We all tend to trust our own senses, including our own ears. Also, it is now fairly well accepted that extensive training can improve various aspects of hearing, including hearing small distortions.
Perhaps I would be incorrect to infer that you do not hear small distortions, and you do trust your own hearing in that matter?
Maybe I would also be incorrect that you have not received trained and engaged in prolonged practice to hear small distortions?
In any case, none of this is particularly analogous to impressions of cars by average drivers. Professional test drivers? Maybe closer, but still not the same.
As as aside, I was a pretty fast motorcycle rider, most other people I rode with remarked, including on the track. And some of my riding buddies were instructors for track schools. The subtle things people learn to focus attention on when they are experts is very different from what more average, or maybe call it normal, people do. At least in that respect, there may be some analogy to listening.
Perhaps I would be incorrect to infer that you do not hear small distortions, and you do trust your own hearing in that matter?
Maybe I would also be incorrect that you have not received trained and engaged in prolonged practice to hear small distortions?
In any case, none of this is particularly analogous to impressions of cars by average drivers. Professional test drivers? Maybe closer, but still not the same.
As as aside, I was a pretty fast motorcycle rider, most other people I rode with remarked, including on the track. And some of my riding buddies were instructors for track schools. The subtle things people learn to focus attention on when they are experts is very different from what more average, or maybe call it normal, people do. At least in that respect, there may be some analogy to listening.
In the 1980's a movement started up to question the reliablity of standard measurements. For example, as was rightly pointed out there is no relationship between a resistor and a real speaker load. If you like the torque of an amplifier wasn't being tested nor the phase shifting of current and voltage.
A loudspeaker crudely follows the amplifiers suggestions. The speaker becomes non linear as the magnetic circuit changes as the coil leaves the centre position. It is not a bad type of distortion. It is large if measured. Then there is mass and resonance problems that sound bad regardless of how we try to hide them ( it either rasps or sounds dull ). Sadly paper that works so well is often rejected as being old hat. It's unique damping out guns most materials as it is a relaxed carbon fibre. It also is very stiff in relationship to it's mass. The idea that a 8 to 10 inch unit crossed at a very unfortunate 3 kHz will let us hear and amplifer is unlikely. What we can hear is a good marriage which might be of low distortion.
One problem we have is the real knowledge of the best designers is kept to themselves. It's small tricks and avoidance of problems. They will never talk about this in public. Same with F1 racing and their tricks.
One thing I am sure would catch most people out is a really good SE valve amplifier used with a speaker that suits it's probelms ( Quad ESL 57 or 63 ). If a blind test I feel certain most would mistake it for an ultra low distortion type. The PSU would have to be first class and maybe not old thinking. The bandwith on the one I built for fun was 15 Hz to 62 kHz ( 20 Hz to 40 kHz - 1 dB ) . Distortion was about 1% ( - 40 dB ) with the ideal harmonics from 1950's research into hearing ( via Quad ESL at the time so valid today, They are 0.1% THD loud ). Max power 8 watts. At 1 watt almost zero distortion as only -54dB second, the rest below - 73 dB. No loop feedback and very little local feedback. Mostly a crafty use of penodes and triodes ( 82 % triode UL in fact ) to get what I wanted. The sound stage is very deep and shows how the music was recorded. The old Dire Straits LP showing who the performers were in their own space as they play, never heard before. The more dramatic is a locomotive circa 1957 entering a station. For some reason this type of amplifer can make the whistle sound big, bass harmonics I suspect. This isn't power, it's a mysterious type of dynamic range that force our ears to work. The low distortion Hypex designs hint at the same although they need special PSU design. The Hypex lets you hear the PSU! This is logical as the PSU and speakers are linked by a wire with voltage and current gain. A pendulum of sorts that asks the mains to join in. Class A less so.
Most valve designs sound like Christmas pudding. I dislike these, 90% I hear do this. Marantz 9 is one I really like as is Leak Stereo 20. I have no real like of valves except to say some are very good. It's not rose coloured that works for me. My ex BBC sound engineer friend has a Krell and the Leak. The Leek is vastly less distorted musically. The Krell sounds bright and damped. This is through BBC LS5/9.
One great thing about op amps is 5 minutes after opening a Jiffy bag they can be in use. If an op amp sounds badly different it probably is oscillating. Forget simulations. Measure it.
Motorcycles are weird. My CB900FA was OK on the snow! I tell a lie, it was excellent. It should have been awful. It had granny power.
Koni use to say 40% of a suspension is the rubber bump stops. As I badly set up my Koni's at first it was 100 %. It was interesting and not totally wrong. Hi fi has it's bumps stops.
A loudspeaker crudely follows the amplifiers suggestions. The speaker becomes non linear as the magnetic circuit changes as the coil leaves the centre position. It is not a bad type of distortion. It is large if measured. Then there is mass and resonance problems that sound bad regardless of how we try to hide them ( it either rasps or sounds dull ). Sadly paper that works so well is often rejected as being old hat. It's unique damping out guns most materials as it is a relaxed carbon fibre. It also is very stiff in relationship to it's mass. The idea that a 8 to 10 inch unit crossed at a very unfortunate 3 kHz will let us hear and amplifer is unlikely. What we can hear is a good marriage which might be of low distortion.
One problem we have is the real knowledge of the best designers is kept to themselves. It's small tricks and avoidance of problems. They will never talk about this in public. Same with F1 racing and their tricks.
One thing I am sure would catch most people out is a really good SE valve amplifier used with a speaker that suits it's probelms ( Quad ESL 57 or 63 ). If a blind test I feel certain most would mistake it for an ultra low distortion type. The PSU would have to be first class and maybe not old thinking. The bandwith on the one I built for fun was 15 Hz to 62 kHz ( 20 Hz to 40 kHz - 1 dB ) . Distortion was about 1% ( - 40 dB ) with the ideal harmonics from 1950's research into hearing ( via Quad ESL at the time so valid today, They are 0.1% THD loud ). Max power 8 watts. At 1 watt almost zero distortion as only -54dB second, the rest below - 73 dB. No loop feedback and very little local feedback. Mostly a crafty use of penodes and triodes ( 82 % triode UL in fact ) to get what I wanted. The sound stage is very deep and shows how the music was recorded. The old Dire Straits LP showing who the performers were in their own space as they play, never heard before. The more dramatic is a locomotive circa 1957 entering a station. For some reason this type of amplifer can make the whistle sound big, bass harmonics I suspect. This isn't power, it's a mysterious type of dynamic range that force our ears to work. The low distortion Hypex designs hint at the same although they need special PSU design. The Hypex lets you hear the PSU! This is logical as the PSU and speakers are linked by a wire with voltage and current gain. A pendulum of sorts that asks the mains to join in. Class A less so.
Most valve designs sound like Christmas pudding. I dislike these, 90% I hear do this. Marantz 9 is one I really like as is Leak Stereo 20. I have no real like of valves except to say some are very good. It's not rose coloured that works for me. My ex BBC sound engineer friend has a Krell and the Leak. The Leek is vastly less distorted musically. The Krell sounds bright and damped. This is through BBC LS5/9.
One great thing about op amps is 5 minutes after opening a Jiffy bag they can be in use. If an op amp sounds badly different it probably is oscillating. Forget simulations. Measure it.
Motorcycles are weird. My CB900FA was OK on the snow! I tell a lie, it was excellent. It should have been awful. It had granny power.
Koni use to say 40% of a suspension is the rubber bump stops. As I badly set up my Koni's at first it was 100 %. It was interesting and not totally wrong. Hi fi has it's bumps stops.
Dan you say about white noise or what people mean by that. I sometimes think what people says in these threads often implies they could by analogy with sound see infra red and ultra violet. If they said they could infer it from clues I would be happier, feel the infra red for example. Audio is described like a science. However the mechanics of it seldom seems to get added to the pot. An inconvenient truth ?
Hear is a disscussion I had with someone in Blemheim Park on the bridge. He said research suggested the noise spectrum of valves to be not like transistors and might be the only reason we like them. Pentodes seem no different to me in this if not of the best grade, worse in fact. 1/f noise I suspect and not partition noise. After much thought I felt it to be more complex.
Now here is a weird thing. If wanting to have a closer sound to that of valves yet retain the distortion advantages of an op amp one can add op amps in paralell. This will reduce the noise level into the bargain and could give more current output. As valves are seldom very low noise it isn't that we hear. Some op amps that have low noise still sound bright and a bit processsed. LT1115 is an example. An analogy would be wine that needs decanting. This was against a banked MC33079 (cheap ). Both are very low distortion devices ( look carefully at the data and graphs. not least where distrortion rises ). MC 33078/79 is the easiest op amp in the world to get working and cheap. Both devices were showing the other what's best. I conclude that statistical noise cancelling is the largest distortion change we haven't thought of. This is because the maths of it are why. It's not just lower noise, it's how it became that. Don't look at it in audio, look in statistics. How to find a trend inside noise.
Back to MC33078/9. It is the simplest signal path op amp I know of that should exceed any " real " requirement. The one I found astonishing was a gain of 120 wide band. I built a MC preamp for a very low output Ortofon MC ( SPU? ). The guy who bought it thought it the only time he ever heard a good solid state solution. The total gain 120 x 17 ( 3180/318 ). We have to say 120 x 170 at circa 20 Hz ( 86 dB ). Hiss like a standard Revox, it was fine. It was against anthing I believed in and only did it to please him. As he said the fludity of sound was fantastic. He had an option for half the gain for other PU's. He prefered the ultra gain version for all. I did have the ouput of the first stage in SE class A. That must help keep the high order distortion from coming into play. I wouldn't be surprised if THD was heading towards 1% at times which is lower than a Revox I suspect.
A guy I met worked for Sony. He always recorded using Sony digital and a Revox with Dolby Pro side by side ( safety copy ). Taking microphone hiss into the story it was impossible to say by hiss alone which was analogue. Often he was unhappy with the digital copy so made a fake DDD when he returned to base. He said often it took many goes to get a nice window. The then digital fake for CD mastering handed in and DDD on the CD case. His main professional gripe was none of his bosses realised. He thought any real recording engineer would hear a Revox in a few seconds despite leaving no obvious clues like hiss.
Hear is a disscussion I had with someone in Blemheim Park on the bridge. He said research suggested the noise spectrum of valves to be not like transistors and might be the only reason we like them. Pentodes seem no different to me in this if not of the best grade, worse in fact. 1/f noise I suspect and not partition noise. After much thought I felt it to be more complex.
Now here is a weird thing. If wanting to have a closer sound to that of valves yet retain the distortion advantages of an op amp one can add op amps in paralell. This will reduce the noise level into the bargain and could give more current output. As valves are seldom very low noise it isn't that we hear. Some op amps that have low noise still sound bright and a bit processsed. LT1115 is an example. An analogy would be wine that needs decanting. This was against a banked MC33079 (cheap ). Both are very low distortion devices ( look carefully at the data and graphs. not least where distrortion rises ). MC 33078/79 is the easiest op amp in the world to get working and cheap. Both devices were showing the other what's best. I conclude that statistical noise cancelling is the largest distortion change we haven't thought of. This is because the maths of it are why. It's not just lower noise, it's how it became that. Don't look at it in audio, look in statistics. How to find a trend inside noise.
Back to MC33078/9. It is the simplest signal path op amp I know of that should exceed any " real " requirement. The one I found astonishing was a gain of 120 wide band. I built a MC preamp for a very low output Ortofon MC ( SPU? ). The guy who bought it thought it the only time he ever heard a good solid state solution. The total gain 120 x 17 ( 3180/318 ). We have to say 120 x 170 at circa 20 Hz ( 86 dB ). Hiss like a standard Revox, it was fine. It was against anthing I believed in and only did it to please him. As he said the fludity of sound was fantastic. He had an option for half the gain for other PU's. He prefered the ultra gain version for all. I did have the ouput of the first stage in SE class A. That must help keep the high order distortion from coming into play. I wouldn't be surprised if THD was heading towards 1% at times which is lower than a Revox I suspect.
A guy I met worked for Sony. He always recorded using Sony digital and a Revox with Dolby Pro side by side ( safety copy ). Taking microphone hiss into the story it was impossible to say by hiss alone which was analogue. Often he was unhappy with the digital copy so made a fake DDD when he returned to base. He said often it took many goes to get a nice window. The then digital fake for CD mastering handed in and DDD on the CD case. His main professional gripe was none of his bosses realised. He thought any real recording engineer would hear a Revox in a few seconds despite leaving no obvious clues like hiss.
Hi Nige.
I'm saying that every typical material is noisy, and each with characteristic time and spectral behaviours.
Excess noise (1/f current noise) creates more excess noise, ie electric current chaotic behaviour due to materials time/spectral characteristics interactions at materials interfaces.
IOW, the quieter the source the much quieter are the downstream consequentials.
The time/spectral signature of the source dominates the system consequentials in a sense, and this is what you are hearing as being different with preference.
'Reclocking' systems end to end and at interfaces of stages substantially eliminates system chaotic behaviour, interestingly and usefully.
Dan.
Do you know any titles of those 'fake' DDD releases ?.
I'm saying that every typical material is noisy, and each with characteristic time and spectral behaviours.
Excess noise (1/f current noise) creates more excess noise, ie electric current chaotic behaviour due to materials time/spectral characteristics interactions at materials interfaces.
IOW, the quieter the source the much quieter are the downstream consequentials.
The time/spectral signature of the source dominates the system consequentials in a sense, and this is what you are hearing as being different with preference.
'Reclocking' systems end to end and at interfaces of stages substantially eliminates system chaotic behaviour, interestingly and usefully.
Dan.
Do you know any titles of those 'fake' DDD releases ?.
Last edited:
Dan,they were for Sony and often Christ Church Oxford. That's all I know. Lets say circa 1988. I was careful not to ask him too much as I suspect he wouldn't have said so much. He was mostly saying few people have a clue about this and yet the experiance is one small step as an engineer. He and I thought the window was 5 dB when PCMF1 and 30 dB when Revox.
There was a Denon test disc at 0 dB, - 20 db and - 40 dB of Pascal Rogé perhaps. Denon asked us to set up a calibrated attenuator. The music then played at exactly the same volume three times. First time was a very saturated recording that was on the whole good.The next sounded almost the same except as if played through a translucent mesh ( like hiss without obvious hiss ). The - 40 dB was pathetic and like a kazoo. A Revox at +10, 0 - 20 and - 40 would all be useful if that the only recording we had. If Dolby Pro added the - 40 dB might still be on the limit of usable. The most significant thing is the Revox has ( or had when 16 bit ) 30 dB extra of usefull range.
When I did recordings I had my own little bit from the conductor in the musical score and a glance to me to say had I remembered. I would gain ride to make sure the dynamic range was possible. That is 30 seconds before a loud bit I was bringing down the levels 1950's style. This can not be heard on the playback. Così fan tutte was my finest moment. Sometimes when it goes well the performance is 10 dB louder on the night.
I learnt how to record from Sir Henry Egerton Aubrey-Fletcher. He was just Henry at BBC radio Oxford at the time. He very modestly said although no expert he passed on what he had learnt with the BBC. The budget did not extend to a specialist when local radio so Henry filled in. He asked me to explain what was wrong with my recordings. I said they sounded underwater. Instantly he said it was my microphone stand and get rid of any by using string. He explained even though Oxford Town Hall weighed many 100's of tons it didn't stop the sound going through the building structure. He set me up for life with 5 minutes of chat. If you listen to turntable using a screwdriver to the chassis you find the same.
There was a Denon test disc at 0 dB, - 20 db and - 40 dB of Pascal Rogé perhaps. Denon asked us to set up a calibrated attenuator. The music then played at exactly the same volume three times. First time was a very saturated recording that was on the whole good.The next sounded almost the same except as if played through a translucent mesh ( like hiss without obvious hiss ). The - 40 dB was pathetic and like a kazoo. A Revox at +10, 0 - 20 and - 40 would all be useful if that the only recording we had. If Dolby Pro added the - 40 dB might still be on the limit of usable. The most significant thing is the Revox has ( or had when 16 bit ) 30 dB extra of usefull range.
When I did recordings I had my own little bit from the conductor in the musical score and a glance to me to say had I remembered. I would gain ride to make sure the dynamic range was possible. That is 30 seconds before a loud bit I was bringing down the levels 1950's style. This can not be heard on the playback. Così fan tutte was my finest moment. Sometimes when it goes well the performance is 10 dB louder on the night.
I learnt how to record from Sir Henry Egerton Aubrey-Fletcher. He was just Henry at BBC radio Oxford at the time. He very modestly said although no expert he passed on what he had learnt with the BBC. The budget did not extend to a specialist when local radio so Henry filled in. He asked me to explain what was wrong with my recordings. I said they sounded underwater. Instantly he said it was my microphone stand and get rid of any by using string. He explained even though Oxford Town Hall weighed many 100's of tons it didn't stop the sound going through the building structure. He set me up for life with 5 minutes of chat. If you listen to turntable using a screwdriver to the chassis you find the same.
I did a bit of searching but didn't find stuff from 1988.
Christ Church Cathedral Discography, interesting building.
Yes, low level noise can provide dithering throughout the system, but it's gotta be exactly dead flat white or it will force a system dynamic signature of some sort.
This is where DS DACS fall down, clock noise and noise shaping imparts a readily identifiable and recognisable signature.
This signature can be pleasing or downright annoying, either way it's bending the truth.
The limited amplitude resolution of CD and noisy clock timing of record and replay and noise shaping add up to uncertainty at replay causing production of relatively lots of wild stuff that doesn't belong setting playback system into chaos including loudspeakers.
Replay clock noise spectrum is everything, get the clock 1/f noise low and the rest dead white and digital audio typical problems disappear and analog starts to sound not so good after all.
Related to your experience, interesting thing is live good pub system with my noise lowering treatment, bass comes from the floor, indeed out of the floor with seismic stuff felt through the feet, feels good feels fun.
Dan.
Christ Church Cathedral Discography, interesting building.
Yes, low level noise can provide dithering throughout the system, but it's gotta be exactly dead flat white or it will force a system dynamic signature of some sort.
This is where DS DACS fall down, clock noise and noise shaping imparts a readily identifiable and recognisable signature.
This signature can be pleasing or downright annoying, either way it's bending the truth.
The limited amplitude resolution of CD and noisy clock timing of record and replay and noise shaping add up to uncertainty at replay causing production of relatively lots of wild stuff that doesn't belong setting playback system into chaos including loudspeakers.
Replay clock noise spectrum is everything, get the clock 1/f noise low and the rest dead white and digital audio typical problems disappear and analog starts to sound not so good after all.
Related to your experience, interesting thing is live good pub system with my noise lowering treatment, bass comes from the floor, indeed out of the floor with seismic stuff felt through the feet, feels good feels fun.
Dan.
Hi Dan
Ref to the effects of noise shaping, it much depends on what noise shaping has been employed.
See the tabulated data on the table at the beginning of the paper and the spectrum plot of each noise shaping type.
http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/dither.pdf
Playback the linked samples to notice the difference in perceived sound.
Also play them through different audio systems to find out if they sound differently due to the variable ‘sensitivity’ to HF noise of the different downstream playback equipment.
George
Yes, I am sure you can hear the (22MHz and up) clock after it's been through a 3rd order LPF set at 100-200kHz typically.
Where do you come up with this nonsense?
Conceptually the clock phase noise will modulate with the audio. The core of the jitter issue. However except for primitive and poorly executed designs, today the clock phase noise is a really academic issue, even with Toslink. I can get 20 pS of jitter with Toslink at 192/24 which is really at a point where its not an issue.
I find it hard to buy into a "ladder" dac being better than delta sigma today. Fundamentally the ladder dac cannot get the INL or the DNL anywhere near the performance of a DS dac. Too many places where the accuracy of the technology can't do it. I don't buy the noise shaping argument either. Its a well understood technique that works.
What is really interesting that DS=bad in some circles with either ladder =good or DSD=good. its seems you should not be able to get both since they are mutually exclusive in pure form. Modern DAC's use elements of all three so either they have the best or the worst of all options it seems.
Recently, it turned out that some members here don't all have such modern DACs. Well, maybe 10 years old or so, and perhaps far from the best even then. For some who are more interested in vinyl, DACs are possibly not a high priority. Then there are some using rather old, low cost laptops for listening, etc.
Not all listeners are paying that much attention to little things like DAC performance limitations.
Not all listeners are paying that much attention to little things like DAC performance limitations.
One thing I find interesting is the I to V op amp at the end of a DAC. Could a Hypex module do that duty? Just let the output choke deal with it or at least do something unusual at the I to V stage.
I always suspected the hiss on analogue CD's was no bad thing. Also no bad thing for class AB amplifiers of which op amps are an example ( use 10K loadings to make it class A ? ). The speaker will help the process as it has a spring type reaction to the amplifier.
What is very weird about this is the speaker should be the only quality factor in a hi fi system. It isn't. I specualte that the mechanism before the negative feedback loop is closed is somehow still known.
Here is something. Op amp distortion must be two types. Curve distortion or crossover distortion. All other types are related, for example IM distortion. RF demodulation could be a factor ( changing DC conditions ). It is highly unlikely a reduction of curve distortion matters much and is mostly about gain. Reduction of crossover distortion should be very important and could be why a very low distortion op amp might sound very OK. The ultra low might sound worse as to reduce the curve distortion further might need a further long tail pair or whatever to get a marginal improvement.
A lecture that might be legend rather than fact was said to be given by Bob Stuart circa 1979. I was told it was called " Causes of distortion in power amplifiers due to loss of imformation ". As I didn't go I will report it as told to me. Bob said that if one could fight to get a specification that seemed right for the job with as few active components as possible if has to sound better. Bob suggested that regardless of the measured outcome ever transistor in the series signal path is a copy. Do as few copies as you can. This might go a long way towards explaining " What wrong with op amps ". If we build high voltage simple class A stages as was common in the 1970's we might if very careful beat the op amps. An analogy might be a hand made suit albeit made from everyday cloth. The fit is better.
I always suspected the hiss on analogue CD's was no bad thing. Also no bad thing for class AB amplifiers of which op amps are an example ( use 10K loadings to make it class A ? ). The speaker will help the process as it has a spring type reaction to the amplifier.
What is very weird about this is the speaker should be the only quality factor in a hi fi system. It isn't. I specualte that the mechanism before the negative feedback loop is closed is somehow still known.
Here is something. Op amp distortion must be two types. Curve distortion or crossover distortion. All other types are related, for example IM distortion. RF demodulation could be a factor ( changing DC conditions ). It is highly unlikely a reduction of curve distortion matters much and is mostly about gain. Reduction of crossover distortion should be very important and could be why a very low distortion op amp might sound very OK. The ultra low might sound worse as to reduce the curve distortion further might need a further long tail pair or whatever to get a marginal improvement.
A lecture that might be legend rather than fact was said to be given by Bob Stuart circa 1979. I was told it was called " Causes of distortion in power amplifiers due to loss of imformation ". As I didn't go I will report it as told to me. Bob said that if one could fight to get a specification that seemed right for the job with as few active components as possible if has to sound better. Bob suggested that regardless of the measured outcome ever transistor in the series signal path is a copy. Do as few copies as you can. This might go a long way towards explaining " What wrong with op amps ". If we build high voltage simple class A stages as was common in the 1970's we might if very careful beat the op amps. An analogy might be a hand made suit albeit made from everyday cloth. The fit is better.
hell, there is a whole sub clan here who are still building non-oversampling* DACs using TDA1541 chips from the 80s . And the discrete ladder DAC bunch who take resistor rolling to whole new levels.
Remember the Nelson Pass quote 'It's entertainment, not dialysis'
I think long before he said that my boss also. We knew people who seemed to be in some danger as they could worry about the smallest thing.
Many do not realise that the recordings they own are only hi fi by accident. For whatever reason the engineer wanted it also.
A major proven issue with IC op-amps remains unaddressed here. Its dare not mentioned.
That would be the dreaded 'last buy' letter after a new product is released...
I have experienced it numerous times.
Suggested a sub-contract hoarder, no can't do that company policy is zero inventory 'just in time'. (the company is for sale but we can't tell you)
Then come more production meeting invites and eventually sign-off on grey market parts. (repeatedly on the same part)
But everything is 'feng shui' now, have gone back to discrete designs with smt/thru-hole combined footprints.
I'm still getting Scott's material together on SRT and the quantum audio app.
That would be the dreaded 'last buy' letter after a new product is released...
I have experienced it numerous times.
Suggested a sub-contract hoarder, no can't do that company policy is zero inventory 'just in time'. (the company is for sale but we can't tell you)
Then come more production meeting invites and eventually sign-off on grey market parts. (repeatedly on the same part)
But everything is 'feng shui' now, have gone back to discrete designs with smt/thru-hole combined footprints.
I'm still getting Scott's material together on SRT and the quantum audio app.
If only. When I was young I might have thought so. I hate the presentation. However my Nokia phone and cheap Sennheiser phones are doing many things very well. I have some Stax also that are not very comfortable. I have an iPhone that is not really my cup of tea. Sennheiser HD414 were better than most. The 600 ohm version very like a Sennheiser microphone of the period. If you think about it that and binaural coud work. Wharfedale Isodynamic also. Mini Magnepans.
We hear bass through the body below 200 Hz. A vibrating chair probably would make the sound more open if the sound was in time. The brain measures depth this way. If a friend can play a pipe organ that has the really deep notes get them to play the music with and without them ( you doing it is not a good as you need to be away from the keyboard ). It is impossible to hear some of these pipes as single notes. We feel them and might hear a harmonic. This is less likely than you think as organ builders take trouble to prevent that. Two effects you might hear. Pipe used or not and timing. If the timing is wrong the tonal colour and midrange depth changes. The organ has many problems because of this. All the same, it answers many complex hi fi questions.
We hear bass through the body below 200 Hz. A vibrating chair probably would make the sound more open if the sound was in time. The brain measures depth this way. If a friend can play a pipe organ that has the really deep notes get them to play the music with and without them ( you doing it is not a good as you need to be away from the keyboard ). It is impossible to hear some of these pipes as single notes. We feel them and might hear a harmonic. This is less likely than you think as organ builders take trouble to prevent that. Two effects you might hear. Pipe used or not and timing. If the timing is wrong the tonal colour and midrange depth changes. The organ has many problems because of this. All the same, it answers many complex hi fi questions.
well you have seen the measurements of an iphone audio out? Not at all shabby. Some modern phones have ESS chipsets, same as your benchmark and there is a huge amount of research into soundfields with headphones ongoing for this market (witness recent AES boondoggle I mentioned before).
So actually phone+software+good phones could actually be a very good solution.
So actually phone+software+good phones could actually be a very good solution.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.