[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I meant opamps particularly, I would have said opamps. And if you think the surround circuitry for an opamp makes little SQ effect, you have been greatly mislead.

What I was saying is that opamps warrant improvements, while tubes basically don't NEED to be improved. When you are choosing a tube for a circuit it is all about its linearity and operating points. When you are choosing an opamp for a circuit, you are basically choosing your circuit or at least a large portion of it.

And, sorry for the confusion, but in my DIY reading I always thought IC only meant opamp. I guess it can also be used to mean transistor or mosfet as well?

 

[Pars]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is because they are being replaced with better parts. Because IC's are constantly being improved. The same can't be said for tubes, not since the 60's.

There is no current equivalent of the 2SJ109/2SK389 (well actually, Linear Systems, a small specialized IC manufacturer does have an LSK389 out and is promising an LSK109). Nothing even functionally equivalent let alone better. This was a very popular dual FET used in differential front ends, etc.

Oh wait... you're supposed to build everything using opamps now... I see

DACs... what happened to R2R ladder DACs? Oh yeah, too expensive to make.

I wouldn't operate under the illusion that parts are MD'd and replaced because an improved replacement is introduced, unless your definition of improved means the financial bottom line... then I'd agree.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I was saying is that opamps warrant improvements, while tubes basically don't NEED to be improved. When you are choosing a tube for a circuit it is all about its linearity and operating points. When you are choosing an opamp for a circuit, you are basically choosing your circuit or at least a large portion of it. And, sorry for the confusion, but in my DIY reading I always thought IC only meant opamp. I guess it can also be used to mean transistor or mosfet as well?

Tubes need to be improved. That's the whole reason why the transistor was invented, to pick up on the tubes flaws.

Also, only very basic(mostly portable) amps use only an opamp for the out. Most have different levels of buffers afterwards.

Opamps are built with the precious that is impossible to be reached with discrete components.

And IC(integrated circuit) is any device with two or more "discrete" components in one package.(transistors, diodes, etc.)

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tubes need to be improved. That's the whole reason why the transistor was invented, to pick up on the tubes flaws.

You've got to be kidding me. Transistors were invented to save money. When they first came on the market they SUCKED. Anyone who knew anything stuck with tube gear until they improved.

They don't suck now, mind you, but neither are they clearly superior. Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, only very basic(mostly portable) amps use only an opamp for the out. Most have different levels of buffers afterwards.

Yep, and you could also just stick some caps there. I didn't say there was no circuit to speak of, just that a large portion of the circuit is on the chip. Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Opamps are built with the precious that is impossible to be reached with discrete components. And IC(integrated circuit) is any device with two or more "discrete" components in one package.(transistors, diodes, etc.)

That would be the benefit to opamps, yes.

I thought that a transistor was a discrete component.

 

[Pars]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tubes need to be improved. That's the whole reason why the transistor was invented, to pick up on the tubes flaws.

The move to transistors was driven by

1. size,
2. heat and
3. power reasons,

not because tubes aren't linear... used properly, tubes have quite good linearity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, only very basic(mostly portable) amps use only an opamp for the out. Most have different levels of buffers afterwards. Opamps are built with the precious that is impossible to be reached with discrete components.

Too much Lord of the Rings lately?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif And IC(integrated circuit) is any device with two or more "discrete" components in one package.(transistors, diodes, etc.)

Think he meant that transistors, diodes, etc. are discrete components, and are the building blocks of ICs (true).

 

[tourmaline]

Tube amps in general are easier to make good then transistor/mosfet amps.
So, in general, a good tube amp can be as good or better then a transistor amp. Most engeneers will tell you that if the amps are build propperly, they should sound the same. fact is that in practise they don't. tube amps sound more spacious and alife in practise, transistor/mosfet amps in general have more weight and detail, but for tubes that is also very dependant on the powersupply used. the better the components ina tube amp, the better bass responce is. A tube amp, especially very expensive ones can have a low bass as any high end transistor amp.

It is not a surprise that alot of amps that are recognized as one of the best made are in fact tube amps. Like the Audio note gauku on (the original japanese version) wich costs 50.000 dollars a piece, that is for one poweramp x 2 = 100.000 dollars for the amp, is recognized as one of the ebst tube amps ever made. I happen to know pwoplw who have heard this aand they say it sounds unbelievably real.

For me, some transistor amps have too much detail; do i hear in real life how high or how deep a room is? NO! Fake detail. Alot of people love it but it is not real music as you hear it in a life orchestra or life performance.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif For me, some transistor amps have too much detail; do i hear in real life how high or how deep a room is? NO! Fake detail.

How does a transistor add depth cues? And why is "increased soundstage" better when it's imagined coming from cables than when it's imagined coming from solid state electronics?

See ya
Steve

P.S. You're SUPPOSED to hear the depth cues.

 

[The Pieman]

Thread title= "Why do/don't "audiophile" cables improve sound?"

But to stay off topic. Having worked in the electronics business for 20+ years, it is a definite fact of life that component changes are about cost. Size, reliability, power and heat are other drivers only because if you fix the heat issues you don't need a heat sink or fan, hence cheaper. Smaller component, smaller enclosure, hence cheaper and so on. Does the quality improve? From a reliability point of view, most likely.

cheers
Simon

BTW. This thread is deteriorating at a great rate of knots. I was actually interested in this thread, no longer. There is too much condescension, arrogance and down right pig headed behaviour occurring. Participation becomes pointless when it is no longer a debate, but rather some people being up in an ivory tower and looking down to preach to people/plebs. Same time, same channel. Very boring.

 

[vcoheda]

^^ your first mistake was to think that this thread could be useful in any manner.

the reason why all these quasi/fake scientific discussions about cables or really anything in audio are useless is because the vast majority of people engaging in the discussion, i highly suspect, are not really qualified to discuss the topic - yeah maybe they think or come across as knowledgeable on an Internet level - but in the real world, would probably be ridiculed by their half knowledge, if not total incompetence, on the topic. and even if there are a couple of people who do know what they are talking about, this too isn't that helpful, since they are still giving opinions.

the only discussions or impressions i find to have any value here are those based on actual experience. everything else is a complete waste of time and band width.

 

[viggen]

Yah there's value in this thread. It's fun to see this type of debate carry out on the web. It would not be that good if it carried out in real life.

 

[The Pieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^^ your first mistake was to think that this thread could be useful in any manner. the reason why all these quasi/fake scientific discussions about cables or really anything in audio are useless is because the vast majority of people engaging in the discussion, i highly suspect, are not really qualified to discuss the topic - yeah maybe they think or come across as knowledgeable on an Internet level - but in the real world, would probably be ridiculed by their half knowledge, if not total incompetence, on the topic. and even if there are a couple of people who do know what they are talking about, this too isn't that helpful, since they are still giving opinions. the only discussions or impressions i find to have any value here are those based on actual experience. everything else is a complete waste of time and band width.

Yes, I believe there is truth in this comment. There appears to be a lot of supposition based around science with that other very finicky element, people, left out of the equation. The value of experience is being sold very short here.

The only comment I would add here is that maybe some of these people may well be very qualified to comment. But when it comes to it, experience still appears to be being ignored.

cheers
Simon

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I believe there is truth in this comment. There appears to be a lot of supposition based around science with that other very finicky element, people, left out of the equation. The value of experience is being sold very short here. The only comment I would add here is that maybe some of these people may well be very qualified to comment. But when it comes to it, experience still appears to be being ignored. cheers Simon

Amen!

 

[systemerror909]

Well then lets bring this thread back to scientifically accepted principles in cable. Two noticeable effects I think most people would agree exist are: skin effect and cable impedance. Are not both of these measurable?

Currently I'm using Analysis plus Silver oval interconnects and oval 9 speaker cable. When I added these to my system the sound stage widened by about 50% and the bass extension improved significantly. Prior to this I was using lamp cable (bi-wired) and cheapo rca connects. Theres a lot of voodoo out there, but there is at least some high end cables that are legitimate.

 

[dvw]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in skin effect. What skin effect is the current density concentrates at the surface of the conductor rather than uniformly. The depth of this skin will decrease as frequency increases. So if you have a really thick cable, a hollow cable will behave like a solid core cable.

The question is really how deep is this skin at audio frequency. I don't remember exactly but I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 9mm. And this is huge. For normal audio cable consumer can buy today, this does not come into play at all.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was actually interested in this thread, no longer. There is too much condescension, arrogance and down right pig headed behaviour occurring. Participation becomes pointless when it is no longer a debate, but rather some people being up in an ivory tower and looking down to preach to people/plebs. Same time, same channel. Very boring.

I'll make a note of your lack of interest.

See ya
Steve