With a myriad number of tweaks already in under evaluation – and still growing, isn’t it strange that the most often ignored component in the hi-fi experiential chain is the listener?
By: Ringo Bones
Surely, this is yet another topic that won’t become a perennial bone of contention in the annual meeting of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But do we – in the enthusiast’s side of the hi-fi community – find it just a bit strange that we, the listener, is the only major component in the hi-fi experiential listening chain that is not subjected to extensive tweaking. After all, our audio / stereo systems will not be listening to themselves anytime soon, right?
During the past few weeks, I’m beginning to wonder whether those “out-there” kind of tweaks – also referred to as advanced tweaks - are really nothing more than health and wellness tweaks, though not all of them, aimed specifically at us – the hi-fi listener / system owner. These “exotic” health and wellness tips are often referred to as alternative medicine by the Madison Avenue marketing men and they too are often dismissed by staunch objectivists as too “New Age”. Like those advanced tweaks that inextricably works to some degree in improving the sound quality of one’s audio gear. But what are these “out there” tweaks by the way?
Drinking Polarized Water – a hi-fi tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt. Polarized water in hi-fi tweak parlance is a drinkable water produced by placing a bottle or glass of water contained in a non-magnetic container to the north pole of a moderately-strong magnet - like loudspeaker and guitar pickup magnets - for 2 to 5 minutes. The listener drinks it in order to notice a marked improvement in sound quality of one’s audio gear. I think it works by relieving the stress of the listener. Allowing him or her to be musically more perceptive. As preliminary research by Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, have shown that stressfully purified water can make anyone who drinks it stressful. Maybe I’ll try drinking water purified by gamma radiation via cobalt-60, which is probably the most stressful water purification method that I know of – and has access to - in order to find out if this has a detrimental effect to the sound quality of my audio gear.
The Dreaded Pattern 5 Acupuncture Treatment – this is probably the most extensive and painful of all acupuncture treatments that’s offered to us – i.e. those of us without any lineage to mainland China’s great emperors whatsoever. But this particular acupuncture treatment has the greatest potential to restore the body’s energy and balance, although each one of the 47 or so needles that the acupuncturist had stuck into me felt like a 440-volt electric shock. The treatment did made me feel tired and sore, but after several minutes relaxing while listening to my audio rig, I’ve noticed that I’m hearing details that I never knew my systems lowly price tag had any right to produce.
A Vigorous Workout – it does work so well, especially after sever minutes when your body has assimilated all those endorphins produced during the exercise regimen. This not only makes you feel good, but it makes you feel as if you are listening to a much more expensive audio gear as you relax while listening to your favorite tunes. Better consult your doctor or GP first to find out if your body is up to it though.
A Several Days Fast From Your Audio Gear – this one is a perfect cure to those obsessive-compulsive tweakers. Try “vacationing” or “fasting” away from your audio gear for three days or more by hiking or fishing or doing any outdoor activity on your favorite spot as far from your audio gear as possible. You’ll be surprised how this one improves the sound of your audio gear and reduces your tendency to be an overly compulsive hi-fi tweak.
Of all these hi-fi / health and wellness tweaks that I tried, probably the most transcendent is the Pattern 5 Acupuncture treatment. It is transcendent in a way that it kind of makes you feel more contented of your possessions and the people around you. I wonder if the members of Grateful Dead have tried the Pattern 5 Acupuncture treatment? Anyway, all of them will not only improve the sound quality of your audio gear to some degree, but it also gives you – the listener – a much needed tweak to be better at all the other things that you do.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
What Audiophiles Don’t Know About Polarized Water
Even though the mechanism behind how it improves the sound quality of audio gear is still open to debate, is the audiophile world at large ignoring at their on peril by ignoring polarized water as an audio tweak?
By: Ringo Bones
As a really “out there” audio tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt, the viability of polarized water as a viable way to improve the sound quality of your audio gear did manage to generate a significant cult following in the audiophile community. Even though serious discussion of the “science” behind how it works won’t be a perennial topic in the annual meetings of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But are audiophiles – even the scientific community – ignoring at their own peril on what we can learn about the phenomena behind now polarized water works as a hi-fi tweak?
The polarized water referred to by hi-fi enthusiasts is a north-polarized water that is produced as a result of exposing a bottle or glass of water – usually around 250 to 500 ml – to the north magnetic pole of a magnet (the one marked “N”) for around 2 to 5 minutes. The stronger the magnet, the better. Most recommend drinking the water to make your audio gear sound better. But if we do it this way, does it mean that polarized water is a tweak for the listener, as opposed to the audio component being listened to?
The science behind how polarized water works – and it does work to some degree – has yet to be determined. But there have been recent studies conducted on water that woefully revealed that there is still a ton of stuff that the layman and the scientific community doesn’t know about water – let alone polarized water. Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, whose research on water memory after it is exposed to electromagnetic radiation when he noted that the bacteria in the water manifested the memory properties of water that is being exposed to such electromagnetic radiation.
Prof. Jacob recently uncovered during the course of his research that water is capable of carrying complex information despite of its “apparently” simple molecular structure. The preliminary findings of the professor’s research suggest not only a scientifically verifiable explanation behind the phenomena of homeopathy, but also on a new paradigm of water purification.
Something that is less stressful after Prof. Jacob had found out that stressful water purification can cause unnecessary stress in humans and other organic systems. Does this suggest that Prof. Eshel Ben Jacob’s findings suggest that water is capable of carrying information / properties that humans – maybe some who are perceptive enough – can perceive even though our most sophisticated mass spectrometers cannot?
Back in 1994, I was fortunate enough to hike into a remote watershed in my neck of the woods – a 12-hour “ordeal” from the nearest roadside – and managed to witness something that water supposedly can’t do. Bamboo harvesters accidentally left some bamboo in the pool that formed at the base of a pristine spring often used by them as a convenient “watering hole”. Bamboo cuttings aren’t supposed to sprout into a new plant right? But here, an obviously machete-cut section of bamboo managed to sprout roots and stems after being immersed for more than a week in the pristine pool of a remote mountainside spring – another thing water doesn’t supposed to do. Though I kept away from that place because where I came from, if there’s a near-inexhaustible supply of really clean and free drinking water, there are bound to be well-armed insurgents. But I still remember the inextricably invigorating properties of the water from that particular spring.
Another proof that the human senses are more sensitive than the most advanced mass spectrometer was shown in an episode of Mythbusters. On this particular episode, the Mythbusters team tries to prove that through using charcoal filters used to purify water a cheap low-end vodka can be used to taste like top shelf or high-end vodka. The charcoal filter made the cheap vodka taste much closer to top shelf vodka via charcoal filtration. Inextricably though, the mass spectrometer – which was used during the episode to analyze the various grades of vodka - can’t tell the difference between the cheap vodka, the charcoal-filtered cheap vodka and the high-end / top shelf vodka. The mass spectrometer only show water-diluted ethyl alcohol while a professional vodka tester and even novice bar hoppers can tell – make that taste and smell - the difference between cheap vodka and high-end vodka. So the lesson here is trust your senses, they are better than a 20,000 US dollar Fast Fourier Transform signal analyzer or a 50,000 US dollar nanogram-level mass spectrometer.
As Professor Eshel Ben Jacob pointed out the science behind a newly-discovered mechanism still under investigation that stressful purification of water does make most humans who consume them stressed out. Maybe exposing stressfully purified water to the North Pole of the magnet for 2 to 5 minutes de-stresses it. Making one drinking the water more musically receptive thus enabling polarized water to work as a hi-fi tweak in improving the sound of your audio system.
By: Ringo Bones
As a really “out there” audio tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt, the viability of polarized water as a viable way to improve the sound quality of your audio gear did manage to generate a significant cult following in the audiophile community. Even though serious discussion of the “science” behind how it works won’t be a perennial topic in the annual meetings of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But are audiophiles – even the scientific community – ignoring at their own peril on what we can learn about the phenomena behind now polarized water works as a hi-fi tweak?
The polarized water referred to by hi-fi enthusiasts is a north-polarized water that is produced as a result of exposing a bottle or glass of water – usually around 250 to 500 ml – to the north magnetic pole of a magnet (the one marked “N”) for around 2 to 5 minutes. The stronger the magnet, the better. Most recommend drinking the water to make your audio gear sound better. But if we do it this way, does it mean that polarized water is a tweak for the listener, as opposed to the audio component being listened to?
The science behind how polarized water works – and it does work to some degree – has yet to be determined. But there have been recent studies conducted on water that woefully revealed that there is still a ton of stuff that the layman and the scientific community doesn’t know about water – let alone polarized water. Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, whose research on water memory after it is exposed to electromagnetic radiation when he noted that the bacteria in the water manifested the memory properties of water that is being exposed to such electromagnetic radiation.
Prof. Jacob recently uncovered during the course of his research that water is capable of carrying complex information despite of its “apparently” simple molecular structure. The preliminary findings of the professor’s research suggest not only a scientifically verifiable explanation behind the phenomena of homeopathy, but also on a new paradigm of water purification.
Something that is less stressful after Prof. Jacob had found out that stressful water purification can cause unnecessary stress in humans and other organic systems. Does this suggest that Prof. Eshel Ben Jacob’s findings suggest that water is capable of carrying information / properties that humans – maybe some who are perceptive enough – can perceive even though our most sophisticated mass spectrometers cannot?
Back in 1994, I was fortunate enough to hike into a remote watershed in my neck of the woods – a 12-hour “ordeal” from the nearest roadside – and managed to witness something that water supposedly can’t do. Bamboo harvesters accidentally left some bamboo in the pool that formed at the base of a pristine spring often used by them as a convenient “watering hole”. Bamboo cuttings aren’t supposed to sprout into a new plant right? But here, an obviously machete-cut section of bamboo managed to sprout roots and stems after being immersed for more than a week in the pristine pool of a remote mountainside spring – another thing water doesn’t supposed to do. Though I kept away from that place because where I came from, if there’s a near-inexhaustible supply of really clean and free drinking water, there are bound to be well-armed insurgents. But I still remember the inextricably invigorating properties of the water from that particular spring.
Another proof that the human senses are more sensitive than the most advanced mass spectrometer was shown in an episode of Mythbusters. On this particular episode, the Mythbusters team tries to prove that through using charcoal filters used to purify water a cheap low-end vodka can be used to taste like top shelf or high-end vodka. The charcoal filter made the cheap vodka taste much closer to top shelf vodka via charcoal filtration. Inextricably though, the mass spectrometer – which was used during the episode to analyze the various grades of vodka - can’t tell the difference between the cheap vodka, the charcoal-filtered cheap vodka and the high-end / top shelf vodka. The mass spectrometer only show water-diluted ethyl alcohol while a professional vodka tester and even novice bar hoppers can tell – make that taste and smell - the difference between cheap vodka and high-end vodka. So the lesson here is trust your senses, they are better than a 20,000 US dollar Fast Fourier Transform signal analyzer or a 50,000 US dollar nanogram-level mass spectrometer.
As Professor Eshel Ben Jacob pointed out the science behind a newly-discovered mechanism still under investigation that stressful purification of water does make most humans who consume them stressed out. Maybe exposing stressfully purified water to the North Pole of the magnet for 2 to 5 minutes de-stresses it. Making one drinking the water more musically receptive thus enabling polarized water to work as a hi-fi tweak in improving the sound of your audio system.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Much Ado About Slew Rate
Given that most audio equipment manufacturers seldom – if ever – publish the slew rate ratings of their audio amplifiers, how important does an amplifier’s slew rate rating affect its performance?
By: Ringo Bones
After having the good fortune of visiting a good number of hi-fi shows in the past, I do find it odd that an overwhelming number of audio amplifier manufacturers seldom – if ever – publish the slew rate ratings of their preamplifiers and power amplifiers that they are trying to sell. Of probably thousands of brands and manufacturers out there, I only discovered six audio amplifier products so far that published their slew rate ratings. They are: 1.) Creek 4330R Integrated Amplifier at >40 volts per microsecond, 2.) Audio Research VTM200 Monoblock Power Amplifier (vacuum tube-based) at 40 volts per microsecond, 3.) Audio Research VT200 Power Amplifier (also vacuum tube-based) at 25 volts per microsecond, 4.) Simaudio Moon Rock Monoblock Power Amplifier (solid-state) at 160 volts per microsecond, 5.) Headroom Reference Amplifier Module – a power amplifier for headphones – at 1,300 volts per microsecond, and the 6.) Cinepro 3k6SE Six-Channel Amp with a slew rate rating of 65 volts per microsecond. Given that an amplifier’s slew rate rating is probably the last thing on a typical hi-fi audio amplifier buyers’ mind, what is slew rate anyway and how much of a factor does it play in a typical audio amplifier’s performance?
Slew rate is defined as the rate of change of the output voltage of an amplification circuit. Typically it is expressed as the maximum rate at which the output voltage of an amplification circuit can change in volts per microseconds. If an amplifier, for example, has a slew rate of 1 volt per microsecond it would take 10 microseconds for the output voltage to change from 0 to 10 volts, regardless of the rate at which the input voltage changes. Slew rate ratings also define the bandwidth capability of a typical amplifier design. An amplifier can only amplify a sine wave without distorting it up to a certain frequency as dictated by its slew rate rating. If a sine wave is of too high in frequency for an amplifier to process without distorting it given the amplifiers’ slew rate rating, that amplifier would output a triangular wave signal of higher amplitude instead of a sine wave. Triangular waves contain mostly odd-ordered harmonics by the way.
Audio engineers who would rather “listen” to their amplifier with 10,000-U.S. dollar Fast Fourier Transform analyzers instead of their very own ears tend to disdain in measuring the slew rate of vacuum tube-based amplifiers – especially single-ended triode amplifiers with vanishingly low to zero negative feedback. Because the squashing transfer function typical in these amplifier designs can decrease the odd-order harmonics in the signal they are trying to amplify. A triangular wave being fed into a tube amp’s input may end up looking like a sine wave with a higher magnitude at the output. A good thing about this typical idiosyncrasy of vacuum tube-based amplifiers is that it is not frequency dependent, unlike an audio filter with fixed frequency response. This is probably the primary reason why tube amps – especially ones that don’t use any negative feedback – sound musical and might – with the emphasis on might – give a misleadingly high slew rate rating in comparison to solid-state designs. Despite of all this, how does slew rate play a factor when it comes to the everyday use of our audio pre and power amplifiers?
If you’re fortunate enough to have peeked into a typical high slew rate hi-fi power amplifier, you might have noticed that the “apparent” complexity of its circuit layout and design just to achieve a high slew rate rating may seem a touch of glorious excess, but it is eminently practical. Today’s audio formats – if you’ve already managed to outgrow the typically compressed dynamic range of on-line digital music downloads – demands instantaneous power in order to amplify them realistically as Mother Nature or God in Her infinite wisdom intended.
Since the mid-1990s, the SMPTE movie-soundtrack specifications now permit special effects to peak 20 decibels above the average dialogue level, thus requiring 100 times more amplification power than is needed for dialogue. Using the watt-meter setting of my multi-meter, the average dialogue levels of the DVD of the movie Independence Day in my listening room with my audio system required only 1 to 3 watts of power. But during one of the loudest part of the movie – when the alien saucer blew up the White House – my main amplifiers generated a peak of 250 watts for probably half a second.
This performance – paradoxically - was produced by my 70-watt rated power amplifier equipped with a 300-watt power supply sporting high-speed Schottky Diode / Schottky Barrier Diode rectifiers with Rubicon Black Gate capacitors. This is at a sound pressure level in my listening room that doesn’t preclude casual conversation given that my main speakers has a sensitivity of 93 watts at 1 watt (2.87 volts) at 1 meter. What I’ve learned so far is that not only do you need clean power, you also need it fast in order to produce current music or other audio formats realistically. Though in my case, I tend to gravitate towards the sensitive loudspeaker route. Nonetheless, slew rate ratings is a very important factor indeed when it comes to the realistic sounding playback of recorded music - and movies - in a domestic setting.
By: Ringo Bones
After having the good fortune of visiting a good number of hi-fi shows in the past, I do find it odd that an overwhelming number of audio amplifier manufacturers seldom – if ever – publish the slew rate ratings of their preamplifiers and power amplifiers that they are trying to sell. Of probably thousands of brands and manufacturers out there, I only discovered six audio amplifier products so far that published their slew rate ratings. They are: 1.) Creek 4330R Integrated Amplifier at >40 volts per microsecond, 2.) Audio Research VTM200 Monoblock Power Amplifier (vacuum tube-based) at 40 volts per microsecond, 3.) Audio Research VT200 Power Amplifier (also vacuum tube-based) at 25 volts per microsecond, 4.) Simaudio Moon Rock Monoblock Power Amplifier (solid-state) at 160 volts per microsecond, 5.) Headroom Reference Amplifier Module – a power amplifier for headphones – at 1,300 volts per microsecond, and the 6.) Cinepro 3k6SE Six-Channel Amp with a slew rate rating of 65 volts per microsecond. Given that an amplifier’s slew rate rating is probably the last thing on a typical hi-fi audio amplifier buyers’ mind, what is slew rate anyway and how much of a factor does it play in a typical audio amplifier’s performance?
Slew rate is defined as the rate of change of the output voltage of an amplification circuit. Typically it is expressed as the maximum rate at which the output voltage of an amplification circuit can change in volts per microseconds. If an amplifier, for example, has a slew rate of 1 volt per microsecond it would take 10 microseconds for the output voltage to change from 0 to 10 volts, regardless of the rate at which the input voltage changes. Slew rate ratings also define the bandwidth capability of a typical amplifier design. An amplifier can only amplify a sine wave without distorting it up to a certain frequency as dictated by its slew rate rating. If a sine wave is of too high in frequency for an amplifier to process without distorting it given the amplifiers’ slew rate rating, that amplifier would output a triangular wave signal of higher amplitude instead of a sine wave. Triangular waves contain mostly odd-ordered harmonics by the way.
Audio engineers who would rather “listen” to their amplifier with 10,000-U.S. dollar Fast Fourier Transform analyzers instead of their very own ears tend to disdain in measuring the slew rate of vacuum tube-based amplifiers – especially single-ended triode amplifiers with vanishingly low to zero negative feedback. Because the squashing transfer function typical in these amplifier designs can decrease the odd-order harmonics in the signal they are trying to amplify. A triangular wave being fed into a tube amp’s input may end up looking like a sine wave with a higher magnitude at the output. A good thing about this typical idiosyncrasy of vacuum tube-based amplifiers is that it is not frequency dependent, unlike an audio filter with fixed frequency response. This is probably the primary reason why tube amps – especially ones that don’t use any negative feedback – sound musical and might – with the emphasis on might – give a misleadingly high slew rate rating in comparison to solid-state designs. Despite of all this, how does slew rate play a factor when it comes to the everyday use of our audio pre and power amplifiers?
If you’re fortunate enough to have peeked into a typical high slew rate hi-fi power amplifier, you might have noticed that the “apparent” complexity of its circuit layout and design just to achieve a high slew rate rating may seem a touch of glorious excess, but it is eminently practical. Today’s audio formats – if you’ve already managed to outgrow the typically compressed dynamic range of on-line digital music downloads – demands instantaneous power in order to amplify them realistically as Mother Nature or God in Her infinite wisdom intended.
Since the mid-1990s, the SMPTE movie-soundtrack specifications now permit special effects to peak 20 decibels above the average dialogue level, thus requiring 100 times more amplification power than is needed for dialogue. Using the watt-meter setting of my multi-meter, the average dialogue levels of the DVD of the movie Independence Day in my listening room with my audio system required only 1 to 3 watts of power. But during one of the loudest part of the movie – when the alien saucer blew up the White House – my main amplifiers generated a peak of 250 watts for probably half a second.
This performance – paradoxically - was produced by my 70-watt rated power amplifier equipped with a 300-watt power supply sporting high-speed Schottky Diode / Schottky Barrier Diode rectifiers with Rubicon Black Gate capacitors. This is at a sound pressure level in my listening room that doesn’t preclude casual conversation given that my main speakers has a sensitivity of 93 watts at 1 watt (2.87 volts) at 1 meter. What I’ve learned so far is that not only do you need clean power, you also need it fast in order to produce current music or other audio formats realistically. Though in my case, I tend to gravitate towards the sensitive loudspeaker route. Nonetheless, slew rate ratings is a very important factor indeed when it comes to the realistic sounding playback of recorded music - and movies - in a domestic setting.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Memory Distortion: The Bane of Solid-State Amplifiers?
Some audio purist still claim that solid-state amplification is not truly hi-fi in comparison to it’s thermionic / vacuum tube counterpart, is there a reason behind this?
By: Ringo Bones
During the start of the 1970s, the solid-state transistor-based audio power amplifier started to make the price of high-powered hi-fi amplifiers – i.e. over 50-watts – much more affordable. But many hardcore audiophiles complained that transistor-based audio power amplifier didn’t sound as musical as their thermionic / vacuum tube-based counterparts. Even newer MOSFET devices – whose characteristic curves resembles that of a pentode tube – still didn’t sound quite as musical in comparison to their thermionic brethren during their rollout near the end of the 1970s. But is there a reason – hopefully a scientifically verifiable one – that explains why solid-state amplification (transistors and MOSFETS) don’t sound as good as their vacuum tube counterparts?
Back in the summer of 1997, a French amplifier manufacturer – Lavardin Technologies – announced that they have discovered why solid-state amplification didn’t sound as musical as their vacuum tube-based competition. They called the phenomena “Memory Distortion” which Laverdin Technologies describes it during 1997 as “the greatest discovery in analogue audio design in the previous twenty years”. Memory distortion, Lavardin Technologies says, is responsible for the shrillness and mechanical-sounding artifacts identified in solid-state amplifiers. Unfortunately in the intervening years, my “richer” audio-buddies can only listen to Lavardin Technologies’ amplifiers in hi-fi shows because they are so prohibitively expensive when compared to vacuum tube-based amplifiers of similar power output and features. But they swear that Lavardin Technologies' low-powered integrated amps do sound like they use vacuum tubes as power output devices.
Fast-forward in 2009 when one of my audio-buddies managed to purchase one used – although still very costly – one of those Lavardin Technologies integrated amplifier. It is the 30-watt Lavardin IS Reference which sells for almost 4,000 US dollars when brand new. He got one for a shade under 2,000 US dollars, and say’s its all worth it because the single-pair of transistors used in this integrated amp will last for thousands of years when properly used. And they do sound like vacuum tube amps – vacuum tube amps that could drive speakers with tricky impedance curves. Albeit only within their “meager” 30-watt rating. But despite of the obvious overpricing in electronics engineering terms, why do these amps sound so good?
Given our sample no longer has the company’s warranty and my audio-buddy was generous enough – albeit up to a point – to allow our local hi-fi association a peak inside the innards of Lavardin’s famed integrated amps. A look inside might make every “mainstream” electronic engineers accuse of Lavardin Technologies of recto-cranial inversion. Those mainstream folks usually accuse everyone of encasing the circuits of their designs in some kind of black goop in the name of copyright protection, as suffering from recto-cranial inversion. But these has been proven – probably since the 1980s – that it could improve the sound quality by controlling spurious vibrations from affecting the sensitive circuit layout.
Lavardin did divulge the reason why tubes sound better than transistors, which they used to their advantage in making their solid-state amplifiers sound as good as tubes. It was probably the consensus view of quantum physicists who looked into the differences in operation of vacuum tubes and solid-state devices during the 1990s. According to their findings – though it has been noted in every post World War II vacuum tube-based electronic textbook in existence – which start at the basic fundamental differences between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices.
In a vacuum tube any particular electron – i.e. strictly speaking the electron’s wave function – travels through free space, influenced only by the electric fields caused by the various electrodes in the electron’s wave function’s path within the confines of the tube. The control grid’s field hold’s back a proportional number of electrons from the total number of electrons emitted by the cathode, in which a change in grid voltage change’s it’s field and thereby varies the total number of electrons reaching the anode and hence the resulting anode current.
The velocity of an electron by the time it reaches the anode after being accelerated by the anode’s field is truly mind-boggling. As an example, a tube with a typical anode voltage of 450-volts, the electrons will hit the anode at approximately 28 million miles per hour or about 4% the speed of light – which is around 670 million miles per hour in vacuum. Thus the reason for the vacuum tube’s somewhat high-temperature operation. The electrons which make it past grid are the same ones which – a tiny fraction of a second later – appear at the anode and becomes the signal that drives the load.
In a solid-state device – transistors, MOSFETS, and specially including wire – the electrons have a very hard time traversing the entire length of their intended path. In the solid-state domain, electrons have to fight their way through millions of random fields caused by the atoms in the substrate material – usually at 0.001 meters per second. In which calling it a snail’s pace would be an understatement in comparison to an electron’s speed traveled though a typical vacuum tube. Furthermore, it is not the actual electrons which carry the signal, but the influence one electron on it’s neighbors. The message or signal gets carried akin to a “Chinese Whisper” albeit only with less degradation of the signal – hopefully.
This quantum-mechanical explanation of the radical difference between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices is the claim used by Lavardin in explaining how they minimized memory distortion in their solid-state amplifier designs. According to them, memory distortion has to do with the way musical signals have to slog their way through silicon – akin to being stuck in the mud. Transistors hold previous signals in memory – as in the electron’s wave function. And these “residual memories” or remnants of an electron’s previous state - maybe a few tiny fractions of a second before distort the new incoming signals. The musical signals can’t flee the silicon fast enough. But is this explanation sufficient from a scientific standpoint? After all, if “memory distortion” is about timing errors – assuming that the phenomenon is real in the first place – then why is it that there are several, albeit almost unrelated, ways of eliminating the symptoms caused by memory distortion.
James Henriot of Whest Audio also managed to do the same feat of making solid-state amplifiers more musical by eliminating “analog-domain jitter” via his Whest dap.10 processor. Which most users testify that the Whest dap.10 processor improves their already well-sorted CD playback system’s sound quality by making it sound like a big analog open-reel tape, the one often used in better recording studios. I’ve heard this only in hi-fi shows, but my impression of this product seems like it makes your typical solid-state integrated amp sound like a good vacuum tube amp.
While a Frenchman named Yves-Bernard André of YBA also manages to do the same with his solid-state integrated designs by using various techniques holistically to eliminate the symptoms that make solid-state amplifiers sound “inferior” to their vacuum tube counterparts. From using synthetic diamond powder to damp the circuit boards to the resonance control of every component used. Not to mention minimizing to the absolute minimum the inherent hystersis distortion caused by a transistor’s ferromagnetic enclosure. Even though YBA products – as with most French integrated amps - are typically priced way above a typical hi-fi enthusiast is willing to pay, Yves-Bernard André’s holistic approach to designing his solid-state based audio components seems to have removed the symptoms of what we know of as memory distortion.
LFD Mistral MOSFET-based integrated amplifiers also managed to eliminate the symptoms of memory distortion through attention in circuit layout. By orienting the resistors of their LFD Mistral integrated amps in phase on the master board. The resistors on both channels are identically oriented which they believe – and some owners of LFD Mistral integrated amps – is important to stereo imaging. So does the orientation of the wiring and the fuses. Unfortunately, this attention to detail in parts layout doesn’t lend itself well to mass production machinery used in making mobile / cellular phones and i-Pods. But the resulting product is nonetheless spectacular. LFD Mistral integrated amplifiers are often compared to single-ended triode amplifiers in terms of sound quality.
So what does this all mean? Well, it seems like the holistic tweaking techniques utilized by Yves-Bernard André and the LFD Mistral does seem to improve the sound quality of your typical solid-state audio gear – even ones using integrated circuit IC amplifiers. While the Lavardin Technologies may be on to something in explaining the phenomenon of memory distortion, James Henriot’s forays into analog-domain jitter will probably need the collaboration of other scientist with access to the very state of the art testing gear to explore further the phenomena of analog-domain jitter. Who knows that it might result in better and cheaper laptops and mobile phones ten years from now? Maybe memory distortion is just a symptom of bad circuit layout in the production of solid-state gear. Often easily solved via enclosing critical parts in a faraday cage - or by the use of exotic and boutique capacitors like Rubycon Black Gates or Philips-sourced French Blue capacitors.
By: Ringo Bones
During the start of the 1970s, the solid-state transistor-based audio power amplifier started to make the price of high-powered hi-fi amplifiers – i.e. over 50-watts – much more affordable. But many hardcore audiophiles complained that transistor-based audio power amplifier didn’t sound as musical as their thermionic / vacuum tube-based counterparts. Even newer MOSFET devices – whose characteristic curves resembles that of a pentode tube – still didn’t sound quite as musical in comparison to their thermionic brethren during their rollout near the end of the 1970s. But is there a reason – hopefully a scientifically verifiable one – that explains why solid-state amplification (transistors and MOSFETS) don’t sound as good as their vacuum tube counterparts?
Back in the summer of 1997, a French amplifier manufacturer – Lavardin Technologies – announced that they have discovered why solid-state amplification didn’t sound as musical as their vacuum tube-based competition. They called the phenomena “Memory Distortion” which Laverdin Technologies describes it during 1997 as “the greatest discovery in analogue audio design in the previous twenty years”. Memory distortion, Lavardin Technologies says, is responsible for the shrillness and mechanical-sounding artifacts identified in solid-state amplifiers. Unfortunately in the intervening years, my “richer” audio-buddies can only listen to Lavardin Technologies’ amplifiers in hi-fi shows because they are so prohibitively expensive when compared to vacuum tube-based amplifiers of similar power output and features. But they swear that Lavardin Technologies' low-powered integrated amps do sound like they use vacuum tubes as power output devices.
Fast-forward in 2009 when one of my audio-buddies managed to purchase one used – although still very costly – one of those Lavardin Technologies integrated amplifier. It is the 30-watt Lavardin IS Reference which sells for almost 4,000 US dollars when brand new. He got one for a shade under 2,000 US dollars, and say’s its all worth it because the single-pair of transistors used in this integrated amp will last for thousands of years when properly used. And they do sound like vacuum tube amps – vacuum tube amps that could drive speakers with tricky impedance curves. Albeit only within their “meager” 30-watt rating. But despite of the obvious overpricing in electronics engineering terms, why do these amps sound so good?
Given our sample no longer has the company’s warranty and my audio-buddy was generous enough – albeit up to a point – to allow our local hi-fi association a peak inside the innards of Lavardin’s famed integrated amps. A look inside might make every “mainstream” electronic engineers accuse of Lavardin Technologies of recto-cranial inversion. Those mainstream folks usually accuse everyone of encasing the circuits of their designs in some kind of black goop in the name of copyright protection, as suffering from recto-cranial inversion. But these has been proven – probably since the 1980s – that it could improve the sound quality by controlling spurious vibrations from affecting the sensitive circuit layout.
Lavardin did divulge the reason why tubes sound better than transistors, which they used to their advantage in making their solid-state amplifiers sound as good as tubes. It was probably the consensus view of quantum physicists who looked into the differences in operation of vacuum tubes and solid-state devices during the 1990s. According to their findings – though it has been noted in every post World War II vacuum tube-based electronic textbook in existence – which start at the basic fundamental differences between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices.
In a vacuum tube any particular electron – i.e. strictly speaking the electron’s wave function – travels through free space, influenced only by the electric fields caused by the various electrodes in the electron’s wave function’s path within the confines of the tube. The control grid’s field hold’s back a proportional number of electrons from the total number of electrons emitted by the cathode, in which a change in grid voltage change’s it’s field and thereby varies the total number of electrons reaching the anode and hence the resulting anode current.
The velocity of an electron by the time it reaches the anode after being accelerated by the anode’s field is truly mind-boggling. As an example, a tube with a typical anode voltage of 450-volts, the electrons will hit the anode at approximately 28 million miles per hour or about 4% the speed of light – which is around 670 million miles per hour in vacuum. Thus the reason for the vacuum tube’s somewhat high-temperature operation. The electrons which make it past grid are the same ones which – a tiny fraction of a second later – appear at the anode and becomes the signal that drives the load.
In a solid-state device – transistors, MOSFETS, and specially including wire – the electrons have a very hard time traversing the entire length of their intended path. In the solid-state domain, electrons have to fight their way through millions of random fields caused by the atoms in the substrate material – usually at 0.001 meters per second. In which calling it a snail’s pace would be an understatement in comparison to an electron’s speed traveled though a typical vacuum tube. Furthermore, it is not the actual electrons which carry the signal, but the influence one electron on it’s neighbors. The message or signal gets carried akin to a “Chinese Whisper” albeit only with less degradation of the signal – hopefully.
This quantum-mechanical explanation of the radical difference between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices is the claim used by Lavardin in explaining how they minimized memory distortion in their solid-state amplifier designs. According to them, memory distortion has to do with the way musical signals have to slog their way through silicon – akin to being stuck in the mud. Transistors hold previous signals in memory – as in the electron’s wave function. And these “residual memories” or remnants of an electron’s previous state - maybe a few tiny fractions of a second before distort the new incoming signals. The musical signals can’t flee the silicon fast enough. But is this explanation sufficient from a scientific standpoint? After all, if “memory distortion” is about timing errors – assuming that the phenomenon is real in the first place – then why is it that there are several, albeit almost unrelated, ways of eliminating the symptoms caused by memory distortion.
James Henriot of Whest Audio also managed to do the same feat of making solid-state amplifiers more musical by eliminating “analog-domain jitter” via his Whest dap.10 processor. Which most users testify that the Whest dap.10 processor improves their already well-sorted CD playback system’s sound quality by making it sound like a big analog open-reel tape, the one often used in better recording studios. I’ve heard this only in hi-fi shows, but my impression of this product seems like it makes your typical solid-state integrated amp sound like a good vacuum tube amp.
While a Frenchman named Yves-Bernard André of YBA also manages to do the same with his solid-state integrated designs by using various techniques holistically to eliminate the symptoms that make solid-state amplifiers sound “inferior” to their vacuum tube counterparts. From using synthetic diamond powder to damp the circuit boards to the resonance control of every component used. Not to mention minimizing to the absolute minimum the inherent hystersis distortion caused by a transistor’s ferromagnetic enclosure. Even though YBA products – as with most French integrated amps - are typically priced way above a typical hi-fi enthusiast is willing to pay, Yves-Bernard André’s holistic approach to designing his solid-state based audio components seems to have removed the symptoms of what we know of as memory distortion.
LFD Mistral MOSFET-based integrated amplifiers also managed to eliminate the symptoms of memory distortion through attention in circuit layout. By orienting the resistors of their LFD Mistral integrated amps in phase on the master board. The resistors on both channels are identically oriented which they believe – and some owners of LFD Mistral integrated amps – is important to stereo imaging. So does the orientation of the wiring and the fuses. Unfortunately, this attention to detail in parts layout doesn’t lend itself well to mass production machinery used in making mobile / cellular phones and i-Pods. But the resulting product is nonetheless spectacular. LFD Mistral integrated amplifiers are often compared to single-ended triode amplifiers in terms of sound quality.
So what does this all mean? Well, it seems like the holistic tweaking techniques utilized by Yves-Bernard André and the LFD Mistral does seem to improve the sound quality of your typical solid-state audio gear – even ones using integrated circuit IC amplifiers. While the Lavardin Technologies may be on to something in explaining the phenomenon of memory distortion, James Henriot’s forays into analog-domain jitter will probably need the collaboration of other scientist with access to the very state of the art testing gear to explore further the phenomena of analog-domain jitter. Who knows that it might result in better and cheaper laptops and mobile phones ten years from now? Maybe memory distortion is just a symptom of bad circuit layout in the production of solid-state gear. Often easily solved via enclosing critical parts in a faraday cage - or by the use of exotic and boutique capacitors like Rubycon Black Gates or Philips-sourced French Blue capacitors.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Is the BBE Sonic Maximizer Hi-Fi?
Manufactured during the mid 1980s supposedly as a means to “transcend” the limitations of hi-fi speakers at that time, does the BBE Sonic Maximizer qualifies back then – and now – as hi-fi?
By: Ringo Bones
Now (as in 2009) derided by hardcore audiophiles and “soulful” electric guitar players, I did remember during my high-school days – i.e. the mid 1980s – that a black box with the letters BBE was both revered and coveted in domestic hi-fi circles in my neck of the woods. To the uninitiated – and those who have already forgotten – here’s a refresher of that used to be wonderful black-box known as the BBE Sonic Maximizer.
The letters BBE stands for Barcus-Berry Entertainment Incorporated – later called BBE Sound Inc. when they’re “iconic” black-box / audio processor that became widely used and endorsed by Heavy Metal musicians during the “Hair Metal” era of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The company is located at Huntington Beach, California. Around the middle of the 1980s, BBE Sonic Maximizers began to be widely used for audio recording, motion picture sound tracks, TV and radio broadcasting, and motion picture theatre sound systems. According to the audio processor’s creators, BBE Sonic Maximizers were primarily designed to improve the sonic clarity of virtually any reproduced sound by correcting / compensating for phase and amplitude distortions produced as your typical power amplifier drives a typical loudspeaker system.
My first hand experience of this device was back in 1987 when a rich high-school classmate with similar musical tastes as me got one from his dad while working in the US. It was the Barcus-Berry BBE Model 2002 signal processor, which sold around 500 US dollars at the time. The BBE signal processor was meant to be installed between the signal source(s) – we only had a cassette tape deck and a Technics Quartz Synth tuner at the time – and the power amplifier.
Though my memories of that particular BBE Sonic Maximizer was now somewhat hazy, I can still vividly remember that we often played a track called Digital Bitch by W.A.S.P. (We Are Sexual Perverts?) at the time - Unforgettable because Chris Holmes, Blackie Lawless and the rest of the band probably foresaw the rise of Paris Hilton and her famous antics on the Internet. And as one of the few Heavy Metal bands who gained a strong following in the Punk community – my high-school classmate was actually into Punk / New Wave at the time – W.A.S.P. gained fame (or is it notoriety?) in both camps. Rumor has it that W.A.S.P. were “discovered” by Ed McMahon during the first season of Star Search.
From my present perspective – being my present hi-fi set-up is composed mainly of Electro-Harmonix vacuum tube-equipped and high-speed wide-band solid state exotica. All I can say is that the BBE Sonic Maximizer is nothing more than a “lazy-EQ”. I mean it is just an adjustable Loudness controller on steroids – though I am not denying that it is not useful. Given that at the time, we can rarely crank up our hi-fi sets to “unamplified / no PA system” garage band sound levels. Those rare occations when we can play as loud as possible during my high-school days is usually reserved for band practice.
When you can only play your hi-fi below the actual sound pressure level the music was originally recorded, Loudness and other EQ / tone controls to compensate the Fletcher-Munson Equal Loudness Contour Curves inherent to how our ears perceive airborne sound. To my ears – back then as it is now (2009) – BBE Sonic Maximizers boosts the bass and treble frequencies of the audio signal, depending on how much it’s “process” knob is being cranked.
First impressions on using the BBE Sonic Maximizer usually results in “clarity” – i.e. the boosting of the high-frequency signals usually around 2-KHz to 3-KHz upwards. And this is why many novice hi-fi enthusiasts during the early 1990s who can only afford mass market mini component boom boxes to listen to their copies of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana became concerned over “tweeter failure”. Especially when the tweeters of their BBE-equipped boom boxes (which became commonly widespread around 1992) heats up when playing the iconic “Seattle Grunge” album that features very distorted electric guitar sound with boosted high-frequencies.
Due to its endorsement and use by top musicians, like Megadeth and Skid Row – guitarists Dave “The Snake” Sabo and Scotti Hill were known to use one - during the early 1990s. The folks at BBE Sound Inc. created a BBE Sonic Maximizer plug-in for PC-based recording, which started to gain popularity during the late 1990s. For domestic hi-fi use, the BBE Sonic Maximizer works very well with budget cassette tape decks that don’t carry the Nakamichi badge to make them sound more “natural”. BBE Sonic Maximizers also works very well to "improve" (...or is that to flatter?) the “sound quality” of FM stations that are seriously addicted to those OPTIMOD compressors. And data reduced digital music downloads like MP3s. But if it is up to me, I would rather use the vacuum tube-based Pultec Model EQP-1R studio equalizer. This vintage studio equalizer - probably dating back to The Beatles era Abbey Road Studios - has 12RX7 and 12RU7 preamplifier vacuum tubes that can put to shame the BBE in sound quality terms.
Unfortunately, BBE Sonic Maximizers are an anathema to vacuum tube hi-fi aficionados and “soulful” electric guitar players because they tend to make their gear sound like cheap solid state. Like a brand new 10,000-watt audio power amplifier with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of 200 US dollars. Surprisingly, BBE Sonic Maximizers can often be found in pawnshops or other establishments that sell pre-owned music gear somewhere between 50 to 100 US dollars. So it is somewhat a cost-effective way for the curious and uninitiated to experiment – or experience first-hand - what this BBE audio processing brouhaha is all about.
By: Ringo Bones
Now (as in 2009) derided by hardcore audiophiles and “soulful” electric guitar players, I did remember during my high-school days – i.e. the mid 1980s – that a black box with the letters BBE was both revered and coveted in domestic hi-fi circles in my neck of the woods. To the uninitiated – and those who have already forgotten – here’s a refresher of that used to be wonderful black-box known as the BBE Sonic Maximizer.
The letters BBE stands for Barcus-Berry Entertainment Incorporated – later called BBE Sound Inc. when they’re “iconic” black-box / audio processor that became widely used and endorsed by Heavy Metal musicians during the “Hair Metal” era of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The company is located at Huntington Beach, California. Around the middle of the 1980s, BBE Sonic Maximizers began to be widely used for audio recording, motion picture sound tracks, TV and radio broadcasting, and motion picture theatre sound systems. According to the audio processor’s creators, BBE Sonic Maximizers were primarily designed to improve the sonic clarity of virtually any reproduced sound by correcting / compensating for phase and amplitude distortions produced as your typical power amplifier drives a typical loudspeaker system.
My first hand experience of this device was back in 1987 when a rich high-school classmate with similar musical tastes as me got one from his dad while working in the US. It was the Barcus-Berry BBE Model 2002 signal processor, which sold around 500 US dollars at the time. The BBE signal processor was meant to be installed between the signal source(s) – we only had a cassette tape deck and a Technics Quartz Synth tuner at the time – and the power amplifier.
Though my memories of that particular BBE Sonic Maximizer was now somewhat hazy, I can still vividly remember that we often played a track called Digital Bitch by W.A.S.P. (We Are Sexual Perverts?) at the time - Unforgettable because Chris Holmes, Blackie Lawless and the rest of the band probably foresaw the rise of Paris Hilton and her famous antics on the Internet. And as one of the few Heavy Metal bands who gained a strong following in the Punk community – my high-school classmate was actually into Punk / New Wave at the time – W.A.S.P. gained fame (or is it notoriety?) in both camps. Rumor has it that W.A.S.P. were “discovered” by Ed McMahon during the first season of Star Search.
From my present perspective – being my present hi-fi set-up is composed mainly of Electro-Harmonix vacuum tube-equipped and high-speed wide-band solid state exotica. All I can say is that the BBE Sonic Maximizer is nothing more than a “lazy-EQ”. I mean it is just an adjustable Loudness controller on steroids – though I am not denying that it is not useful. Given that at the time, we can rarely crank up our hi-fi sets to “unamplified / no PA system” garage band sound levels. Those rare occations when we can play as loud as possible during my high-school days is usually reserved for band practice.
When you can only play your hi-fi below the actual sound pressure level the music was originally recorded, Loudness and other EQ / tone controls to compensate the Fletcher-Munson Equal Loudness Contour Curves inherent to how our ears perceive airborne sound. To my ears – back then as it is now (2009) – BBE Sonic Maximizers boosts the bass and treble frequencies of the audio signal, depending on how much it’s “process” knob is being cranked.
First impressions on using the BBE Sonic Maximizer usually results in “clarity” – i.e. the boosting of the high-frequency signals usually around 2-KHz to 3-KHz upwards. And this is why many novice hi-fi enthusiasts during the early 1990s who can only afford mass market mini component boom boxes to listen to their copies of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana became concerned over “tweeter failure”. Especially when the tweeters of their BBE-equipped boom boxes (which became commonly widespread around 1992) heats up when playing the iconic “Seattle Grunge” album that features very distorted electric guitar sound with boosted high-frequencies.
Due to its endorsement and use by top musicians, like Megadeth and Skid Row – guitarists Dave “The Snake” Sabo and Scotti Hill were known to use one - during the early 1990s. The folks at BBE Sound Inc. created a BBE Sonic Maximizer plug-in for PC-based recording, which started to gain popularity during the late 1990s. For domestic hi-fi use, the BBE Sonic Maximizer works very well with budget cassette tape decks that don’t carry the Nakamichi badge to make them sound more “natural”. BBE Sonic Maximizers also works very well to "improve" (...or is that to flatter?) the “sound quality” of FM stations that are seriously addicted to those OPTIMOD compressors. And data reduced digital music downloads like MP3s. But if it is up to me, I would rather use the vacuum tube-based Pultec Model EQP-1R studio equalizer. This vintage studio equalizer - probably dating back to The Beatles era Abbey Road Studios - has 12RX7 and 12RU7 preamplifier vacuum tubes that can put to shame the BBE in sound quality terms.
Unfortunately, BBE Sonic Maximizers are an anathema to vacuum tube hi-fi aficionados and “soulful” electric guitar players because they tend to make their gear sound like cheap solid state. Like a brand new 10,000-watt audio power amplifier with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of 200 US dollars. Surprisingly, BBE Sonic Maximizers can often be found in pawnshops or other establishments that sell pre-owned music gear somewhere between 50 to 100 US dollars. So it is somewhat a cost-effective way for the curious and uninitiated to experiment – or experience first-hand - what this BBE audio processing brouhaha is all about.
Monday, September 14, 2009
An Op-Amp IC For Your Hi-Fi Needs?
Given that they’ve been used successfully in a number of excellent sounding hi-fi applications, is there really a right op-amp for your audiophile needs out there?
By: Ringo Bones
Yes it’s true, there really is such a thing as an audiophile grade integrated circuit operational amplifier or IC op-amp. And most of them are not necessary manufactured by Analog Devices like the AD845 and AD843. Or those by Burr-Brown which their dual op-amps that are specified to be fast enough to handle the RF energy present in Red Book CD digital to analog conversion are often used in bridge configuration in left / right analog outputs.
The quest for finding the best off the shelf IC op-amp probably started during the early 1990s. When major CD player manufacturers discovered – either by theoretical introspection or trial and error – that those high-speed op-amps made their 500 US dollar or so CD players sound closer to entry-level audiophile grade vinyl LP replay.
From the electronic engineer’s design standpoint, high-speed op-amps are a necessity in Red Book specification CD players. Sufficient slew rate ratings are a necessity to handle the quite large amounts of ultrasonic requantization noise - which is an unfortunate by-product of converting your 16-bit 44.1-KHz digital data into a reasonably smooth analog waveform that could sufficiently past muster as music. In my experience with the most widely used up-market “hi-fi” op-amps – namely the LM318 and the LF356 – which have very different personalities when used in an audiophile context. Although I used audiophile grade ceramic IC sockets with silver connectors to allow me to easily replace both op-amps for comparison.
Over the years, my countless experiences with the high-slew rate (50 volts per microsecond) LM318 suggests that this IC op-amp is well suited to audiophiles who like to listen to Classical Music - Or wants to reproduce the recorded hall acoustic of an opera recording accurately played back in his or her listening room. It even enhances – or exaggerates – the Classical Music-like hall acoustics of some tracks of The Gathering’s “How To Measure A Planet?” album.
One drawback of the LM318 op-amp though is that it doesn’t like very much the “relatively” high-capacitance interconnects often used in entry-level solid-state audio gear. Like Monster Cable’s mellow sounding M850i interconnect often used to tame the harshness of cheap solid-state audio systems. Resulted in a high-pitched squealing sound on rare occasions (guaranteed more than once) during turn on. Although easily remedied by turning off and turning on again your entry-level solid-state amp.
Even though from a technical standpoint, the LF356 has a much lower slew rate rating (12 volts per microsecond) in comparison to the LM318, it does audiophile-oriented things that the LM318 can only aspire to. The very high input impedance – about 1 trillion ohms - of the JFET input stage of the LF356 allows it to have a bass response that Rock Music aficionados since the time of Elvis strive for. The LF356 is also capable of driving large capacitive loads – up to 10,000 picofarad or 0.01 microfarad – with ease. Which makes it more suitable for driving high-capacitance mellow sounding interconnects used in entry-level solid state gear.
Sound quality wise, it is as if the designer of the LF356 op-amp want it to sound like what recording engineer Andy Johns wants the first four album of Led Zeppelin to sound like – i.e. the “John Bonham snare sound”. The LF356 also sound as if it is the first op-amp with a very musically ideal loudness control. It defeats the Fletcher-Munson contour curve characteristic of the human ear that makes us less sensitive to the bass and treble frequencies when listening at reduced sound volume levels. With the LF356, you’ll get the full works whether you’re playing at 65dB or 95dB sound pressure levels - not unlike the sound of Electro-Harmonix versions of 12AX7 preamplifier tubes.
Surprisingly, the LF356 does room sound too - Although not like the Classical Music concert hall portrayed by the LM318. The room sound produced by the LF356 is the “normal” unadorned type – typical recording studio or just a spacious venue. The LF356 also has better low-level sound retrieval in comparison to the LM318 because the LM318 tends to exaggerate the dynamic range of CDs that are recorded without Tom Lord-Alge levels of compression. Like Lunachick’s Binge and Purge album which the LF356 still manages to retrieve low-level details that are played back even softer by its higher slew rate counterpart.
Both can still benefit from a well-regulated plus and minus 15 volt split supplies though, given the inherent RF corruption of our contemporary power lines. Despite both IC op-amps often rated with a power supply rejection ratio of over 100dB at 50 to 60-Hz AC. Boutique capacitors like Rubicon Black Gate capacitors or Philips sourced French Blue capacitors also help improve sound quality to no end.
So there you have it, two op-amps that I have extensive experience with that could past muster as being audiophile certifiable. Although it is somewhat over simplistic to conclude that one prefers Rock, while the other op-amp prefers Classical. The sound quality of one is sufficiently different from the other that it is worth noting. Although the LF356 also has a gorgeous presentation with Orchestral Classical Music recorded during the Golden Age of Stereo.
By: Ringo Bones
Yes it’s true, there really is such a thing as an audiophile grade integrated circuit operational amplifier or IC op-amp. And most of them are not necessary manufactured by Analog Devices like the AD845 and AD843. Or those by Burr-Brown which their dual op-amps that are specified to be fast enough to handle the RF energy present in Red Book CD digital to analog conversion are often used in bridge configuration in left / right analog outputs.
The quest for finding the best off the shelf IC op-amp probably started during the early 1990s. When major CD player manufacturers discovered – either by theoretical introspection or trial and error – that those high-speed op-amps made their 500 US dollar or so CD players sound closer to entry-level audiophile grade vinyl LP replay.
From the electronic engineer’s design standpoint, high-speed op-amps are a necessity in Red Book specification CD players. Sufficient slew rate ratings are a necessity to handle the quite large amounts of ultrasonic requantization noise - which is an unfortunate by-product of converting your 16-bit 44.1-KHz digital data into a reasonably smooth analog waveform that could sufficiently past muster as music. In my experience with the most widely used up-market “hi-fi” op-amps – namely the LM318 and the LF356 – which have very different personalities when used in an audiophile context. Although I used audiophile grade ceramic IC sockets with silver connectors to allow me to easily replace both op-amps for comparison.
Over the years, my countless experiences with the high-slew rate (50 volts per microsecond) LM318 suggests that this IC op-amp is well suited to audiophiles who like to listen to Classical Music - Or wants to reproduce the recorded hall acoustic of an opera recording accurately played back in his or her listening room. It even enhances – or exaggerates – the Classical Music-like hall acoustics of some tracks of The Gathering’s “How To Measure A Planet?” album.
One drawback of the LM318 op-amp though is that it doesn’t like very much the “relatively” high-capacitance interconnects often used in entry-level solid-state audio gear. Like Monster Cable’s mellow sounding M850i interconnect often used to tame the harshness of cheap solid-state audio systems. Resulted in a high-pitched squealing sound on rare occasions (guaranteed more than once) during turn on. Although easily remedied by turning off and turning on again your entry-level solid-state amp.
Even though from a technical standpoint, the LF356 has a much lower slew rate rating (12 volts per microsecond) in comparison to the LM318, it does audiophile-oriented things that the LM318 can only aspire to. The very high input impedance – about 1 trillion ohms - of the JFET input stage of the LF356 allows it to have a bass response that Rock Music aficionados since the time of Elvis strive for. The LF356 is also capable of driving large capacitive loads – up to 10,000 picofarad or 0.01 microfarad – with ease. Which makes it more suitable for driving high-capacitance mellow sounding interconnects used in entry-level solid state gear.
Sound quality wise, it is as if the designer of the LF356 op-amp want it to sound like what recording engineer Andy Johns wants the first four album of Led Zeppelin to sound like – i.e. the “John Bonham snare sound”. The LF356 also sound as if it is the first op-amp with a very musically ideal loudness control. It defeats the Fletcher-Munson contour curve characteristic of the human ear that makes us less sensitive to the bass and treble frequencies when listening at reduced sound volume levels. With the LF356, you’ll get the full works whether you’re playing at 65dB or 95dB sound pressure levels - not unlike the sound of Electro-Harmonix versions of 12AX7 preamplifier tubes.
Surprisingly, the LF356 does room sound too - Although not like the Classical Music concert hall portrayed by the LM318. The room sound produced by the LF356 is the “normal” unadorned type – typical recording studio or just a spacious venue. The LF356 also has better low-level sound retrieval in comparison to the LM318 because the LM318 tends to exaggerate the dynamic range of CDs that are recorded without Tom Lord-Alge levels of compression. Like Lunachick’s Binge and Purge album which the LF356 still manages to retrieve low-level details that are played back even softer by its higher slew rate counterpart.
Both can still benefit from a well-regulated plus and minus 15 volt split supplies though, given the inherent RF corruption of our contemporary power lines. Despite both IC op-amps often rated with a power supply rejection ratio of over 100dB at 50 to 60-Hz AC. Boutique capacitors like Rubicon Black Gate capacitors or Philips sourced French Blue capacitors also help improve sound quality to no end.
So there you have it, two op-amps that I have extensive experience with that could past muster as being audiophile certifiable. Although it is somewhat over simplistic to conclude that one prefers Rock, while the other op-amp prefers Classical. The sound quality of one is sufficiently different from the other that it is worth noting. Although the LF356 also has a gorgeous presentation with Orchestral Classical Music recorded during the Golden Age of Stereo.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Are Integrated Circuit Operational Amplifiers Hi-fi?
In the current fashion “revival” of vacuum tube and discrete transistor usage in the hi-fi scene, are audio designs that use integrated circuit op-amps still considered hi-fi?
By: Ringo Bones
Integrated circuit – or IC – op-amps have a myriad of advantages over their discrete component-based counterparts other than space. Like extremely high input impedance, high common mode rejection ratio and high power supply noise rejection ratio just to name a few all in a very compact package. But in terms of ultimate sound quality, many top designers in the hi-fi world find the sound quality of most IC op-amps wanting.
Richard Fryer, founder and owner of Spectral Audio – one of the top manufacturers of cutting edge solid-state audio gear, who as recently as 1998 still insist on using discrete circuitry. As opposed to integrated circuit chips much of the time. Fryer and his design team at Spectral Audio had found out over the years that for critical signal applications, integrated circuits – or IC chips to you and me – simply don’t meet their quality standards. Although he and his design team had been constantly evaluating new integrated circuits and, to everyone’s credit, the IC chips are getting better and better through the years. Still in the rigorous evaluations that the design team at Spectral Audio does these “improved” IC chips simply can’t pass the microphone feed accurately. There’s so much musical information and life that is lost – according to Fryer. Even with the most premium integrated-circuit amplifiers, these integrated circuit packages are just not up to Spectral Audio’s needs in critical signal applications.
Even though most audio designers in the hi-fi world still insist on using discrete components, there are those who are adventurous enough to use IC op-amps in their cutting edge audio designs. Ron Sutherland is one of those high-end audio gear designers who isn’t afraid to use IC op-amps in his almost 7,000 US dollar Sutherland PH-1 phono preamplifier. Maybe it is because Sutherland has a degree in both electrical engineering and physics that made him courageous enough to use a number of Analog Devices instrumentation integrated circuit op-amps on his somewhat “pricey” but very good sounding phono preamplifier.
Another upmarket high-end audio gear that uses IC op-amps is Reflection Audio Design’s 4,700 US dollar (550 US dollar extra for a phono stage) OM1 preamplifier. The OM1 preamplifier is a high-speed, super wide-bandwidth design based on very high slew rate IC op-amps rated at 2,000 volts per microsecond slew rate. It is purported to be flat to 2 megahertz and able to maintain an absolute phase of plus and minus 0.5 degrees across the audio bandwidth (20 Hz to 20,000 Hz). The OM1 preamp by Reflection Audio Design is a very pretty two-chassis affair – if you include the matching 1,550 US dollar battery unit – with a high level of attention to detail. Like the use of curved circuit traces to avoid high-frequency signal reflection.
There are also budget high-end audio designs that used IC op-amps. Like the Super Pas 4 i preamp kit which famed Dynaco tube amp tweaker Frank Van Alstine sold in the early 1990s. Though this preamplifier is somewhat unique because it is a tube and op-amp IC hybrid. Comprising of two 12AX7 tubes and two AD845 (AD843) FET input op-amps in the output stage. And it is surprisingly affordable – in high-end audio terms – at 595 US dollars back in 1993.
In my personal experience, op-amp IC chips – when used properly – can achieve excellent results sound quality wise. Sometimes I wonder why all brand-name boom boxes being flogged in the “high-street” can’t achieve excellent sound quality that matches even cheap DIY hi-fi that uses op-amp chips. Even DIY-ers had achieved excellent results with these lowly audio devices. Most of these serving as a gateway to the wild blue yonder of high-end audio. Next time, I’ll be discussing my experiences with the most touted op-amps for audio use, the LF356 and the high slew rate LM318 in a DIY hi-fi context – replete with unapologetic tweaks.
By: Ringo Bones
Integrated circuit – or IC – op-amps have a myriad of advantages over their discrete component-based counterparts other than space. Like extremely high input impedance, high common mode rejection ratio and high power supply noise rejection ratio just to name a few all in a very compact package. But in terms of ultimate sound quality, many top designers in the hi-fi world find the sound quality of most IC op-amps wanting.
Richard Fryer, founder and owner of Spectral Audio – one of the top manufacturers of cutting edge solid-state audio gear, who as recently as 1998 still insist on using discrete circuitry. As opposed to integrated circuit chips much of the time. Fryer and his design team at Spectral Audio had found out over the years that for critical signal applications, integrated circuits – or IC chips to you and me – simply don’t meet their quality standards. Although he and his design team had been constantly evaluating new integrated circuits and, to everyone’s credit, the IC chips are getting better and better through the years. Still in the rigorous evaluations that the design team at Spectral Audio does these “improved” IC chips simply can’t pass the microphone feed accurately. There’s so much musical information and life that is lost – according to Fryer. Even with the most premium integrated-circuit amplifiers, these integrated circuit packages are just not up to Spectral Audio’s needs in critical signal applications.
Even though most audio designers in the hi-fi world still insist on using discrete components, there are those who are adventurous enough to use IC op-amps in their cutting edge audio designs. Ron Sutherland is one of those high-end audio gear designers who isn’t afraid to use IC op-amps in his almost 7,000 US dollar Sutherland PH-1 phono preamplifier. Maybe it is because Sutherland has a degree in both electrical engineering and physics that made him courageous enough to use a number of Analog Devices instrumentation integrated circuit op-amps on his somewhat “pricey” but very good sounding phono preamplifier.
Another upmarket high-end audio gear that uses IC op-amps is Reflection Audio Design’s 4,700 US dollar (550 US dollar extra for a phono stage) OM1 preamplifier. The OM1 preamplifier is a high-speed, super wide-bandwidth design based on very high slew rate IC op-amps rated at 2,000 volts per microsecond slew rate. It is purported to be flat to 2 megahertz and able to maintain an absolute phase of plus and minus 0.5 degrees across the audio bandwidth (20 Hz to 20,000 Hz). The OM1 preamp by Reflection Audio Design is a very pretty two-chassis affair – if you include the matching 1,550 US dollar battery unit – with a high level of attention to detail. Like the use of curved circuit traces to avoid high-frequency signal reflection.
There are also budget high-end audio designs that used IC op-amps. Like the Super Pas 4 i preamp kit which famed Dynaco tube amp tweaker Frank Van Alstine sold in the early 1990s. Though this preamplifier is somewhat unique because it is a tube and op-amp IC hybrid. Comprising of two 12AX7 tubes and two AD845 (AD843) FET input op-amps in the output stage. And it is surprisingly affordable – in high-end audio terms – at 595 US dollars back in 1993.
In my personal experience, op-amp IC chips – when used properly – can achieve excellent results sound quality wise. Sometimes I wonder why all brand-name boom boxes being flogged in the “high-street” can’t achieve excellent sound quality that matches even cheap DIY hi-fi that uses op-amp chips. Even DIY-ers had achieved excellent results with these lowly audio devices. Most of these serving as a gateway to the wild blue yonder of high-end audio. Next time, I’ll be discussing my experiences with the most touted op-amps for audio use, the LF356 and the high slew rate LM318 in a DIY hi-fi context – replete with unapologetic tweaks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
