Yes. You just produced some yourself.
Dang. And you were going so good there until the question at the very end.
Dang. And you were going so good there until the question at the very end.
Is performance dependent on grunge resistance or circuit design?
Years of tinkering make me convinced that good audio design is more a function of grunge resistance than just clever circuit design, be it analogue or digital, while fully acknowledging the interrelationships between both,
In particular, there seems to be still a trial and error approach to rejecting mains, RMI/EFI, vibration and sound borne grunge rejection in hifi design.
This is surprising and has given rise to a number of specialists addressing these issues. In my experience the impact of devices by Acoustic Revive (power conditioning and grounding, RFI/EFI, vibration of components and connections, resonance control) as well as ByBee (grunge removal from interconnects, power and speaker cables) gives testmony to OEMs lack of understanding in addressing these issues. The resultant effects on SQ are way more pronounced than from replacing individual components in the chain.
As an aside, it is commonly assumed that in digital audio sum checking eliminates any and all of these issues through bit-proof transmission. Again, my experience shows that nothing could be further from the truth and that galvanic isolation as well as low tolerance to spec on cable resistance levels are required for grunge busting.
If the above is true, minimising points of ingress through limiting both the number of connections and open inputs as well as grunge originators in the system (in particular large power supplies) becomes central to putting resistant systems together. and, btw, it puts into question the validity of individual components‘ reviews, representing a nasty challenge to the reviewing trade.
Is anyone out there aware of any literature on this subject?
In particular, there seems to be still a trial and error approach to rejecting mains, RMI/EFI, vibration and sound borne grunge rejection in hifi design.
This is surprising and has given rise to a number of specialists addressing these issues. In my experience the impact of devices by Acoustic Revive (power conditioning and grounding, RFI/EFI, vibration of components and connections, resonance control) as well as ByBee (grunge removal from interconnects, power and speaker cables) gives testmony to OEMs lack of understanding in addressing these issues. The resultant effects on SQ are way more pronounced than from replacing individual components in the chain.
As an aside, it is commonly assumed that in digital audio sum checking eliminates any and all of these issues through bit-proof transmission. Again, my experience shows that nothing could be further from the truth and that galvanic isolation as well as low tolerance to spec on cable resistance levels are required for grunge busting.
If the above is true, minimising points of ingress through limiting both the number of connections and open inputs as well as grunge originators in the system (in particular large power supplies) becomes central to putting resistant systems together. and, btw, it puts into question the validity of individual components‘ reviews, representing a nasty challenge to the reviewing trade.
Is anyone out there aware of any literature on this subject?
10 responses Add your response
Yes. You just produced some yourself. The breadth of the book enables an average human to purchase or design power ... High-performance audio power amplifiers is a long-winded description of... circuits (ICs), this is the familiar, conventional, budget domestic Hi-Fi 'amp'. The ... DC resistance of five to ten ohms, and a nominal (AC, 400Hz) impedance of 8, 15. |
If you design with differential amplifier circuits, you will find that your audio circuit is far more resistant to noise in the power supplies. The ability of differential circuits to do this is called 'cross mode rejection'. Differential amplifiers are also able to reject noise at their inputs, if the noise is common to both inputs. This ability is called 'common mode rejection ratio'. Both allow differential circuits to be lower noise, and often lower distortion as there is less intermodulation. |
@atmasphere, obviously my experience is casuistic and my technical knowledge is limited. Nevertheless, my experience shows that balanced designs cannot at the limit of performance compete with single ended. I shifted from a Graaf Gm20 OTL amp to a single ended Wavac EC300b and the improvement in micro detail, dynamics and air was not subtle. Balanced designs obviously have much better noise rejection, whether not burdening the circuit with the undesirable noise in the first place doesn’t yield better results,is in my mind at least debatable. Obviously in switching the amps many variables changed, nevertheless I have yet to listen to a balanced amp able to compete with the Wavac. |
obviously my experience is casuistic and my technical knowledge is limited. Nevertheless, my experience shows that balanced designs cannot at the limit of performance compete with single ended. I shifted from a Graaf Gm20 OTL amp to a single ended Wavac EC300b and the improvement in micro detail, dynamics and air was not subtle.I have no idea why this is relevant. But since you felt is was, I can tell you that the Graaf isn't the only game out there, and shouldn't be seen as representative of all fully-differential circuits in existence! I know of a fully differential amp that when compared to SETs its obvious how much faster, more detailed and relaxed the former is as compared to the latter. Also probably irrelevant, FWIW before they went the way, the US Graaf importer used our amps in his home system. |
Interesting Thread... In my experience the noise level of the electrical grid of the house and room, not only of the electronic component, has great negative impact.... Any audio system need to be rightfully embed in the mechanical dimension, in the electrical grid, and in a controlled acoustical room, actively controlled one with simple non electronical means, especially if it is a small room with complex topology and geometry and complex acoustical content...Passive controls only with inert materials dont do the job totally for me.... All companies that sells costly " tweaks" adress these problems separately if not partially with costly solutions .... But in my experience it is simple to devise some controls on these 3 dimensions for peanuts costs with transformative results on any audio system.... The key problem in audio nowadays is not electronical design (there exist plenty good one to choose ) mainly it is how to embed any audio system rightfully.... Anyway this key problem concern us all.....More than interrogating ourself about what is the best electronical component in the world nevermind the cost.... :)😊 |
@atmasphere, relevance is on balanced vs. single ended, after all the nub of your first post positing that good design can defeat grunge. Whereas I appreciate that you are interested in selling your amps, Graaf‘s GM20 isn‘t known to be a bad balanced amp. The point that I make and that would equally be supported by Shindo, Kondo and Wavac is that single ended is a more direct and cleaner way to great sound. Your argument seems to suggest that rather than avoiding noise, it can be eliminated by balanced design. I simply beg to differ. BTW this debate is reminiscent of the bits are bits debate in the digital domain;there the noise gets you at the analogue conversion stage and therefore is highly relevant. @Mahgister, we are fully agreed. Embedding is the same as arranging the environmental conditions in such a way that negative impulses on pure sound transmission are avoided. |
Amen. It's not really so much how well the gear alone is designed, but in what environment (physical, acoustic, electrical) that system is struggling to operate in. To me, the quality of the system itself, the acoustic room and the vibration/electrical factor are, all three, roughly equally important. |
It is the reason why audiophile experience is not so much choosing between equally interesting new electronical design but implementing them in their 3 main working dimensions, i called embeddings.... We can devalorize the key question and reducing it to the choosing of "tweaks".... But a bundle of ready made "tweaks" is not a listening method and experiments.... and i know first hand that the cost of homemade devices resolving partially the problem of controlling these 3 dimensions may be very low.... |