Don't want to reiterate what has been posted years ago, even more so that I forgot about it LOL, but in short to address this design choice re VMID we went for an Op amp (OPA 1656) that is supposed (no data sadly, but talks with its designer and indeed spec sheet wordings) to work nearly equaly as good at very low PS voltages (say 5V voltage swings upwards) than at the usual +-18V, so that at 12V swing it should be Ok especialy given the output voltage needs here (at least it was OK for TI and usual OPAs in their eval boards for the Class D chip, but well, for whatever that means to tweakers LOL).
Nevertheless we added quite a few bypass caps, big and small, to make sure the OPA1656 was working all right (and also to fine tune the sound).
Your PS mod might just enhence the existing and compensate for the additional caps we added, starting from a dedicated strong PS. So basicaly on your side proper OPA PS without need for additives, vs using the existing and clever additions.
May we know what mods have you done re PS before the one you mentioned around LM317 and OPA PS and what OP amp are you using?
Have a nice night
Claude
Nevertheless we added quite a few bypass caps, big and small, to make sure the OPA1656 was working all right (and also to fine tune the sound).
Your PS mod might just enhence the existing and compensate for the additional caps we added, starting from a dedicated strong PS. So basicaly on your side proper OPA PS without need for additives, vs using the existing and clever additions.
May we know what mods have you done re PS before the one you mentioned around LM317 and OPA PS and what OP amp are you using?
Have a nice night
Claude
I has measured A07 before and after added PFFBIs anyone doing any before and after measurements of the modifications, or are all claimed improvements heard by ear only?
Here is what an amplifier developper measured with OPA1612.
--The op amp PSU is more important. High PSRR (and low noise if possible) is a must. The data in the table bellow summarizes the effect of the Op Amp PSU (±15.0V) on THD+noise performance of the complete amp @ 1W output power (RL=8ohm) @ 1kHz:
Table 1. Effect of the operational amplifier power supply on the THD+noise
PSU ................. THD+noise
Zener diodes -90dB (0.003%)
LM317/337 Reg. -106dB (0.0005%)
Improved LM317/337 Reg. -116dB (0.00015%)
Low noise / Low Ripple Reg. -120dB (0.0001%) --
That is why I use ext. PSU for opamps in my DSPs, Oppo BR-Player and next time also for amps.
--The op amp PSU is more important. High PSRR (and low noise if possible) is a must. The data in the table bellow summarizes the effect of the Op Amp PSU (±15.0V) on THD+noise performance of the complete amp @ 1W output power (RL=8ohm) @ 1kHz:
Table 1. Effect of the operational amplifier power supply on the THD+noise
PSU ................. THD+noise
Zener diodes -90dB (0.003%)
LM317/337 Reg. -106dB (0.0005%)
Improved LM317/337 Reg. -116dB (0.00015%)
Low noise / Low Ripple Reg. -120dB (0.0001%) --
That is why I use ext. PSU for opamps in my DSPs, Oppo BR-Player and next time also for amps.
Yep... That was exactly the intention.
And of course without going too complicated for what is again a very basic and non expensive unit.
The figures are interesting and of course I love them as engineer. However, despite these kinds of measurements, IME there are quite audible differences that don't show up with these measurements / data and that in our case dictated the end choices. That took some time!
In short, yes obviously the PS wasn't at its best in this unit and needed defo some help (be it general PD, OPA PS etc.), but the final fine tuning was done by ear as clearly, as reported here, combos or components had a big sonic impact. Why etc, I leave that to psychoacoustic and other forums. People can try these effects by themselves, all mods we posted are very easy to replicate, reversible and non expensive.
Let's say you need a proper kitchen to start cooking (a proper PS...), and perhaps an experienced cook and some luck to make it tasty at the end regardless how nice the kitchen and ingredients are.
That's why I posted elsewhere that this bypass combo was completely tailored for this project and in no way to copy paste whenever an OPA1656 has to be used elsewhere. In fact, in a proper designed unit with dedicated quality power supplies (I tried OPA1656 in various preamps, RIAA amp, DACs of my own), IME OPA1656 doesn't need more decoupling / caps bypasses than the basics that are already described in its spec sheet (as most OP amps BTW).
However, if your PS aren't top, you either need to redesign them (which seems to be the last proposal posted here), or try to compensate best you can with caps and other bits.
2 different ways to addres the same problem at the source.... I am quite confident anyone trying either will be quite suprised by the positive end result, clearly we are addressing bottlenecks in these 04s...
Have fun and thanks for sharing
Claude
And of course without going too complicated for what is again a very basic and non expensive unit.
The figures are interesting and of course I love them as engineer. However, despite these kinds of measurements, IME there are quite audible differences that don't show up with these measurements / data and that in our case dictated the end choices. That took some time!
In short, yes obviously the PS wasn't at its best in this unit and needed defo some help (be it general PD, OPA PS etc.), but the final fine tuning was done by ear as clearly, as reported here, combos or components had a big sonic impact. Why etc, I leave that to psychoacoustic and other forums. People can try these effects by themselves, all mods we posted are very easy to replicate, reversible and non expensive.
Let's say you need a proper kitchen to start cooking (a proper PS...), and perhaps an experienced cook and some luck to make it tasty at the end regardless how nice the kitchen and ingredients are.
That's why I posted elsewhere that this bypass combo was completely tailored for this project and in no way to copy paste whenever an OPA1656 has to be used elsewhere. In fact, in a proper designed unit with dedicated quality power supplies (I tried OPA1656 in various preamps, RIAA amp, DACs of my own), IME OPA1656 doesn't need more decoupling / caps bypasses than the basics that are already described in its spec sheet (as most OP amps BTW).
However, if your PS aren't top, you either need to redesign them (which seems to be the last proposal posted here), or try to compensate best you can with caps and other bits.
2 different ways to addres the same problem at the source.... I am quite confident anyone trying either will be quite suprised by the positive end result, clearly we are addressing bottlenecks in these 04s...
Have fun and thanks for sharing
Claude
Thanks a lot, Ralf
It was helpfull in this project that Gilles, who owns the initial units, purchased 2 in one go. They were switched so they could be used separately or together very easily. We could hence easily play with mods and compare each setp with an identical baseline. Oh, and it helped a lot Gilles likes playing!
On top we had a commercial Onkyo amp and also my own VFET on the same system, and used even different loudspeakers at some time. That also helped making sure we were heading in the right direction regardless LS in comparison to commercial or kit references.
Last but not least, starting from scratch on a 3rd unit with only "the light mods", best buck for the money tweaks, helped confirming all this. That unit went to someone demanding and trained who didn't like it as standard but used it now everyday.
So yes, some work, patience, lot of time (fun and together with Gilles) and a perfect environment to play with, surrounded by various systems we could switch as we felt within seconds or minutes.
Enjoy this little amp
Claude
It was helpfull in this project that Gilles, who owns the initial units, purchased 2 in one go. They were switched so they could be used separately or together very easily. We could hence easily play with mods and compare each setp with an identical baseline. Oh, and it helped a lot Gilles likes playing!
On top we had a commercial Onkyo amp and also my own VFET on the same system, and used even different loudspeakers at some time. That also helped making sure we were heading in the right direction regardless LS in comparison to commercial or kit references.
Last but not least, starting from scratch on a 3rd unit with only "the light mods", best buck for the money tweaks, helped confirming all this. That unit went to someone demanding and trained who didn't like it as standard but used it now everyday.
So yes, some work, patience, lot of time (fun and together with Gilles) and a perfect environment to play with, surrounded by various systems we could switch as we felt within seconds or minutes.
Enjoy this little amp
Claude
Adding PFFB is something that I understand should do a real difference yes, but I'm more curious about this mods where people change capacitors, op-amps etc. Does it make an measurable and audible difference or is it just placebo doing it's usual thing?
Btw, you got a nice lowered distortion, but way less power, why is that?
If you read the thread, there is a post were we listed only the best mods (value for money tweaks). These light mods together - that were implemented in a 3rd unit - cost in total less than 20E in parts and are VERY easy to implement (= OK for non advanced people).
For the price of big fast food while having a lot of fun time around an educative project, why don't you give it yourself a try and make your own mind / reply to your post, sharing with us your measurements and audible differences?
Good luck
Claude
For the price of big fast food while having a lot of fun time around an educative project, why don't you give it yourself a try and make your own mind / reply to your post, sharing with us your measurements and audible differences?
Good luck
Claude
PFFB... we didn't go for it... why?
Well, because - as you probably read in this thread - we went the trouble at one point to modify the output filter to tailorise it to the impedance curve of the main LS we were using, Quite some different values, big step on the paper. We hence expected big things to happen at least in the treble. Well, at the end, the result was quite negligeable.
I understand PFFB works indeed in a different way, enabling constant adaptation to the load - infinite changes and not a single change / adaptation. But the big single change we did didn't really bring a lot of benefits, while being a quite wide range mod for our LS impedance curve, so at the end we didn't expect PFFB to really bring some benefits in our specific case.
Admittely, we didn't try it, so we can't comment on that more than what I just did re single experiment with the output flter. And more importantly, our LS aren't very twisted when it comes to the complex impedance load they present to the amp. It is possible that more "complicated" LS regarding impedance variations vs frequency benefit more from PFFB, usualy in the treble extension if so I would say - but who knows perhaps 'elsewhere' aswell? You to try!
What I want to say is that IMHO, and that's just IMHO and not IME this time, PFFB is likely to perhaps shine on some "complicated" LS drives, while perhaps being far less significant on more benign loads. Its benefits are LS dependant, and perhaps for most users it could be overrated. But then implementing it shouldn't (again, just a guess, we didn't go for it!) bring any real negatives... or isn't it so?
You to tell us, but please do also post your LS impedance curve(s) so we can put it/them in relation with your report on this tweak. IMHO assessing audible benefits of PFFB, not to mention measurements / response curves, without linking them directly to a given LS and its complex impedance is meaningless...
Good luck
Claude
Well, because - as you probably read in this thread - we went the trouble at one point to modify the output filter to tailorise it to the impedance curve of the main LS we were using, Quite some different values, big step on the paper. We hence expected big things to happen at least in the treble. Well, at the end, the result was quite negligeable.
I understand PFFB works indeed in a different way, enabling constant adaptation to the load - infinite changes and not a single change / adaptation. But the big single change we did didn't really bring a lot of benefits, while being a quite wide range mod for our LS impedance curve, so at the end we didn't expect PFFB to really bring some benefits in our specific case.
Admittely, we didn't try it, so we can't comment on that more than what I just did re single experiment with the output flter. And more importantly, our LS aren't very twisted when it comes to the complex impedance load they present to the amp. It is possible that more "complicated" LS regarding impedance variations vs frequency benefit more from PFFB, usualy in the treble extension if so I would say - but who knows perhaps 'elsewhere' aswell? You to try!
What I want to say is that IMHO, and that's just IMHO and not IME this time, PFFB is likely to perhaps shine on some "complicated" LS drives, while perhaps being far less significant on more benign loads. Its benefits are LS dependant, and perhaps for most users it could be overrated. But then implementing it shouldn't (again, just a guess, we didn't go for it!) bring any real negatives... or isn't it so?
You to tell us, but please do also post your LS impedance curve(s) so we can put it/them in relation with your report on this tweak. IMHO assessing audible benefits of PFFB, not to mention measurements / response curves, without linking them directly to a given LS and its complex impedance is meaningless...
Good luck
Claude
I don't modify amplifiers myself, but I am curious on how much actual difference it does, hence the question.
Though this thread is 43 pages long and I'm not very keen on reading through all that, but from reading these kind of threads in the past I very rarely see any measurements at all going with those subjective "it sounds much better!" (that could very much be placebo). So it was a simple question, but I guess there ain't any simple answers to the question..
Though this thread is 43 pages long and I'm not very keen on reading through all that, but from reading these kind of threads in the past I very rarely see any measurements at all going with those subjective "it sounds much better!" (that could very much be placebo). So it was a simple question, but I guess there ain't any simple answers to the question..
Well, it is nearly Xmas, so let me elaborate a bit more and please indulge on my personal comments...
I am myself an engineer (and some more) and TRULLY LOVE data. Lots of data, those who know me personaly understand what I mean by that LOL. I spent a few decades around F1 and LM engines, active chassis and even more exotic stuff (read military aerospace) that I can't even mention publicly. I had my fun and also my share of data, all kinds of, even had to invent measurement processes... I was also a main contributor of some audio bits before forum existed (we had Yahoo lists!) a few decades ago, my pseudo hasn't changed since...
Despite this love for data, there is though a spell I like a lot, from the Germans: "Probieren geht über studieren". In short, 'Experimenting and testing goes over theory'. I played with the best softwares on crazy computers and yet, yes, that still applies and I had my share of surprises re models. Here it is just a hobby, we do hear with our ears and our brain, psychoacoustic has been somewhat developed for the public latest since Thiele a few decades ago... but so many things aren't publicly shared (money of course is the issue when people "know", but most other people don't even know what to measure for what result...) - not to mention that most things are simply still unknown. We are far away from the knowledge of an old good 3L combustion engine developing in real life 1200HP at forbidden 21500 rpm (as will be public one day - it always get public after a few decades). All that to say that if you are curious on (quote) "how much actual difference it does"... you better get started by quantifying this difference and also finding models that link data to auditive perception. Good luck, but if you (or someone else) succeed I will be your first reader with enormous pleasure!
Around this project there were very little measurements on my side,- more so from other posters BTW- I relied on experience and experiments, but the few I did outlined mainly better PS (less ripple, less harmonics and less HF content with a scope) and were posted elesewhere in other sections rather than here. Why? Because this thread was mainly aimed for beginners or so with mainly an educational and 'knowledge sharing purpose': a kind of easy guide to help people getting started on DIY around what was and still is a bargain amp project. And a non dangerous project as easy to deal with - worst case blowing a fuse or so.
I must say I am VERY happy as a lot of people joined us here (I am usualy not in the Class D section and don't own such an amp myself, I did it all for others)., and that is a good thing as it was the purpose we had with the one that started the thread and is sadly no more here. Quite a few people didn't know how to get started at all re DIY and some didn't know before experimenting around this project "in what direction to solder a cap or a diode", as you can read it here BTW. The few data I had for this project, starting with my own SMPS filter results and design considerations, would have lost most TBH...
Bottom line, YES there is a simple answer. That amp once tweaked does sound indeed good, in several blind tests over several people - possibly in today's up to 1500E amp range. End result is what counts, unless one finds out how to correlate "measurements yet to be invented" with sonic qualities. So very simple answer indeed, but sadly you have to take not mine, but our numerous words for it... as several people went for it and yest very few posted data (whatever these might have been).
Is it placebo, mass hypnotism, group dynamic, selfpride? Well, the only way for YOU to find out is trying it for yourself I am afraid. Pity you aren't modifying cheap units yourself - as said, sharing all that here did cost me a lot of time and had (as it should IMHO on forums, rather than sterile debates for example) a more profund educational and human sharing aim, very very humbly said of course. On that account I failed completely on you as I didn't manage to have you to reach for your soldering iron. My bad... It isn't Xmas yet LOL!
Enough said, I have moved to a lot of other projects since and consider that one closed or so...
Enjoy Xmas, music and life of course, all of you
Claude
I am myself an engineer (and some more) and TRULLY LOVE data. Lots of data, those who know me personaly understand what I mean by that LOL. I spent a few decades around F1 and LM engines, active chassis and even more exotic stuff (read military aerospace) that I can't even mention publicly. I had my fun and also my share of data, all kinds of, even had to invent measurement processes... I was also a main contributor of some audio bits before forum existed (we had Yahoo lists!) a few decades ago, my pseudo hasn't changed since...
Despite this love for data, there is though a spell I like a lot, from the Germans: "Probieren geht über studieren". In short, 'Experimenting and testing goes over theory'. I played with the best softwares on crazy computers and yet, yes, that still applies and I had my share of surprises re models. Here it is just a hobby, we do hear with our ears and our brain, psychoacoustic has been somewhat developed for the public latest since Thiele a few decades ago... but so many things aren't publicly shared (money of course is the issue when people "know", but most other people don't even know what to measure for what result...) - not to mention that most things are simply still unknown. We are far away from the knowledge of an old good 3L combustion engine developing in real life 1200HP at forbidden 21500 rpm (as will be public one day - it always get public after a few decades). All that to say that if you are curious on (quote) "how much actual difference it does"... you better get started by quantifying this difference and also finding models that link data to auditive perception. Good luck, but if you (or someone else) succeed I will be your first reader with enormous pleasure!
Around this project there were very little measurements on my side,- more so from other posters BTW- I relied on experience and experiments, but the few I did outlined mainly better PS (less ripple, less harmonics and less HF content with a scope) and were posted elesewhere in other sections rather than here. Why? Because this thread was mainly aimed for beginners or so with mainly an educational and 'knowledge sharing purpose': a kind of easy guide to help people getting started on DIY around what was and still is a bargain amp project. And a non dangerous project as easy to deal with - worst case blowing a fuse or so.
I must say I am VERY happy as a lot of people joined us here (I am usualy not in the Class D section and don't own such an amp myself, I did it all for others)., and that is a good thing as it was the purpose we had with the one that started the thread and is sadly no more here. Quite a few people didn't know how to get started at all re DIY and some didn't know before experimenting around this project "in what direction to solder a cap or a diode", as you can read it here BTW. The few data I had for this project, starting with my own SMPS filter results and design considerations, would have lost most TBH...
Bottom line, YES there is a simple answer. That amp once tweaked does sound indeed good, in several blind tests over several people - possibly in today's up to 1500E amp range. End result is what counts, unless one finds out how to correlate "measurements yet to be invented" with sonic qualities. So very simple answer indeed, but sadly you have to take not mine, but our numerous words for it... as several people went for it and yest very few posted data (whatever these might have been).
Is it placebo, mass hypnotism, group dynamic, selfpride? Well, the only way for YOU to find out is trying it for yourself I am afraid. Pity you aren't modifying cheap units yourself - as said, sharing all that here did cost me a lot of time and had (as it should IMHO on forums, rather than sterile debates for example) a more profund educational and human sharing aim, very very humbly said of course. On that account I failed completely on you as I didn't manage to have you to reach for your soldering iron. My bad... It isn't Xmas yet LOL!
Enough said, I have moved to a lot of other projects since and consider that one closed or so...
Enjoy Xmas, music and life of course, all of you
Claude
Well if I'd had more time I might try out modifying class D amps, but then I'd also need measurement equipment or else I'd just do it in the blind because I need to know before and after. I could of course try to rely on my ears, but it's a well known fact that humans auditory memory is really quite bad, and since the difference will probably be very quite small I wouldn't know what it is I'm hearing since it could very well also be placebo, because that is also a well known fact that my brain for SO many reasons could "hear" differences even though it's actually not there.
These reasons might include my mood for the day, if I've eaten recently, if the coffee is still in my body, if I managed to change the volume between the tests, if I sit a decimeter further to the left, if the modified component looks bigger and more expensive than the old one or whatever it might be.
And if I then instead would rely on just other peoples modification suggestions after THEIR subjective listening I would be even more in the blind because I have no idea what they are actually hearing or not.
This is why I ask for measurements, because modifying electronics like this without them is just pointless.
These reasons might include my mood for the day, if I've eaten recently, if the coffee is still in my body, if I managed to change the volume between the tests, if I sit a decimeter further to the left, if the modified component looks bigger and more expensive than the old one or whatever it might be.
And if I then instead would rely on just other peoples modification suggestions after THEIR subjective listening I would be even more in the blind because I have no idea what they are actually hearing or not.
This is why I ask for measurements, because modifying electronics like this without them is just pointless.
There is an easy way to address all your concerns, both objective and subjective: Do it as we did: build 2 amps!
You will always be able to compare them, once of course you made sure they measured and sounded the same initialy (which they normay should given the easy schematic and chip amp used, except at very low levels perhaps due to the bad tracking of the volume pot ;-)
Regarding measurements, well, I don't know what you want to measure and corelate to your perceived sound, but anyway there are enough forums on that to guide you. And nowadays analysers linked to a PC and basic scopes really come very cheap (from 100E upwards in total).
Regarding 2 amps, the initial oncost is 70E and you may be able to find a landsman who is anyway interested at the end in one final amp benefiting of all your work. Or work with you on this recerational and educational fun project, as Gilles and I did.
Then there are 2 ways to proceed (and we did both because we had, err... 3 units of this amp). You can either keep one as standard and only mod one, so always have the genuine unit as reference. Or you can mod one, assert against the other (no need to rely on memory as 2 units), once satified with the step forward modify the second unit and make sure again both units sound the same before the next step. And keep of course your step by step measurements.
Both have their merits and downfall. In the first case, you are taking a non perfect unit as benchlark, that helps assessing though the overall step but may potentialy lead you to drift somewhat, although if your are guided by measurements only who knows. In the second case you lose your absolute reference hence me sugesting to have at least a good third party amp as reference to know where you are going and avoid all what you said re subjectivness, especialy if you aren't used to develop HIFI units and have untrained ears.
We were lucky: we had 3 units of 04 amps and an Onkyo amp and the Pass VFET amp all the time in our test system, enabling sometimes on the fly, sometimes switching between warm units within less than a minute. There were 2 or 3 of us, good for blindtests in case of, good for easyness also... and more fun anyway All quite complicated and time consuming though, but we did it all for you and what is left on your side is just assessing the mods taking all the time you want for that.
Good luck and let us know your findings
Claude
You will always be able to compare them, once of course you made sure they measured and sounded the same initialy (which they normay should given the easy schematic and chip amp used, except at very low levels perhaps due to the bad tracking of the volume pot ;-)
Regarding measurements, well, I don't know what you want to measure and corelate to your perceived sound, but anyway there are enough forums on that to guide you. And nowadays analysers linked to a PC and basic scopes really come very cheap (from 100E upwards in total).
Regarding 2 amps, the initial oncost is 70E and you may be able to find a landsman who is anyway interested at the end in one final amp benefiting of all your work. Or work with you on this recerational and educational fun project, as Gilles and I did.
Then there are 2 ways to proceed (and we did both because we had, err... 3 units of this amp). You can either keep one as standard and only mod one, so always have the genuine unit as reference. Or you can mod one, assert against the other (no need to rely on memory as 2 units), once satified with the step forward modify the second unit and make sure again both units sound the same before the next step. And keep of course your step by step measurements.
Both have their merits and downfall. In the first case, you are taking a non perfect unit as benchlark, that helps assessing though the overall step but may potentialy lead you to drift somewhat, although if your are guided by measurements only who knows. In the second case you lose your absolute reference hence me sugesting to have at least a good third party amp as reference to know where you are going and avoid all what you said re subjectivness, especialy if you aren't used to develop HIFI units and have untrained ears.
We were lucky: we had 3 units of 04 amps and an Onkyo amp and the Pass VFET amp all the time in our test system, enabling sometimes on the fly, sometimes switching between warm units within less than a minute. There were 2 or 3 of us, good for blindtests in case of, good for easyness also... and more fun anyway All quite complicated and time consuming though, but we did it all for you and what is left on your side is just assessing the mods taking all the time you want for that.
Good luck and let us know your findings
Claude
Note that modifying units without measurements is of course not best, but not necessarly pointless. It may in fact be pointless or useless to YOU indeed, but isn't for trained people and all manufacturers I know rely at the end on tests with regerence ears. But please don't debate on that here, we don't want another polluted thread with so called objectivist, there are enough of these.
Just as a side note, training your ears and memory and using your brain and ears as measurement tool is cheaper than the above and definitely not difficult, even fun, but admittely time consuming and of course you need some training before achieving some fair results.
Gilles and I were gifted on that and trained since very young due to our family being world class musicians, but that's another story and from what I could gather in recording studio nearly anyone paying attention and training a bit can really achieve a certain level of discernment. Down side may be though that once trained your listenings end up very critical and it may be more difficult to simply relax and enjoy music because you hear all shortfalls. And you end up spending a lot of time and money in this hobby before becoming happy, but that's another topic all together.
Bottom line is though that I believe anyone can be trained up to a certain level (and that applies to all topics, nowadays I am a trainer) and it is non expensive and doesn't require a gear. If it is true that brain and ears can be misleading on some occasions, it is equaly true that they are on some accounts simply top tools. Oh, and at the end, let us not get fooled, it is a matter of pleasing our ears and brain, not reading data, so at the end the result that matters is being more happy with the sound, not satisfied or trying to convince ourselves it sounds better based on data.
I am very trustfull the mods listed here have so much sonic impact that even say average untrained ears should be able to tell the massive difference.
Enjoy Xmas!!!
Claude
Just as a side note, training your ears and memory and using your brain and ears as measurement tool is cheaper than the above and definitely not difficult, even fun, but admittely time consuming and of course you need some training before achieving some fair results.
Gilles and I were gifted on that and trained since very young due to our family being world class musicians, but that's another story and from what I could gather in recording studio nearly anyone paying attention and training a bit can really achieve a certain level of discernment. Down side may be though that once trained your listenings end up very critical and it may be more difficult to simply relax and enjoy music because you hear all shortfalls. And you end up spending a lot of time and money in this hobby before becoming happy, but that's another topic all together.
Bottom line is though that I believe anyone can be trained up to a certain level (and that applies to all topics, nowadays I am a trainer) and it is non expensive and doesn't require a gear. If it is true that brain and ears can be misleading on some occasions, it is equaly true that they are on some accounts simply top tools. Oh, and at the end, let us not get fooled, it is a matter of pleasing our ears and brain, not reading data, so at the end the result that matters is being more happy with the sound, not satisfied or trying to convince ourselves it sounds better based on data.
I am very trustfull the mods listed here have so much sonic impact that even say average untrained ears should be able to tell the massive difference.
Enjoy Xmas!!!
Claude
I've been into music for all my life and is quite well trained as well, but even doing A/B test between devices with a minute between them is way too long. Blind testing is the only way to go then, but then buying two or even three units seems a bit overkill, but might of course happen for some people. Though if someone is playing around with amps like this a lot then that measuring equipment is the way to go. I mean measuring distortion, noise and frequency response goes a loong way, way longer than any easily fooled subjective testing.
But okay, after this back and forth I guess the short and simple answer is: No people here generally don't measure. Hence, not a interesting thread for me at all. Thank you and happy holidays!
But okay, after this back and forth I guess the short and simple answer is: No people here generally don't measure. Hence, not a interesting thread for me at all. Thank you and happy holidays!