-
BobR
"Many high-end studios use tube amplification"
Not so much any more... tubes are a maintenance headache when the gear is abused, as it is in any commercial facility.
=====================================
Dave?s mentioned is not blah, there are many studios have back to the tubes recording for their Hi-End 96/192K 24bit audio CDs. Some even use tube microphones as Neumann 149, AKG C12 etc for their vocal recording but not at all. I think you might calculated with any pop?s, Hip Hop, disco etc , something like that recordings. http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
NE5532 not a cheap one if it is NE5532A, which was manufactured in pre?80. Around $100 each.
Other hand, do you believe if change your NE5532 to OPA604, OPA134 or OPA627s etc would get difference result? http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
By the way, mostly studios would not employ wide range speakers for their recording monitor. So, cannot take studio standard to compare with home audio.
thanks for look
HiFiPlayer
-
HiFiPlayer:
"there are many studios have back to the tubes recording for their Hi-End 96/192K 24bit audio CDs."
Hype and trend, pure and simple... what better method to promote (and self-promote, if you're a recording engineer) to audiophiles who have been indoctrinated with the retro-`tubes are better' philosophy?
And since audiophiles (conveniently) shun double-blind tests (used extensively in other industries that deal with aesthetic performance), the myth that tubes sound better persists. It truly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, it is the best welfare program for the high-end audiophile equipment manufacturers yet.
The resurrection of vacuum tubes in studio gear mirrors the resurrection of tubes in home audio gear. It is a trend, one that is getting out-of-hand, IMHO.
At the current rate, I believe that we're going to be listening to wax Edison cylinders before long.
"Some even use tube microphones as Neumann 149, AKG C12 etc for their vocal recording but not at all."
Transducers are indeed important, and large-diaphragm condensor mics are among my favourite (in the correct application of course).
However, engineers use mics for their overall sound and pickup pattern (which determine its `timbre'), not simply because its tube or solid-state. One is not better than another. I personally use both, for different applications primarily based on pickup pattern vs. frequency of course.
" I think you might calculated with any pop?s, Hip Hop, disco etc , something like that recordings"
I'm utterly offended by that statement; I have recorded and mastered for over twenty years as well as been a professional musician for nearly so long. I've recorded and performed in nearly every genre but do prefer straight-ahead jazz.
I've tried to be humble and present arguments based on logic and sound deductive reasoning but that fails miserably on this forum as I notice that it does in the audiophile world and sadly since the early 1980s, the professional audio world as well.
I'll finally let it be known that I possess hearing ability tuned, trained and tempered by excellent musicianship, thorough understanding of electronics and acoustics, and hard experience as both a design engineer of audio equipment and a recording/mastering engineer as well. I'm confident that my hearing is far superior if not more skilled than that possessed by most audiophiles.
And, BTW, knowing all that reinforces my assertion that double-blind testing is far more accurate than sighted evaluation. I realise the limitations of human hearing and particularly human fallibility to influence and persuasion.
"NE5532 not a cheap one if it is NE5532A, which was manufactured in pre?80. Around $100 each."
The NE5532A is still a current part; the TI datasheet is available here.
DigiKey has stocks these; the 2k price is $0.37 and the single unit price is $0.84:
Digi-Key NE5532A pricing and availability
I've just had a look at a 1979 NE5532A datasheet and compared to a 2004 NE5532A datasheet and found absolutely no difference.
Pray tell, what makes a pre-1980 NE5532A so special?
"Other hand, do you believe if change your NE5532 to OPA604, OPA134 or OPA627s etc would get difference result?"
Yes, I imagine I would get different results, but not for the reasons you probably have in mind.
When I design something using op amps, I look at the datasheets and SPICE model if available. I weigh noise and bandwidth vs. stability, CMRR, output current, etc.
This is how equipment is designed and certain op amps may be chosen for reasons that are not necessarily apparent, especially to an untrained audiophile `tweek' looking for an easy drop-in replacement that magically attains nirvana.
Simply changing op amps will NOT automatically improve audio quality UNLESS bandwidth, stability, noise and addressing any compensation that the designer added are factored in as well.
Anyhow, I use different op amps in different places, depending on application. Does it have to be absolutely low-noise? How much gain is required? How much voltage must I swing? Will it need drive a 600 ohm load at 1 mW (+4dBm)? Is it simply a summing amp? Is it a follower? Is high common mode rejection ratio (CMRR) required? How much bandwidth do I _really_ need, and is it worth potential instability and oscillation?
For example, it makes no sense to use an expensive, wide-bandwidth low-noise op amp like, say, the OPA2134 in a low-gain application like a bus summing amp, or in the instance of home audio gear, as a follower or buffer; something like an inexpensive TL07x or NE553x or even a LF353 will work just fine and incur absolutely no audible degradation.
"By the way, mostly studios would not employ wide range speakers for their recording monitor. So, cannot take studio standard to compare with home audio. "
Main monitors (the big, soffit-mounted ones) must be wide-range, especially now for DVD-A production. They are becoming extremely important during the tracking and production phase of the recording process as extraneous noise (particularly LF rumble, HVAC and traffic noise) is now becoming a serious problem with extremely low-noise/wide bandwidth high-resolution 24-bit 96/192kHz recording.
And yes, every studio has the small bandwidth-limited console-bridge near-field monitors as well but these are usually used during mixing. I still have a pair of NS-10s and still do a significant portion of my mixing on them twenty years on.
BobR
-
BobR
That is a (extra low grade) new NE5532 that you pointed out. It even used for children?s toy. I?m talking about that one.
I agreed that your mentions about OP Amp.
HiFiPlayer
-
EH (Electro Harmonic) has been using TELEFUKEN's old machines to manufacturing their 12AX7/ECC83 etc with same construction and materials.
Can you say that the new EH's ECC83 = equal to the W.Germany made TELEFUKEN? Cause those are followed to the same data sheets. So, Anyone to purchase vintage TELEFUKEN tubes is just fetishistic! Actually, those are worth $5 maximum.
-
BobR,
Hmmm... my previous reply seemed to disappear into bit oblivion - so please forgive me if it shows up as a duplicate later.
Thanks very much for that info on the _real_ frequency response of Altec drivers. It looks like I may have to do some experimenting with a supertweeter or two! Any recommendations?
taudo
-
Part II
As mentioned elsewhere, my previous reply seemed to disappear into bit oblivion - so please forgive me if it shows up as a duplicate later.
This is my unsolicited 2 cents about mysterious and unproven sonic qualities of special cables, ancient tubes, and hi-fi rocks.
I remain open to the possibility that there might be some benefit from these ? and other ? technologies. However, as The Amazing Randi says, ?Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?. Those who make the claims have the burden of supplying that proof and, if they cannot or will not, reasoning people should view their claims with deep suspicion if not outright rejection. That is not being closed-minded ? it?s being smart.
Neither theory nor the best measuring equipment can supply any support for the claimed superiority of, let?s say, ultra-expensive speaker cables. Therefore, the claimants are in the unenviable position of saying that _people_ are somehow more sensitive than those instruments. Now, while this may ultimately be proven to be the case, it is well established that people are also prone to all sorts of perceptual and cognitive deficits. The literature of psychology and sensation and perception is replete with examples, perhaps the most famous of which is the ?anomalous ace? experiment. I can show you examples in every sense where the _perception_ reported by subjects is at odds with the measured stimulus. Every cop knows this: five eyewitnesses to an accident will give you six mutually contradictory accounts of it.
In short, people are such lousy observers ? even on the purely perceptual level ? that any fair experiment must control for their deficiencies. When you go higher up the cognitive ladder and allow cognitive processes, expectations, biases, prejudices, and all the other human failings to operate, it makes the matter so much worse.
In any experiment where people are used to measure or rate the dependent variable, the experimental design _must_ provide methods for controlling both subject and experimenter bias. The double blind methodology is often the simplest way to do this. Absent double blinding, the experimenter must show that other methods control for these biases or reasoning people should reject his analysis.
Simply allowing a sufficient number of people to (often loudly) insist that a certain thing is true does not make it so. Some people swear they?ve seen Elvis on a UFO. Here is an amusing recent example:
?Therapeutic Touch? (TT) is a notion that ordinary people can be taught to ?feel? the ?aura? around the human body and by doing so diagnose and treat disease. Promulgated by the nursing profession, Therapeutic Touch was (and probably still is) taught in many of the major hospitals in this country. Hordes of certified TT practitioners have waved their hands over patients with all kinds of illnesses.
Now, the simplest demonstration of the ability to ?feel? an aura is just being able to discriminate whether or not a living human is under your hand. If you can?t do that _reliably_, you will have a tough time convincing me that there is anything but a lot of wishful thinking behind TT.
So, the study was done and the TT practitioners COULD NOT reliably sense the presence of a living hand behind a screen. Knowing this, are you going to spend your time and money for Therapeutic Touch? I?m not.
Therefore, I think BobR is exactly correct in insisting on good double-blinded trials of questionable claims made by manufacturers of audiophile equipment. Until I see several such, I?m not going to consider expending either time or money trying to find ?the perfect cable? or some such. If the manufacturer wants my business, he has the burden of proving his case to me using scientifically valid methods. Double-blinded trials are one such method, and good trials could be done for a small fraction of the cost of some of the tube amps I?ve seen.
So, manufacturers, listen up. Here I sit willing and able to purchase your products IF you will give me the evidence that I will benefit from doing so. The ball is in your court.
taudo
-
Hi everyone,
The subject of monster cables comes up time and time again and never ceases to create a lot of controversy. A couple observations;
I have yet to see wiring internal to any amp that is more than about 16 gauge and if you ever took a power output transistor apart you would be amazed at just how fine the internal wires are. Also, take a look at the wires from a speakers terminal to the cone. Hmmmm, seems to me like there is a bit of a weak link at each end of the signal path when you put monter cables in the middle.....
By the way, if monster cables really did anything, skin flints like me would all rush to the welding supply store and buy welding cables. Now there is a piece of wire! But if you look at welding cable connects you will see that it would not make any sense to buy weling cables and try to attach them to something like a banana plug or a number 6 machine screw.
I recommend to anyone who is thinking about spending big money on monster cables that they first examine all their signal path connectors. Where ever possible, remove all plugs and screw type connectors. Solder your monster cables right to the circuit board of your amp and at the other end right to your crossover inputs. Eliminate all banana plugs, crimp connectors, screw terminals, push plugs and any thing like them.
My two cents worth, regards
-
This discussion seems to be frequently turned into the justify Monstercable/ justify $8000 speaker cables discussion.
I will not advocate Monstercable as I find it no improvement on Radio Shack cable.
I will not advocate $8000 speaker wire because I have rarely heard it given my income bracket and the times that I have heard (at least >$1000) the performance did not justify the cost in my estimation.
I will say that there can be a significant difference in sound from one wire to the next.
I don't feel that it is necessary for me to prove this (nor could I any more than one could disprove it) as I don't really care whether or not anyone agrees with me. Personally I don't find blind tests any more proof than non-blind tests (not to mention tests with blind or sighted people), they don't at all address the issues of confusion in comparison and the fact that the human ear is able to hear in more detail when given more time (several months). What seems like a small or barely noticeable difference in a 30-second swap might seem like an enormous difference if the listener had listened to one or both of the items in question for several months.
Again I return to the fact that few people that have actually listened to a variety of cables (say speaker wire for instance) agree that there is no difference from one to the next. Preference varies as much as with any other product.
I have mentioned Cat6 wire, I recommend that for a few dollars people that don't believe there can be any difference purchase a few feet of Cat6 (or 5e for that matter). It is readily available for less than a dollar per foot. Strip open the outer insulation and take two of the four pairs of 24ga conductors, and one pair for each speaker as speaker wire. I know many that have tried this, and most that I know much prefer it to something like monster cable or lamp cord or whatever, although there are certainly those that don't. I have yet to come across even one person who claimed they were unable to hear a difference, better or worse. It may well be that most hear think it sounds terrible, but I challenge someone to do that and then report back that the sound is inditinguishable from whatever they were using before.
Dave
-
Dave
I have tried and considered the ways that you have mentioned in ?80. I directly to connect speaker cables to xover without any plug, vocal and HF have some improved. But this way is not always works. Cause some speaker cables are as big as a hose. (i.e. AudioQuest CLEAR, MIT shotgun) So, connecters are must in many environments, (i.e. cables, amps changing and also movement.)
By the way, this is the reason that?s why I have mentioned the resisters need use 2 to 4 pieces paralleled to instead an original?s one piece only.
I wonder why many peoples would still doubt the cables could affect to the sounds reproduction. This controversy was end in pre?80 while monster cable?s director Mr. LEE to introduce his cables to some Hi End producers. Then have proved that is works. I have a pair of the first in the world OFC RCA to RCA interconnect (about $100 , ?81 to ?82 manufactured .) It still looks modern. Cause it has two similar to the MIT Terminator?s networks on the cable original. Then compared with other cables, it can make the sound louder in same volume level! To believe or not!!
HiFiPlayer http://www.hostboard.com/forums/
-
Just for fun:
Follow this link to the most ridiculous..er, I mean expensive speaker cables ever made. $23,500 for an 8 foot pair... (let's see, I need 3 24 foot sets for my triamp setup...)
http://gallery.consumerreview.com/au...es/opus-mm.asp
And, probably should mate them up with 3 of those $350,000 Wavac tube amps just reviewed in Stereophile.
I think I need another job - maybe several more jobs!
taudo
