dead parts to come back to life.




So the details…
I have Big Poppas HD700’s in my eeeeeville clutches and I had modified the cable to terminate it with a balanced 4pin XLR connector, and made an adapter out of the TRS end of the cable, to plug into the now balanced cable, just like nuth’n happened.
Well except he now has 2 more options than he did before.
#1 he can run the 700’s balanced, and
#2 he can run the 700’s using the phase reversal trick, while being plugged into either a balanced or unbalanced amp.

But I was figur’n on how to apply some vibration management to them as well, oh and by the way lets replace those really wimpy 28g hookup wires with some not quite so wimpy 24g wire I have.
Not a big deal right?
Well, I forgot about those itsy bitsy tiny weenie lettle wyrz that run from the voice coil up to the circuit board to be connected to those 28g leads that run to the other circuit board where the 2.5mm connector plugs reside where the headphone cable plugs in.

Those “itsy bitsy tiny weenie lettle wyrz” are smaller than a human hair, well at least my hair anyway.
And those 28g wires are 0.33mm in diameter.
The hair is 0.05mm.
And see how those “itsy bitsy tiny weenie lettle wyrz” are even smaller still (see pic)?

I can only hazard a guess as to what their gauge size is…
So I’m figur’n on how to reconnect those “itsy bitsy tiny weenie lettle wyrz” back up.
There be the challenge, and much like inspector Clueso, ‘I alwaiz acept ze shallonge!’



And all of this even before we started carving using a dremel on some of the support structure.

Yeah we’re in this one up to our eyeballs, and then some.
Oh and lest you think I’m wreaking havoc on Big Poppas 700’s without his agreement that mad men not only could, but SHOULD, perform these brave and adventurous sorts of explorations into the unknown, well such is not the case.

The thing is I need to order up some repair/replacement parts and the choices come down to purchasing a used HD700 and/or ordering up new parts, in no particular order.

So this is a call out to anyone who is willing to sell us, his pair of 700’s, for science and the greater good, you understand… (ie. for cheap) :atsmile:

And we will be getting new drivers in any case, because I should restore his 700’s back to ‘like new’ condition and I’ll hang onto the ’test mule’/test bed setup for use in yet further experiments.
I have further ideas to explore and a ‘test mule’ will allow me some additional latitude to see how to ‘better’ apply my vibrational management ideas.

The HD700 has all but fallen off the edge of the headphone world and if my hunch is right, there is a chance they can become THE bargain basement tweako headphone.
Currently amazone is selling them for $449, new, and if they can be ‘helped’ they just might be a lateral/step up from the 6xx series.

Yeah I know, dream on, but still the small amount of fussing with the few tweaks thus far, were rather encouraging.

Besides a true dyed in the wool DIY’r doesn’t stop screwing around just because he breaks a few parts here and there.
And if the goal remains in sight and looks to be getting nearer, ‘well say no more, say no more, know what I mean, eh?’

JJ :atsmile:

 

[landroni]

For me the Wyrd was, along with a few other tweaks, enough to replace the ethernet data stream path I was using.
Up until the Wyrd came out, using the USB data stream was significantly inferior to the ethernet method of passing the digits and bits along to my PWD dac.
 

So for those who want to know for themselves if USB decrapification really is an improvement, or not, its an 'easy' and relatively inexpensive experiment to find out.
And I figure that most will hear a change, one they hear as being "Better",
but some may not.
 

The backstory behind the development of Schiit Wyrd is a fun read:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/3810#post_11058782
 
I will only quote a couple of tidbits here:
"*Okay, big aside here, before I am eviscerated by the objectivists: I know there is no sane, rational way in which a USB repeater/clean power device can scientifically affect the sound of a system. USB, like all digital interfaces, is, in the end, digital. The packets either get there or they don’t. If they don’t, they are resent, if possible. If they can’t be received in time for a streaming application like audio, you get glitches and disconnections. That should be it. Period, no exceptions. So clean power and shapely waveforms should, theoretically, make no difference.

 
*And another big aside, for the subjectivists: Yes, I also know that USB, like any other digital transmission system, is essentially using imperfect analog waveforms to transmit very high-rate data (in the case of USB 2.0, theoretically 480Mbps, or about 300x what you need to transmit stereo 16/44 content, though overhead usually makes the actual rate much lower). But the fact is, it should not matter in the least how well-shaped or noise-free the waveform is—the packet is either 100% recovered, or it isn’t. If it wasn’t, you couldn’t simply copy several hundred gigabytes of data to an external drive reliably.

 
*And a final big aside, for everyone: If insanity is defined by the ability to hold two completely contradictory ideas in your head and accept both of them, then me, Mike, and Dave are all completely bonkers. Because we run into this same objective/subjective thing all the time."
 
and:
“But…why [does it make a difference]?” I persisted.

 
Dave shrugged. “Lots of reasons. The power supply is super-low-noise. It’s using LM723 regulators, which are rated 4.17uV of noise, plus organic polymer capacitors, plus I’m using a tight crystal for the USB repeater. Lots of little things.”

 
“But it still shouldn’t matter,” I said.

 
Dave nodded. “Right.”

 
“But it does something.”

 
“Right.”
 
and:
"Truth and Marketing

 
If Schiit was a purely subjective company, the dilemma of having a product that made stuff sound better, without having any rational explanation as to why, wouldn’t be a dilemma at all. We’d wrap it up in nice flowery language, throw in some pseudo-meaningful charts that showed the difference in power supply noise levels, and call it a day.

 
If Schiit was a purely objective company, the dilemma might not be a dilemma at all. Because we might have convinced ourselves that, even though there was a difference, there really was no difference, and so why bother making something that didn’t make a difference?

 
But as a company that uses both objective measurement and subjective listening, it’s not so clear. We could do the pure subjective thing with the words about how you’re transported in space and time to a wonderful world where unicorns dance and crap like that. Sure. We could.

 
But that isn’t us.

 
And that isn’t honest. Because, you know what? We’re really talking about small differences here. It might not be important to a lot of people. It can be easily dismissed.

 
But for other listeners, it might be big enough to be significant."
 
My suspicion is that not all transceivers are made equal (at both sending and receiving end), and better/worse implementations can affect real-time streaming performance. A Wyrd-like device will do at least two things: (1) replace the receiver by a higher-quality implementation that "works harder" or "more efficiently", and (2) broadcast the intercepted bitstream using a higher-quality transmitter while using a low-noise power supply for a clean, stronger signal that would ultimately help a lower-quality receiver chip in the DAC.
 
PS As an aside, the other day I got a stark reminder of what happens in the digital world when the transmitted bitstream gets compromised. And how two digital systems can have wildly different performance when confronted with the same (corrupted) source. Watching a DVD on an Xbox, some 1h into the movie the reader encountered a wide and scary scratch, and the DAC completely broke down. I was getting something like 25-40% of image data, the rest being black/green squares, updated every 3-4 sec or so. Unwatchable. Rather gloomily, I took the DVD and plugged it into a laptop, not expecting much if any improvement. To my disbelief, the laptop playback went without one single (obvious) hitch, streaming the movie in its entirety to the end. Bits are bits, but obviously how operate the different components transmitting and receiving them can make a world of difference.

 

[johnjen]

snip

PS As an aside, the other day I got a stark reminder of what happens in the digital world when the transmitted bitstream gets compromised. And how two digital systems can have wildly different performance when confronted with the same (corrupted) source. Watching a DVD on an Xbox, some 1h into the movie the reader encountered a wide and scary scratch, and the DAC completely broke down. I was getting something like 25-40% of image data, the rest being black/green squares, updated every 3-4 sec or so. Unwatchable. Rather gloomily, I took the DVD and plugged it into a laptop, not expecting much if any improvement. To my disbelief, the laptop playback went without one single (obvious) hitch, streaming the movie in its entirety to the end. Bits are bits, but obviously how operate the different components transmitting and receiving them can make a world of difference.

I too have noticed this as well.

Some CD's won't 'play well', even in a high end audio CD player, but my Mac will read the files just fine.

It would seem that data drives (as in computer DVD & CD drives along with the system OS s/w that runs them) do a far better job of reading discs that have 'problems' than either music or video player drives.
My guess is it's not the drives themselves, although there may be some differences with some of them, but mostly that the computer OS s/w that reads and controls the data stream has far more 'robust' data reconstruction algorithms than those used in dedicated players.

Which is kinda interesting that the dedicated audio and video players have more trouble reading the data from disc's they are strictly focused upon vs. the more generalized data drive function in a computer that needs to be able to read a rather wide range of data formats and disc types.

Sorta head scratcher…

JJ

 

[johnjen]

What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?

Part 9 A thought experiment.


Phase Δ Reduction,
A Thought Experiment…

Think of 2 (or more) thin sheets of diner plate sized clear mylar, back to back, all the same size with identical radial spoke patterns with ellipsoidal and/or non-concentric patterns printed on them. And as they are rotated about their center they begin to come back into, or go out of alignment with respect to each other.

At first, as you look thru these backlit sheets it may look like a mish-mash of complexity with nary a recognizable pattern anywhere to be seen. But as the layers continue to rotate and begin to come into closer alignment with each other, they will start to show complex moiré patterns, and then morph back to chaos, as they continue to come into alignment. Then simpler moiré patterns emerge, and then chaos returns again, and this trend continues until they are nearly superimposed as the last moiré pattern gives way to the primary pattern. But the lines are still ‘fat’ but getting thinner as the identical patterns continue to align and merge, until all the lines exactly match their original patterns.

At that point the resolution of this system has reached it’s maximum focus, based upon the existing pattern. So as energy passes thru unrestricted, maximum ‘clarity’ or focus and 0º phase differences are achieved, and all that remains is the original pattern.

When the 2 (or more) layers are perfectly aligned then this same pattern is passed along by all layers without deviation, which assures ‘perfect’ coupling of all available energy of the original pattern along with perfect ‘timing’, as the energy passes thru.

And now for a change up…
Rather than having a fixed pattern on all ‘layers’, instead consider these patterns as being dynamic. Think of the patterns as the musical signal that are then being presented to our ears, it’s the music as it ‘plays’ in real time.

This is analogous to what I’m hearing as my various experiments I’ve been making, ‘settle in’.
At first the focus starts to get better then it gets worse, and then better still. And as this pattern continues, the focus gets sharper each time it comes back into focus.
It’s as if the focus of each ‘voice’ tightens up into and as, it’s ‘full’ self, in a slow repeating spiral pattern as it approaches it’s full resolution, interleaved with times when the sound becomes chaotic or diffused, aka. heads into the toilet.
But this pattern is like an iterative repeating loop as the sound gets better and the chaos also lessens in complexity and severity as more hours are accumulated. IOW the sound at both ‘extremes’ improves as it comes more into focus and also doesn’t go out of focus as much during the diffused periods.

Put another way as there is more there, there, and as it comes more into focus, there is less chaos, less fuzz, less obfuscation. And so as the energy that passes thru this pattern is altered less and less, we notice more of the true nature of the pattern and only the pattern as itself.

This is also directly related to coupling, as in, all of the re-created acoustical sound energy is focused precisely where and when, to match each of the original ‘voices’.

And since we already know that we can hear minute timing differences, this enhanced ability to focus the proper amount of acoustical energy at the proper time, when presented to our ears can be likened to a holographic image.
Only in this case the greater the density of the holographic medium (the more resolution it can contain), the more precise and sharp we can focus our ‘reference’ re-construction beam, the more dense (more there, there) and precise, the re-created image can be.

This level of holographic resolution and energy coupling, when it resolves into sharper and sharper focus, can be startling.

JJ


End Part 9 Next up Yet More Useful Terms.

 

[johnjen]

My Christmas treat…

So Atomic Bob and I got together over the holiday break and played with some really kewl toys and made some measurements of my modded HD800’s and other equipment we had on hand.

As before we shared insights and learned lessons in terms of how to achieve optimal (kick-ass) tunes independent of the playback equipment we were using.
And we talked about the gear we were using for playback and how much it has improved over the recent past.

And Bob went into exquisite detail on HOW to setup and use the measurement gear we were using to characterize my headphones and all the related and dependent gear needed to test my 800’s.
His measurement s/w and h/w is so sophisticated (ie has so many features and settings) that the very nature of the setup will majorly influence the results that were obtained, that I’m glad Bob is on top of all of this.
The setup reminds me of getting one of the old Techtronix analog O’scopes of yesteryear to even display anything, only times 100 in terms of number of settings and complex interaction between all of them.
Lets just say it would be WAY too easy to get lost in the setup alone, not to mention knowing just what the results actually mean vs. what it could be interpreted to mean.

One of the more significant insights we shared is that certain combinations of playback equipment and the setup in which they operate, can be more compelling than others, regardless of cost or sophistication.
Case in point is Bob’s ≈$1500 system (amp, dac, HP’s, s/w, and setup tweaks) which can be more compelling than his top end system without the setup tweaks and s/w.
And by compelling, what I’m referring to is, if given the choice to pick one system, or the other, (since both are up and running), the ‘lessor’ system with the tweaks was more preferred, was the one that was chosen more often for just wanting to be carried away by the music.

This is a significant finding in terms of deriving satisfaction from listening to music for its own sake.
And that the price barrier has been broken, simply by careful selection of gear along with easy to implement tweaks, is also rather noteworthy.

But these tweaks can as easily be applied to any just about any computer based setup with these same significant improvements.
But that they are this effective and result in such impressive results with modestly priced playback gear is really the point of these experiments.

We also compared two of the garage-1217 amps, the Horizon III and the Sunrise III back to back, both running linear power supplies.
Horizon was using an Acopian 48V LPS with ultra-low power supply noise.
Sunrise used a Talema 24V LPS with low power supply noise (much less than the original SMPS.)
And while these are fairly inexpensive outboard P/S’s, they make a significant contribution in SQ.

This was an interesting comparison in that once we used 2 of the same tubes (an Electro-Harmonix 12BH7) the differences between them were more closely matched, but with the preference going to the Horizon amp.
We figured it was due to the higher supply voltage (48 vs 24 volts) the Horizon requires that contributed to the slight improvement we were hearing.
This higher voltage runs the tube a bit closer to the operating voltages where these tubes usually are run.

And after peering at the schematics for these 2 amps, which have near identical audio paths, it became apparent the only significant difference is the supply voltage.
And those Electro-Harmonix tubes are VERY stable and not just from a microphonics standpoint but also after biasing them up, they quickly achieve a stable bias current, requiring very little re-adjustment long term.

And during our get together I learned a whole nuther level of measurement techniques and the importance of how to ‘adjust’ and display the results of the tests in order to peer into the meaning of just what has been measured.
Which has a flip side, in that it can be WAY to too easy to misinterpret the results simply due to the way in which the settings can be adjusted to display the very same data, only using a different time base or using a different means of compressing the data, etc.

IOW it can very easy to misinterpret any test results especially if the setup has ‘conflicts’ of any sort.

Another interesting observation we both have noticed is that it takes ≈ 1/2 hr of listening before headphones really start to fully ‘sing’.
This is independent of the gear warming up.
IOW after ≈ 1/2 hr of headphone listening time, on our head(s), that is when the music ‘clicks’ into full focus and the degree of involvement in the music kicks into high gear.

We speculated it may be that the voice coils reach thermal equilibrium along with the rest of the related mass and structure.
This might be related to the idea of thermal flow, where once equilibrium has been reached there is a degree of stability in the entire system and
Of course it could also be that our auditory sense needs some time before it also fully ‘warms up’ er sumpt’n.
Or it might be that the captured air pocket inside the ear cups needs to reach a state of equilibrium as well.
And not just in a thermal way but with humidity as well.
And it is also noteworthy that as the % of humidity changes so does the density of the air itself.

What this ‘mechanism’ might be, as to why there is a ≈1/2hr ‘warm up’ time, is speculation at this point , but what we do know is, the degree of compulsion to continue to listen and get sucked into the music does take a while after the HP’s go on the head.

And an interesting test is to change to different HP’s after say an hour of listening, after all the gear has warmed up, and then see how long it takes for the 2nd set of HP’s to begin to sing, again.

But that we both noticed this, on completely separate systems, independently of each other, is also telling.
Perhaps others may see if this holds true for you and your system as well.


JJ

 

[BIG POPPA]

Some people freak out when you use the term Warm up. Well your gear gets warm after it is turned on and it is going. To me there is a better term to describe what your gear does in the first couple hours. Especially with tube gear, I use  to the term Focus. To me after listening to gear as much as I do. Do notices things and changes throughout my session. Right after you turn on the gear, it can sound fantastic or very crummy, it will go through changes, If you listen to a song right when you turn on your gear, and then an hour later, I bet you they will sound different,  I bet you the the one an hour later will be a little more smooth, a little more clear, a little more Focused.
I listen to my rig almost every night for hours and hours. Yeah it is dialed in, Yeah it sounds fantastic. But I figured out what my sound signature was. Mine is smooth and euphoric. When Diana Krall sings, she sits on my lap and sings to me. It is that intimate. Like all my music to sound like that, and for the most part, it does.
To me it is most import to define your sound signature and get on that path, and get the gear and use tweeks to get there. Listen to your gear enough, you will know what the strengths and faults are. That is where I would start. My thoughts at the moment.

 

[gefski]

My Christmas treat…


Another interesting observation we both have noticed is that it takes ≈ 1/2 hr of listening before headphones really start to fully ‘sing’.
This is independent of the gear warming up.
IOW after ≈ 1/2 hr of headphone listening time, on our head(s), that is when the music ‘clicks’ into full focus and the degree of involvement in the music kicks into high gear.

This touches on my long time belief about different types of listening.

There is a huge emphasis on HeadFi with instantaneous A/B comparisons. This immediately reveals frequency response differences -- "more bass", "too bright", etc. I'd say probably 70 percent of sonic descriptions I read are in this F/R domain. To be sure, gross aberrations here can be intolerable. However...

So many of the characteristics that leave me listening, eyes closed, with deep emotional "sinking into" entire albums cannot be pinned down in this type of listening. Timbre & texture, attack & damping, the natural flow of a piece of music over time, and the real touch of air moving in the (perceived) soundstage are only revealed with the extended listening you describe.

 

[johnjen]

This touches on my long time belief about different types of listening.

There is a huge emphasis on HeadFi with instantaneous A/B comparisons. This immediately reveals frequency response differences -- "more bass", "too bright", etc. I'd say probably 70 percent of sonic descriptions I read are in this F/R domain. To be sure, gross aberrations here can be intolerable. However...

So many of the characteristics that leave me listening, eyes closed, with deep emotional "sinking into" entire albums cannot be pinned down in this type of listening. Timbre & texture, attack & damping, the natural flow of a piece of music over time, and the real touch of air moving in the (perceived) soundstage are only revealed with the extended listening you describe.

That is one of things that astounds me probably the most about listening to music.
Namely the diversity of why we listen and what we listen for.

For me and others (such as yourself) who listen for prolonged periods (such as several whole albums at a time) the 'attraction' is to get sucked into the music, to be immersed in, and get carried away by the emotional and visceral experience that music can provide.

This could be construed as an acquired taste or perhaps just one of several aspects of desirability.
I know that some just want to dance when the tunes be a rock'n.
And I must say that when the music grabs all of my attention, my body does respond, well at least my head and feet do along with other portions of my torso…:atsmile:

And there do seem to be aspects of this experience that can be encouraged or at least engender this desirable degree of immersion that I (and I assume others) seek.
These aspects are, at least in part, what this thread is about.

To be able to share these refinements and tweaks that further enable and engender our playback systems to let us get 'carried away' by the music, to remove as many of the sonic obstacles that obscure this function is my goal.
But that isn't the goal of everyone who listens to music.

And these analytic proclivities of most if not all of us is or can be quite a useful set of tools.
It helps us refine our systems, it gives us the means to determine when these obstacles have been lessened or removed.
This desire to improve the SQ of our systems is what drives many of us to 'fuss with the knobs' so to speak and to truly determine if we in fact can make our systems 'Better'.
I for one know this to be true after many decades of trial and error and experimentation.
And I know I'm not alone in pursuing this hobby in this way.

And granted, not everyone is quite so 'adventurous' and willing to take such risks, but when those of us who do explore the edges of the envelope and then report back with our successes, well it can significantly reduce the risks for those who would like gain the advantages while minimizing the risks.
Which is yet another aspect to this thread.

But sometimes our analytic curiosity needs to be switched off, to just let go and let the music 'do its thing'.
This is usually quite difficult when our minds are in full ANALYZE mode.

And this too is a goal of mine, to tweak the system to the degree where we 'have no choice' but to drop the minds incessant analytic function because the music is so IMPERATIVE, that the body and our focused awareness ‘takes over' and we start to follow along/get carried away/become totally focused in the ongoing NOW moment.
Ofttimes to the exclusion of all else around us.
This too is what this thread hopes to engender.

It can happen when we become so focused in the now moment that we are 'in the zone' or 'the groove' etc., but it can only really happen in the NOW moment, when our mind tracks along with what IS happening in real time vs. trying to make sense of any and every little detail as they occur.
I found this effortless state of awareness a few times while riding, and it is far easier, can be far more frequent and far less dangerous however with headphones on, eyes closed, kicked back in my chair, vs. carving turns, at speed, effortlessly, turn after turn.

This ability to be immersed within/carried away by the IMPERATIVE moment by moment aspect of listening to music can be compelling and become highly sought after, once you experience it.

But that is only really possible once you know of it, or about it.
And the 'best' way is due to experiencing it, directly.
Which is yet another aspect of this thread, to plant the seeds of being aware that this type of experience is even possible, just by listening to music.
And then to seek it, if that is a desirable enough goal.

It is and has been for me, for quite a while now… :atsmile:

JJ

 

[landroni]

We also compared two of the garage-1217 amps, the Horizon III and the Sunrise III back to back, both running linear power supplies.
Horizon was using an Acopian 48V LPS with ultra-low power supply noise.
Sunrise used a Talema 24V LPS with low power supply noise (much less than the original SMPS.)
And while these are fairly inexpensive outboard P/S’s, they make a significant contribution in SQ.

This was an interesting comparison in that once we used 2 of the same tubes (an Electro-Harmonix 12BH7) the differences between them were more closely matched, but with the preference going to the Horizon amp.
We figured it was due to the higher supply voltage (48 vs 24 volts) the Horizon requires that contributed to the slight improvement we were hearing.
This higher voltage runs the tube a bit closer to the operating voltages where these tubes usually are run.

And after peering at the schematics for these 2 amps, which have near identical audio paths, it became apparent the only significant difference is the supply voltage.
 

I'd love to hear someone chime in with a comparison between the Project's amps and Schiit's Vali 2. The latter is also a tube hybrid, and it seems like the designers paid careful consideration to the design aspects while keeping the costs in check (some ~70$ below Project's amps). In particular, they made sure to use high supply voltage for the little amp. In fact, Jason Stoddard considers 24V almost inadequate for tube amp designs:
"High Voltage Supplies. To run tubes right, you need high voltages—think hundreds of volts. Tubes need a lot of voltage to run linearly and give their best performance. This means high-voltage capacitors, custom transformers, high-voltage-rated parts, maybe even through-hole parts exclusively, depending on the voltages you’re shooting for. When you’re running 200V rails to get 100V on the plate (like we do in Valhalla 2, Lyr 2, and Mjolnir 2), the whole design is going to be more costly than an amp running 30V or so (a typical solid state design). Unfortunately, many inexpensive tube amps are “starved plate” designs, running at 12-24V…which is a recipe for high distortion and a very colored amp design."
 
In contrast, Vali 2 has a whole 60V to play with. Right now I'm torn which one to choose for a tube-amp experience...

 

[johnjen]

One other difference besides the power supply voltage is the Vali2 uses bipolar output devices whereas the garage amps use mosfets.
Mosfets tend to 'act' more like tubes and usually have higher input impedance's when compared to bipolar devices.

However I'd bet that Schiit explored using mosfets during the design and preferred discrete transistors.

But that would be a good test between those 2 similar designs.

JJ