I never challenged OP their perceptions. Learned back in the ASCII terminal days doing that in an Audio forum was a recipe for war. Still, the post is like saying "I changed the tires on my car. Feels much better going round the rotary", OK, tires changed from what to what? What kind of car is it?
These specifics definitely aid toward responding in a way that might actually illuminate why the difference was perceived. Instead of could be this, could be that, citing basic automobile suspension mechanics.
These specifics definitely aid toward responding in a way that might actually illuminate why the difference was perceived. Instead of could be this, could be that, citing basic automobile suspension mechanics.
Hi Speedskater,
Well, exactly. If something is defective, you may well hear differences depending on how it is driven.
However, if the amplifiers are the same technology and general design, this shouldn't happen. In the case of normal solid state, they will have similar output impedances from the point of view of the speaker system. So interaction differences are minimized. If the frequency response is different between them in the audible range, one amplifier is broken (what I said earlier).
If one speaker behaves differently, again, one is broken.
Now if you change technologies drastically, then you may hear differences, but they would be the same for both speakers and imaging shouldn't change. This assumes your speakers are the same (allowing for normal manufacturing tolerances). The constant drops out of the equation. If you get large frequency response aberrations, room acoustics may be the actual cause.
Well, exactly. If something is defective, you may well hear differences depending on how it is driven.
However, if the amplifiers are the same technology and general design, this shouldn't happen. In the case of normal solid state, they will have similar output impedances from the point of view of the speaker system. So interaction differences are minimized. If the frequency response is different between them in the audible range, one amplifier is broken (what I said earlier).
If one speaker behaves differently, again, one is broken.
Now if you change technologies drastically, then you may hear differences, but they would be the same for both speakers and imaging shouldn't change. This assumes your speakers are the same (allowing for normal manufacturing tolerances). The constant drops out of the equation. If you get large frequency response aberrations, room acoustics may be the actual cause.
Yep. It can happen. Something John Curl noticed a long time ago. Reasons why remain controversial though. Its that not everything which can be audible necessarily shows up very well in standard measurements.
Last edited:
I think you're really talking about some designs with problems. Negative feedback doesn't fix those issues. I have noticed the same thing with some amplifier designs, but it also shows in measurements.
Quasi dead damped. Into the noise level of the components. High negative feedback works with less complex circuits. It fails with highly complex ones.
A long answer for: I have tried this umpteen times and my hearing measurement does a) not recognize any difference (unfortunately the majority hears a difference clearly), or b) this difference, which I also can detect audibly, can also be determined with a peep measurement method, and finds the cause in... 1, 2, 3...
I mean, you have not yet had this experience. And I also know that you can't use visual measurement methods to prove that, for example, a transistor acts slower or faster in hearing measurement methods, it can tact or it can't tact, acts more colorful or colorless, acts grayer, cloudier or brighter or whatever.
My question came from curiosity, as I’ve just begun studying electronics, and I really wanted to know why I was hearing what I was hearing when I changed amplifiers, for me it did not occur as a subtle difference. Come to find out I must be completely deluded. Good to know.
Kind of kills the curiosity honestly.
I was listening through a FiioM17, RCA interconnects, Neurochrome 286/ Aleph Mini Turbo, LS50 Metas.
Kind of kills the curiosity honestly.
I was listening through a FiioM17, RCA interconnects, Neurochrome 286/ Aleph Mini Turbo, LS50 Metas.
Very possible that you did hear a difference that will persist. Don't be discouraged, keep doing testing.
Its easy to fool yourself either way: that you are hearing something real when you're not, or else that you believe you are imagining things when you are actually hearing something real.
Also, probably wise to be careful with people trying to "blind test" you if they are not professional perception scientists. There are multiple pitfalls where amateur testers tend to err. The bias of such erroneous testing tends towards false negative results. IOW, it will seem like you cannot detect a difference in blind testing even if there is a real difference. Maybe so or maybe not, but the testing has to be done to professional scientific standards to be sure. Therefore be wary of reformed audiophiles, now self-proclaimed objectivists, trying to prove to you with incorrectly performed blind testing that you can't hear anything reliably.
Also, probably wise to be careful with people trying to "blind test" you if they are not professional perception scientists. There are multiple pitfalls where amateur testers tend to err. The bias of such erroneous testing tends towards false negative results. IOW, it will seem like you cannot detect a difference in blind testing even if there is a real difference. Maybe so or maybe not, but the testing has to be done to professional scientific standards to be sure. Therefore be wary of reformed audiophiles, now self-proclaimed objectivists, trying to prove to you with incorrectly performed blind testing that you can't hear anything reliably.
Last edited:
You can find the crossover of the LS50 Metas being discussed here https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/kef-ls50-meta-review-speaker.25574/page-31 post #614
If I'm remembering right, KEF used to place what are essentially "burner" components into the crossover, whose purpose was to load the amplifier more uniformly over frequency. The reason being as was claimed at the time, the speaker would sound more consistently across amplifiers, the thinking being if the speaker presents a load closer to that of a resistor, that would be an ideal case.
Looking at the crossovers in the above referenced post, I can see that this is not the case. There's not enough components; KEF didnt do this for the Metas.
Clearly in this day and age, it's just too expensive to build a commercial speaker that way. Example, if you use lower quality parts even for the burner networks - those whose sole purpose is to flatten the impedance looking into the speaker terminals - that'll get heard as it interacts with the amplifier at the particular frequency its tuned to. Too expensive.
So the factor "hard / easy to drive" I would say is set to hard for the LS50 Metas. Relative to something like a FR driver with no crossover.
Now the Neurochrome 286 is a class A/B amplifier, based on chip-amp technology. The Aleph Mini Turbo is a class A amplifier, using discrete components. Simply by knowing these are a couple of very different beasts, I'd propose the change you're hearing in soundstage is due to how the two amplifiers interact electrically with the LS50 Metas, when driving a musical signal into them.
Note that I cannot lay claim to which one is "right". Nor could I tell you what to do to the speaker crossovers to make the effect of using one or the other amplifier interchangeable. I could only say "Apparently, it's possible to do so".
Did the same with class-d recently. Low disto amps sounded like someone pushed Mono button
I made 3 stage of voltage amplification and follow with triple emitter follower. The pre-driver is bootstrapped. It is negative feedback high open loop gain. It is success. Maybe the designer who fail, do not understand about Nyquist criteria for amplifier stability.
The stereo imaging mostly determine form the high frequency, because high frequency wave more focus when traveling.
So it related about the quality of high frequency. Many amplifier designer only focus on 1 kHz quality.
So it related about the quality of high frequency. Many amplifier designer only focus on 1 kHz quality.
I think exactly the same thing.
In other words, our audio experiences should be shared, otherwise where is the function of an audio forum?
Also, frankly, I've never read here of anyone saying such BS that could be considered confused or even stupid, ever.
Of course, other people's experiences will have to be verified, in case one was interested in that.
Also when someone describes his listening experience it raises the very curiosity you were talking about, which curiosity will perhaps push someone to try a similar thing.
They could be confirmed or not, but I don't see any problem with that, since it is since it is obviously foreseen.
No one shares their listening experience claiming that it is considered the Truth on Earth, after all it is a listening experience and as such it must always be verified in one's own audio "world", that is, in one's own audio system.
As always, right?
We check everything in our system, everything...
So, have fun!
That's why we love Music and Audio! 🙂
@jjasniew
I had already noticed that you no longer speak/quote directly to me and I would be sincerely sorry if I had unintentionally done something wrong to you without realizing it...
However,
The OP simply asked if there was any technology in designing amplifiers that could determine their ability to reproduce an imaging of the sound message since the OP had noticed not small differences by swapping two or more amplifiers in his system.
In this case, I don't believe it's useful to detail that experience by providing a lot of technical details that then don't answer the question.
"Is there a way to design amplifiers that allows me to predict the quantity and quality of its imaging?"
It's simply this the OP's question, if I understand correctly.
And, as far as I know, I don't think anyone has a real answer to that question.
I had already noticed that you no longer speak/quote directly to me and I would be sincerely sorry if I had unintentionally done something wrong to you without realizing it...
However,
Sincerely, in my own small way, I strongly believe that these "wars" should stop forever and that we should change this state of affairs starting now, because this is an audio forum and if one cannot share one's listening experiences without a "war" starting, it seems to me really surreal.
In my humble opinion, it wouldn't change anything.
The OP simply asked if there was any technology in designing amplifiers that could determine their ability to reproduce an imaging of the sound message since the OP had noticed not small differences by swapping two or more amplifiers in his system.
In this case, I don't believe it's useful to detail that experience by providing a lot of technical details that then don't answer the question.
"Is there a way to design amplifiers that allows me to predict the quantity and quality of its imaging?"
It's simply this the OP's question, if I understand correctly.
And, as far as I know, I don't think anyone has a real answer to that question.
Last edited:
Leave a listening pause of at least 10 seconds between the comparisons. The ear, the entire organism, is a vibrating system that needs to swing in and also swing out to some extent. An example is seeing against the light: for a long time you have the image with your eyes closed. Or also with movement: watch a car driving, for example, and close your eyes briefly. The difference in position is clearer this way than when looking behind;-)
Important: studying electronics is NOT training to become an audio electronics technician! This is specialized knowledge that is not taught!
I would also advise you to carry out a key experiment: build channel-separated psus and connect them: Compare listening channel-separated and connected. From this experience you can develop almost the entire audio, hi-fi discourse.
I found that Pass article that I'd remembered...
Pass Labs distortion and feedback
The 2nd half really gets into the IM distortion stuff. Of note: distortion complexity going up as the number of gain stages increases. Though I would add that BJT designs usually have additional follower stages as well, and those are not immune.
My latest effort uses output MOSFETs with voltage gain, and I'm considering using just a single gain stage in front of that. On a simulator it's awfully tempting to tweak the THD and add more stages. But you quickly run into things where you are forced to compare different domains, apples and oranges, and for that only listening tests can you what sounds better.