Build Your Own Professional-Grade Audio Amp on the Sort-Of Cheap

https://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/build-your-own-professionalgrade-audio-amp-on-the-sort-of-cheap

by chablent • 8 years ago

444 256 8 years ago

spectrum.ieee.org

scblock2• 8 years ago

Oh geez they could have left this statement out: "When I wrote my previous article, class-D audio was fairly new, and audiophiles were still arguing about whether class-D amps could sound as good as class-AB or class-A units.

Nobody is having those arguments anymore."

Those arguments are still front and center when it comes to amplifier design, both on the manufacturer and consumer sides.

AceJohnny2• 8 years ago

Tangentially, the placebo effect is everywhere. If it can affect tasting (wine) and hearing (audiophile gear), I'm surprised not to have noticed its affect in discussing photography.

Will "computational photography" (as touted in the latest iPhones) that alters photos based on criterion of perceived quality end up bringing these kind of inane discussions there too?

Edit: Never mind, I didn't factor in all the arguments about Photoshop altering.

taejo2• 8 years ago

While there are endless debates about manipulation, when it comes to actual capturing of images, the photographic community (in my experience) has a healthy dose of "the best camera is the one you're carrying" and "a great photographer can take great photographs with any camera but even a great camera won't help a lousy photographer take great photographs" to go with its love of gear (who can help but love gear?)

rectang3• 8 years ago

I made my living as a mastering engineer for two years...

To do good work in mixing and mastering, it's important to study the human perceptual mechanism and its propensity for illusion, and it's also important to understand masking effects and how to amplify certain components long enough to tweak them before dialing them back to recede into the gestalt.

It's also important to understand that in sound reproduction the vast majority of the distortion on the analog side comes from transducers (microphones and speakers), not amplifiers. (I'm not even going to bother with the article, because amplifiers aren't an important problem: buy something decently engineered and overpowered, and you're basically all set. Then worry about your speakers and your room, because they're the hard part.)

But it's likewise crucial to grok that the distortion introduced by digital components is disproportionately disturbing because it is enharmonic. And that practically speaking a lot of the damage that gets done in practice happens because people don't handle gain staging right and often don't understand the fundamental principle of preserving high resolution throughout production and only exporting to lower resolution as a final step.

In summary, there are a whole lot of interesting conversations to have on the subject of audio and how perception relates to production. But it's basically impossible to find a community to discuss these subjects with. Either it will be overrun by audiophiles and their pseudoscience, or well-meaning but undereducated skeptics will dominate the discussion with plausible but misguided debunking.

So every once in a while I throw up a piece like this into the middle of a giant discussion, with about as much hope as tossing a message in a bottle into the ocean.

paulie_a• 8 years ago

Whenever I see the term audiophile I mentally replace it with "over priced bullshit"

It's just someone being sold snake oil.

ken• 8 years ago

It's already here, for displays. I've seen lots of internet comments claiming I need the >450ppi screen on the new high-end iPhone, not the miserable old cheapo 326ppi one.

011000112• 8 years ago

I think it might boil down to your philosophy on sound reproduction. Do you want accuracy with some potentials for ugliness if you clip, or do you want coloring and musical distortion? I don't think AM radio sounds good at all, but it is sometimes emotionally comforting to listen to. Fidelity isn't everything.

That said, many high end audio folks are straight up whack jobs.

milesvp• 8 years ago

I'm not convinced audio engineers are having that argument anymore (which is more the audience of IEEE). I get the impression from an engineer I know who's specialized in digital signal processing, and who's done a significant amount of analog work, that anyone who's still having some of these arguments doesn't understand some of the basic maths of the problem space. That basically, you can always digitally encode an analog signal at a higher resolution and fidelity than you can reliably read said signal at any given technology level/pricepoint. Which means that using an ADC -> DAC pipeline will almost always give you better audio output with better signal to noise ratios than strict analog -> analog systems (though possibly at the cost of latency).

Where it gets tricky, is the arguments for how things like tube amps sound. There is nothing that analog components add to a sound that can't be simulated with digital transforms, but the trick is figuring out how various analog components effect the signal. For instance, my friend found that certain tube amps would overdrive components and force them out of spec, and this caused a non linearity in the response of the signal coming from the component that gave the amp it's distinctive distortion effect. Once he figured that out he was able to reproduce the effect digitally. Incidently, he's found that some guitar amps can never be made today, because they were built around a specific batch of a given component, and newer batches didn't have the same out of bounds responses. But this seems to be why so many people are still so big into analog amps, because it takes considerable effort (and apparently engineering skill) to reproduce some of the classic sounds.

Mind you, I'm biased by one of the best engineers I've ever met, so I could be wrong about the general consensus with audio engineers. I'm also mostly using a sample size of 1, though I have corroborated some of his assertions with some of the blogging I've read on the topic. One of the best (I wish I'd bookmarked), was a good overview of encoding by a prolific codec writer, who pointed out that even though a digitized sine wave looks lossy at a low sample rate, it's trivial to rebuild that sine wave perfectly, with just the digitized version (so long as the sample rate was above some multiple of the Nyquist frequency?).

raphlinus• 8 years ago

Likely that was xiph on why excessively high sample rates don't do much for the listening experience: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

scblock2• 8 years ago

Amplifier designers most certainly are. Class D has significant energy efficiency advantages, and significant sonic challenges. It’s taking an analog waveform, whether decoded by a DAC or starting as pure analog, and chopping it into a series of pulses (pulse width modulation). The amp is switching transistors on and off very quickly, rather than using them as a variable linear gain stage. It’s not the same as PCM encoded digital audio, and shouldn’t be confused with it.

vichu• 8 years ago

I don't know much when it comes to audio amp design, but this reminds me greatly of the O2 headphone amp[0] - that anecdotally a few of my friends have soldered for their personal use.

[0] http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/07/o2-headphone-amp.html

korethr3• 8 years ago

I thought of the same thing. Both are inexpensive, straightforward, no-BS projects that leverage the advances made in electronics over the years to deliver quality audio.

If I made one of these, I 'd be tempted to put an ODAC and O2 board in the same chassis to have a complete amplifier.

wolfgke• 8 years ago

If I made one of these, I 'd be tempted to put an ODAC and O2 board in the same chassis to have a complete amplifier.

Such a product is available commercially:

https://www.jdslabs.com/products/48/objective2-odac-combo-re...

syntaxing• 8 years ago

Hearing the ODAC name is quite a throw back! I remember reading NwAvGuy's blog when I first started getting into headphones. I always wondered what happened to him.

dejv2• 8 years ago

O2 is great and it is quite simple to build. There is even simpler amp called CMoy[1] which is simple enough to be first project for somebody just starting out.

I would start by taking look on some oss version[2] and order PCB from OSH Park[3]. I've built this version few years ago and it works well.

[1] https://tangentsoft.net/audio/cmoy/ [2] https://github.com/akafugu/cmoy [3] https://oshpark.com/shared_projects/dRKK4dgN

superflyguy2• 8 years ago

I built the cmoy. It was easy. But I know nothing about how it works, and I remember reading warnings on associated web pages like "this is not a guitar amp" etc. I'm curious to know a little more about how these (amps generally) work, why they're seemingly non trivial to design at a reasonable quality level etc.

korethr3• 8 years ago

Interesting. I'm tempted to try this out. I have access to a quality soldering iron and can use it decently well (I'm typing this on an ergodox keyboard I built from a kit).

There is something very satisfying about building something yourself that you get use out of every day. Such an amplifier is likely to fall into that category for me.

jelling• 8 years ago

Any recommendations for people that are tempted to build this but should really put their time elsewhere?

korethr3• 8 years ago

I'm not sure I understand your question; what do you mean by "but should really put their time elsewhere"?

Are you asking for an amplifier that would deliver similar performance to this, because you don't have the time to build one, or that you suspect you'll come out ahead on build vs buy because of the price you value your time at?

janekm• 8 years ago

If you are looking for something already built, the eBay/aliexpress shops of the Shenzhen companies often have the option of selling you a complete amplifier made up of their modules. Which will probably end up cheaper than getting all the parts yourself...

Matsta4• 8 years ago

Bang on. A popular amp is a TPA3116 module. You can see thousands of examples on Aliexpress: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=S...

For speakers, the cheapest option is to buy some second-hand ones on eBay/Gumtree/Craigslist. Just Google model names and look for ones with good reviews. I like British speakers, so I usually search for Tannoy, B&W, KEF etc.

011000112• 8 years ago

Just do some research and get a cheap class D amp off a chinese website. I forgot the one I chose(I'm at work now), but other than some sparks if you jiggle the power connector(haha seriously. can be fixed with a tiny bit of effort), it is an amazing little amp. It also supports optical and bluetooth connections which is really nice.

I put my efforts into building speakers instead. I got a cheap kit (https://www.diysoundgroup.com/overnight-sensations.html) and spent my time learning how to apply a french polish finish. I really enjoyed learning french polishing. It's one of those things that when you finally get it, it becomes immensely satisfying. Yeah, shellac isn't the most durable finish, but it sure is pretty.

muks• 8 years ago

Yeah, shellac isn't the most durable finish, but it sure is pretty.

chadcmulligan4• 8 years ago

There are these I've been tempted to try out that use the same chip (and a low noise pre amp), but unfortunately I have two perfectly functioning amplifiers already :-) (and a set of powered edifier speakers in the mail - I have a problem). https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m...

They have a switch mode power supply instead of the toroidal in the IEEE article, so in theory more noise - in real life? probably doesn't matter. THD < 0.01% at 30W, frequency response is +- 1db, the days of having to spend any money for an amp seem gone, < $70

vvdcect• 8 years ago

I was planning to build my own system, I wanted a DAC + Tube Preamp + AB Amp. You can get a really good DAC board from https://www.hifiberry.com/shop/boards/hifiberry-dac-dsp/ and for the rest of the system I was going to get it from http://glass-ware.stores.yahoo.net/newhardware.html.

Zigurd• 8 years ago

People discard old electronics, some of them of very good quality. Short of that, you can find this stuff on craigslist. The used value of some nice gear is very modest. I'm running one set of my chromecast audio linked speakers on a vintage Pioneer receiver with those funky proprietary speaker jacks I found on the "take it or leave it" table at the dump. I also found a McIntosh with a funky combination of a tube tuner and transistor amp literally on the scrap metal pile. But it needs new power caps.

watersb• 8 years ago

Very cool. I was very interested when the IEEE Spectrum original feature was published, and got one of the Tripath amplifiers to play with. It was a commercial product, marketed as inexpensive toy. Then people on Head-Fi Forums started taking these things further. One of the forum members started modding home-theater amplifiers, so I purchased one and it was great.

Vinnie Rossi, Red Wine Audio. It is still amazing. But his stuff is now quite out of my price range.

These amplifiers are great fun, though.

Matsta4• 8 years ago

The majority of all active speakers produced nowadays are Class-D, it's nothing really new (and the fact they are super cheap).

No idea how this guy wrote this article and didn't come across DIY Audio (or he just didn't mention it in the article). There is a tonne of information here: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/

matt4077• 8 years ago

Your first point seems to be reflected in the article, except that, if they are correct, the high end of Class D amplifiers apparently is not "super cheap".

I don't quite get the aggressiveness of your second point: surely just leaving whatever your first association to a topic is out cannot warrant such outrage? It's not like they present this article as groundbreaking innovation. Not only do they cite other DIY efforts. The whole premise of the article is that the author himself already did this ten years ago,.

Matsta4• 8 years ago

It comes more down to the design of the board and the quality of the other components on the board. The TPA3250 he mentions is quite a new chip, but if you look on Aliexpress for an older chip like the TPA3116 there is literally thousands of examples: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=S...

I imagine this guy must have found the components of a site similar to DIY Audio. It would have been a nice addition to steer people in the direction of more information if they are interested in the topic (which a lot of the comments here seem to be asking about).

irrational• 8 years ago

I have some questions. My son has been taking guitar lessons using a classic guitar. Using the advice of his instructor we are getting him a begginer's electric guitar for christmas. We also need to get him an amp.

Is the amp in this article the same kind of amp that you could plug an electric guitar into? I know nothing about music or instruments, but I do know about electronics so I was thinking it might be fun to build an amp with my son.

I went to the diyaudio link you suggested, but I didn't immediately see information like in the article (buy this, this, this and this to build the amp). Can you point to where I could find a similar purchase list and assembly instructions on diyaudio? Thanks!

TylerE10• 8 years ago

No, guitar amps are a totally different beast with many different components.

taejo2• 8 years ago

Is the amp in this article the same kind of amp that you could plug an electric guitar into?

I'm no expert, but as far as I understand, this is a power amp, which takes an input at line level (~1 volt) up to a level that can power a speaker. Guitar pickups produce a signal around 100 mV, and typically need a "pre-amp" stage before the power amp to amplify this signal to line level.

bitbldr• 8 years ago

While you probably could use an amplifier like this for guitar, you usually wouldn't want to unless it's being used for acoustic guitar or vocals. The reason being, an electric guitar amplifier is going to add a lot of character to the guitar tone that you actually would want, where as an amplifier like this is going to strive for a perfect clean reproduction of the original audio. This is why a lot of guitar players prefer to use old tube-based amps, they add a lot of character to the sound through the preamps and power amps that match what you hear on the recordings of your favorite artists and sound great (though, some argue today solid-state modeling amps sound just as good). With that said, there are a lot of projects and schematics on the web which try to recreate some of the popular guitar amps like the Vox AC30 and Fender Twin Reverb, which would be fun to try and build.

Now if you wanted to make a PA system, I don't see why you couldn't use an amplifier like this with some modifications.

kazinator4• 8 years ago

You can absolutely use stand-alone "hi-fi" amplifiers for guitar; that's what I do. You just can't plug your guitar straight into that; you need some pre-amplifier gear. My gear is old-school in a big rack, described below.

Nowadays, there exist units that provide complete signal processing for guitar: simulating guitar pre-amplifiers, amplifiers and speaker cabinets digitally. You plug your guitar into this, and then it can go straight into a PA system, or your recording console. Something like that can be used with an amplifier like the one being built here.

My rig consists of a 6U portable rack case with a few pieces of gear. The guitar goes into an ADA MP-1 MIDI-programmable tube pre-amp (built in 1987, revamped by me). This goes into a splitter-mixer (called the SMF-1 that I built myself) which bifurcates the signal through a digital effect unit that provides reverb, and then mixes it again. The dry signal remains analog. Then it goes into a 31 band equalizer, and from there to the power amplifier, an Alesis RA-100, which feeds a guitar "4x12" speaker cabinet (four 12" speakers). I could take out the amplifier and drop-in replace it with any rack-mountable amp, provided it doesn't require more than 3U spaces. QSC, Yamaha, Yorkville, whatever.

There also exist dedicated rack-mounted power amplifiers intended for guitar, like the Rocktron Velocity or Marshall Valvestate 8008 (both of these examples are stereo). Many of these kinds of ampls have been produced. These are just power amps; they can't produce any overdrive tones and have only minimal tone control or none at all. The 8008 has a switch on the back for "tube like" behavior, which just means current feedback. That will give it more of a mid-scooped frequency response, induced by the reactive speaker load. I can do something like that with my equalizer.

The amplifier project we see here could be turned into a guitar amp by adding a preamp circuit board into the chassis, fed by a guitar input jack, and exposing some tone and gain controls. The stereo function of the amp could be useful if we add jacks for an external effect loop and make it stereo (mono out, stereo in). Then we need a stereo guitar cabinet: minimally a 2x10 or 2x12 wired for stereo.

spiralganglion• 8 years ago

[Professional Musician / Hobbyist Maker]

Yes, this amp can work — experimental musicians run instruments through much weirder things — but it'll sound strange.

Whether you build an amp or not, you should definitely buy a standard guitar amp, so that he can focus on his guitar playing. A standard guitar amp (solid state or tube, to taste) will let him hear how his playing compares to other musicians (who also use standard guitar amps), helping him gain a critical ear. He'll learn what parts of the tone come from his fingers.

When he's ready to go experimental, then he can start playing with (say) ripping pickups out of guitars and wiring them up to headphones as portable EM detectors. When he gets to that phase, that's the time to start using line amplifiers like the one in this article instead of instrument amplifiers. And drilling hundreds of screws into his guitar.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi2• 8 years ago

Your practical options are:

* Get a standard amp/cab combo.

* DIY something, I'm sure there are guides and such you can follow, but this is only practical in so far as it's a fun project.

* Use your computer. You can get inexpensive cables that plug into your computer USB and there's a variety of software to emulate amps.

hunter2_2• 8 years ago

An amplifier like in this article does just one of the many things a normal combo guitar amp does.

1. Preamp with hi-Z input from guitar to line level

2. Ability to drive into distortion

3. EQ of some sort

4. (Sometimes) reverb

5. Amplify line to speaker level (this article)

6. Midrangey speaker+cabinet that sounds nothing like a normal flat speaker cabinet used for HiFi/PA/keyboard/etc.

However, as others have said, you can use a guitar modeler which performs steps 1-4 outright and simulates step 6 leaving only a need for step 5 and a "normal" speaker.

bjt• 8 years ago

I would go with one of the new generation of solid state guitar amps like the Boss Katana. These are Class D amps like the one in the article, but voiced for guitar, and with distortion and reverb effects built in. They're very reasonably priced, and get good reviews from enthusiasts (much better than the solid state amps of 10+ years ago).

smcameron• 8 years ago

Short answer: No. Guitar amps are weird, not like hi-fi amps at all. In a hi-fi amp, distortion is the enemy. In a guitar amp, distortion is sought after. Driving the pre-amp section of a guitar amp into clipping is extremely common and desirable. Doing the same with a hi-fi amp is not. A hi-fi amp will be typically connected to speakers with a woofer and a tweeter and maybe a mid-range, trying to accurately reproduce all frequencies. A guitar amp typically has nothing but 12 inch speakers. A guitar amp is literally half the instrument. Plugging a guitar into a hi-fi amp is faithfully amplifying 1/2 of an instrument. You'll end up buying a guitar amp anyway. Just get a guitar amp.

batbomb• 8 years ago

I used to build guitar amps for fun and repair them for friends. I have parts of a Sound City, Plush, Harmony, Gibson amps in my storage unit. I have some old heathkit thing from the 60s. I have two different Traynors.

Depending on your budget, I'd get a Vox Pathfinder, AC4, or AC10, and then take him to get a pedal or two after Christmas. You can usually find an AC4 used easily. Some of the digital amps are fun, but if he really gets into it, he's more likely to keep one of the amps I mentioned and buy pedals anyway. An AC4 (especially an AC10) will be something which usually sounds really good on it's own.

archi424• 8 years ago

For a beginner, I'd get a decent, pre-built guitar amp that "just works" with decent sound and only basic controls (as opposed to a digital amp with millions of mediocre effects). You can always add some DIY effect pedals, or get a whole new amp - but if your son wants to practice and needs to fiddle with the electronics because something is not right again with the DIY amp, this might distract him too much from actually practicing his instrument.

Maybe take him to a store so he can find out which guitar/amp combo he likes most.

mhh__• 8 years ago

Buy a Zoom G3x (or other good multi effects box with amps Sims) you can then chuck that straight into any semi decent guitar amp.

8bitsrule2• 8 years ago

If your listening needs don't involve more than 10-20 watts, inexpensive Class-D amps can sound really good through a pair of good speakers. And because of their efficiency, an external power supply only needs a handful of amps (much lighter). Win-win for me.

brokenmachine5• 8 years ago

TPA3255 can do 75 Watts per channel at 0.003%THD+N, which is pretty damn good IMO.

3e Audio has a nice board using that as well.

Scoundreller• 8 years ago

I don’t build audio amplifiers often, but when I do, I always use top-quality components like HPOO.

fermienrico3• 8 years ago

It is refreshing to see these types of articles.

Of all disciplines of human interests and hobbies, Audiophiles are one of the most stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional bunch. Of course I am generalizing, but every time I engage in a discussion about audio quality, it is a losing battle. Not because of lack of data or supporting evidence, but because of the fundamental dissent for data driven arguments. You cannot argue reason when the first step is to be born with "audiophile ears".

Why is it hard to understand that we have sophisticated metrology and instrumentation that can analyze things better than human ears can? I can understand a separate discussion about personal opinions regarding how "warm" a particular sound is, but that should remain distinctly as - subjective and that's perfectly OK.

It feels like the entire audio industry is promoting pseudoscience barring a very few vendors that actually care. We have a $8500 mp3 player from Sony claiming all kinds of things to the overwhelming abundance of cheap Shenzhen exports. There is just so much noise.

I absolutely abhor audiophiles.

ohazi• 8 years ago

Someone I know was recently trying to have a conversation with an audiophile about the possibility of re-purposing some audio equipment to make noise floor measurements for another system that had similar frequency and dynamic range characteristics.

The technique worked just fine, but man, that guy was loony. He was trying to claim, with a straight face, that a GPS disciplined oscillator wasn't stable enough for his audiophile-grade Rube Goldberg machine.

brokenmachine5• 8 years ago

Oh god, jitter... If ever there was a more pseudoscience audio term, I haven't heard it.

I wish there was a separate term between audiophiles who just want to spend a lot of money on hocus pocus, and audiophiles who want the measurably best performance.

Then the audiophile forums would not be polluted with people who spend thousands on cables and other rubbish, when the room response/treatment and speaker selection has a million times more effect on the actual sound.

albertgoeswoof• 8 years ago

Nothing wrong with vinyl, that’s more about physically handling the media, reading the sleeves, listening to an album the whole way through etc. Than the audio quality. No vinyl enthusiast would say the quality is objectively better, but the experience arguably is

fermienrico3• 8 years ago

Yea, I removed the Vinyl argument. That's for another time. Nothing wrong with Records but I've had the same issue talking to people about Records wrt to audio quality.

I own Records and like you, I enjoy the experience. There is something amazing about listening to the entire album without distractions and in the sequence that the artist intended. You could do this with mp3/CD, but Records get me in the right mood :-)

wrycoder• 8 years ago

What I miss are the album notes. It's easy to include a booklet with massive information in the CD jewelbox, but instead "they" dropped the notes. And these days, you can't even determine who wrote the song, as the track copyright information is missing. It's like ebooks, which often omit the year of publication.

ddingus2• 8 years ago

Bingo.

And what I often crave is the less accurate vinyl sound, that coupled with different production values.

Not better, just resonant with me. Easiest way to explain it.

compiler-guy2• 8 years ago

Much of this is cultural driven by a historical time when we didn't have the tools to measure this stuff, and reproduction was so bad that nearly anything that changed the sound in any way could be argued to be an improvement.

Those days are long gone, but the culture remains.

Getting good sound out of an old victrola--which were very expensive--truly is an art. Getting passable sound out of today's average off-the-shelf electronics doesn't take much at all. But many audiophiles act like are living in the late 1800s.

blattimwind4• 8 years ago

Much of this is cultural driven by a historical time when we didn't have the tools to measure this stuff, and reproduction was so bad that nearly anything that changed the sound in any way could be argued to be an improvement.

[citation needed]

State of the art distortion measuring techniques resolved something like 0.002 % in the 70s.

loser777• 8 years ago

(EDIT: Parent deleted argument about Vinyl) Vinyl has a few more dimensions than the "quality" aspect. I totally agree that there is no argument for vinyl offering superior quality. However, I have bought a few records simply because they were actually the _easiest_ way for me to buy something I could play back for a few albums/tracks that never saw a proper online release.

It's also easier to display a 12" sleeve as "art" than a CD or a FLAC download ;). Turntables are better decorative living room items than CD players or tape decks, but that's also subjective ;).

bigiain• 8 years ago

This is a Quora answer of mine from (sigh) 2011:

I _like_ vinyl, but I'm happy to admit its almost certainly due to non-audio non-hifi reasons. I like the "ceremony" associated with cleaning the disk, dropping the needle on the lead in track, and getting up to flip it over and do it again every 5 or 6 songs. I like the cover art - there is arguably a loss to the world of a beautiful art form due to the demise of the 12" record and it's large art-work ready packaging. And, as you'll hear on a lot of '90's CDs - I like the 33 1/3 rpm flaws, the clicks, scratches, and wow and flutter - when I hear the opening bars of Tear Drops from Massive Attack's Mezzanine, I get nostalgic, not for the late nineties when it was released, but for the early eighties - that scratched, fuzzy, played-too-much vinyl sound they used - that was the soundtrack to my late teens. Whatever the minor differences in the audio reproduction, those 33 1/3 and 45 rpm noises bring back some wonderful memories... Which is enough reason for me to keep the turntable set up and occasionally spin some discs...

willtim2• 8 years ago

Your generalisation is unfair. Most Audiophiles just want to listen to music the way the artists intended. This is not easy in a industry where colouring the sound is even celebrated, e.g. 'Beats by Dre'.

I recently tried the latest noise cancelling headphones by Sony (1000XM3). The noise cancelling was excellent, but the bass was +5db overblown, boomy and drowned out most of the mids, the treble was dark to hide the NC hiss. It was unlistenable for jazz and classical without EQ. But the mainstream tech press think they are wonderful, even "WhatHifi" gave them 5 stars. An Audiophile is simply someone that cares about sound quality, most people don't.

dharma1• 8 years ago

As far a noise sound quality for cancelling wireless closed headphones go, the Sony's are the best along with Sennheiser Momentum 2.0 on-ear.

There are of course much better headphones, and I wouldn't call them audiophile headphones, but I haven't found other wireless ones that do noise-cancelling and isolation as well and still manage to sound acceptable.

chadcmulligan4• 8 years ago

Yes the noise surrounding headphones is incredible (pun not intended), even stranger I find the denigration of 'studio monitor' quality very odd. Recently I bought a nice pair of headphones, naturally enough I wanted the ones that colour the music the least, went looking in the headphone section at the nearest consumer electronic shop for the ones that were on their web site and couldn't find them. There were stands of beats, and Sony etc at crazy prices. I asked the guy where they were and they were poked away in the corner in a different section. I laughed - the best headphones that were cheap were hidden away and all the overpriced plastic nonsense were displayed prominently.

mbell6• 8 years ago

Your generalisation is unfair. Most Audiophiles just want to listen to music the way the artists intended.

That is not my experience at all. Audio gear that is 'flat', in that it outputs as close a representation to the recording as possible is largely shunned in audiophile circles. They mostly want to listen to something that 'sounds good', with all the psychoacoustic baggage that comes with such a statement. As an example if the end goal is accurate reproduction then a tube amp is objectively worse than almost any other amp built in the last 30 years, yet they sell!

stinos• 8 years ago

The noise cancelling was excellent, but the bass was +5db overblown, boomy and drowned out most of the mids, the treble was dark to hide the NC hiss

Had pretty much the exact same experience with some noise-cancelling in-ear pair of Bose. I was actually amazed at how good the noise cancelling was, but sound reproduction even in absence of any outside noise was very sub-par. Now I can't imagine the engineers didn't measure this thing, so I'm assuming it was done on purpose, maybe aimed for pop music or so?

lucianthorr• 8 years ago

There's also the chance that microphones and signal analysis aren't the best metaphors for how ears and brains process sound. But if the audiophiles you're talking about are endoring $8500 mp3 players, maybe we're talking to different people. That does sound silly.

Karunamon• 8 years ago

Of course they’re anecdotal - listening to music is a subjective experience. If someone really thinks their music sounds better after adding $100 cable lifters and taping $50 bags of rocks to their $10,000 system, they are automatically correct. Their ears, their hobby.

It would be like saying that something can’t work because it’s a placebo - even if all they’re getting is a sugar pill, if the symptoms went away, that’s not really something that you can argue with.

I put audiophiles on the same level as sommeliers. The best wine is the one that tastes best to the drinker. You can haul out your GCMS to test the wine and your ABX testing software to test the audio and tell someone their subjective experience is Wrong, but this misses the point. We’re not talking about medical efficacy here, we’re talking about artwork.

gruez• 8 years ago

We’re not talking about medical efficacy here, we’re talking about artwork.

if only audiophiles see it this way themselves...

88• 8 years ago

Placebo effects are real.

jrace• 8 years ago

The issue is I have is that people are being convinced they need to spend $100's and $1000's of dollars to get the placebo effect. If it is indeed just placebo it should be acheivable for free.

Instead what you have is not placebo effect, but perceived value effect.

After working in high-end audio for many years it became apparent that the (high) price tag was in fact the benefit.

Some people just want what there neighbor cannot afford.

TylerE10• 8 years ago

Please don't lump all audiophiles in with some sort of distorted (irony...) stereotype.

I don't have a $10k system, or anything close to it, but yes, my system that I put together for about $1000 is way way way way better than what you're listening onm because I care enough to have a good external DAC, and feed that into a good amp paired with either a set of decent used speakers or one of a couple of sets of good headphones.

No "cable lifters" in sight.

tobyhinloopen2• 8 years ago

I have $2000 speakers and I use a $60 2nd-hand amp from 1999 and a $20 bluetooth dac with them. Audiophiles hate me. Bluetooth is the greatest sin, apparently.

I have AB tested my amp with newer models and while there was a difference, it was very minor and not worth upgrading IMO

b1daly2• 8 years ago

It’s not even placebo...contextual stimuli actually will change how things sound. If you have decent speakers at your computer, listen to a passage with your monitor on, then the same passage with it off, it will sound quite different.

Another example from audio production, adjusting signal processors while processing is bypassed, and being convinced the sound is changed.

Another one I’ve been noticing is how the resolution of the gain control affects perception of the “power” of the amp. If the resolution of the volume knob is high, meaning it takes more turning motion for the same level increase, the amp “feels” weaker to me, biasing my perception of sound.

The mother of all dilemmas when it comes to comparing audio gear is that the louder source always sounds “better.” This a very powerful perceptual distortion.

So while I think stereotypical audiophile practices are non-sensical, I have no doubt that they really make the systems sound better to the practitioners!

bcheung2• 8 years ago

one of the most stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional bunch

I've had professional recording artists tell me they won't use MIDI over USB because the volume is lower than the old 9-pin connectors.

seandougall• 8 years ago

Wait, what? The “volume” of MIDI? I’m guessing they’re not referring to cc#7...?

(Also, I’ve never encountered a 9-pin MIDI connector. 5-pin maybe?)

modzu2• 8 years ago

why generalize like this? indeed discussing virtually any subject with virtually anybody (except perhaps within academic circles) usually reveals how "stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional" their beliefs are

if i had to guess, it sounds like you have poor hearing ;P

comboy2• 8 years ago

Any DAC chip and some usb interface for it that you could recommend to go with this?

And slightly OT, but does anybody know any ABX test of balanced input/output signal? I find it hard to believe that there is a single person who can hear the difference.

jacquesm2• 8 years ago

The big gain for balanced inputs is rejection of signals induced into the wire. Of course optical is the way to go if you are really worried about that. Personally I don't care, my ears are old enough that I no longer hear the difference between a high end and a low end amp.

Matsta4• 8 years ago

There's thousands of options. Schiit are generally regarded for having high quality products that are relatively cheap.

A good place to find DAC reviews is head-fi: https://www.head-fi.org/forums/dedicated-source-components.7...

comboy2• 8 years ago

Thousands of options is why I asked for a recommendation. I know Schiit has good reviews but I'm just interested in ICs. Something like PCM2707C for USB communication or PCM1794A for DAC or whatever else.

aidenn04• 8 years ago

There are cases where the difference is huge; particularly when you have very long runs between the preamp and the amp. This is on reason why you usually see XLR inputs to monitors. Any noise induced is amplified and a long unbalanced wire is a big antenna.

I've heard of cases where you could receive AM radio stations from such a setup; I lean towards "urban legend" for that though. While it seems theoretically possible (since many amplifier topologies can have resonance when fed signals outside their expected operating range), it seems a bit farfetched to actually end up with intelligible audio.

W-_-D• 8 years ago

It's actually pretty common on older guitar amps. I've got a Marshall TMB replica which has this issue when the guitar isn't plugged in. If you turn it up loud enough, you can make out sentences clearly. I thought I was going crazy when I first noticed it.

tobyhinloopen2• 8 years ago

It is absolutely not an urban legend. I experienced it myself with my Z5500 speakers! It was a bit soft but on max volume you could clearly make out what was being said

rcxdude• 8 years ago

It's not as far-fetched as you might think. While you aren't likely to see the classic AM demodulator circuit appear in an audio signal path, the nature of AM is that any non-linearity will cause some degree of demodulation to occur, so it can appear in all kinds of places unexpectently (especially if a powerful transmitter is nearby).

aidenn04• 8 years ago

Behringer UCA-202 is the best thing for under $50 IMO. It does not have balanced outputs though.

Scene_Cast2• 8 years ago

https://www.audiosciencereview.com has measurements of various DACs. Tl;dr: the topping D50 ($250 MSRP) measures really well, and for a combo amp&dac unit the topping dx7s (currently on massdrop for $360) measures really well. Just a heads up, that site is biased towards objective measurements, the Toppings measure really well, so the site is biased towards them. A lot.

According to that site, Schiit stuff measures really bad.

List of all reviews: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/m...

esaym• 8 years ago

Hmm, I'd much rather build a Class-D amp from scratch with no chips involved... any tips?

jacquesm2• 8 years ago

https://www.elektormagazine.com/labs/200w-class-d-audio-powe...

Not quite chipless but pretty close.

heavenlyblue• 8 years ago

https://www.amb.org/audio/

mbell6• 8 years ago

That's not realistic, particularly if you're after a full range amp.

proee• 8 years ago

Audio is a great way to get kids excited about electronics. When I was in the 6th grade, my father helped me build my own high power amplifier using an LM3876 opamp. I remember clear as day the first time I powered up my amplifier circuit and nothing happened. Hmmm... I brought my face closer to my circuit board and suddenly "BANG!!!!" an electrolytic capacitor blew up right in my face and scared the living daylights out of me. I unknowingly connected the power supply capacitor backwards. I soldered in a new capacitor, and then plugged it in again. Like magic, my home-brewed subwoofer was now cranking out serious bass by an amplifier that "I" built. That moment was magical and surreal - I still get goose bumps thinking about it!

rubatuga2• 8 years ago

If you just want the amp without building it, you can get a TPA3116 Class D amplifier. It is only $21 USD from aliexpress (with free shipping of course!). It accepts a supply voltage of up to 24V meaning that you can just dig around for your old laptop power supply (19V). It comes with a nice and sleek aluminum case, and has low enough noise floor that I can't detect it at all unless my ear is right up against the speaker. Although slightly less power output compared to the chip from the article, it gets loud enough to drown out someone yelling. This amp from aliexpress has gold plated banana plug terminals, RCA inputs, and a smooth volume potentiometer.

Link: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Breeze-Audio-BA100-Class-D-P...

blattimwind4• 8 years ago

I guess in technical terms this article is about "making" an amplifier as opposed to "building" an amplifier. "Making" as in "Maker", since the electronics come as pre-made assemblies connected together and put in a case.

trentlott• 8 years ago

Basically a model kit that inhibits your ability to generalize.

compiler-guy2• 8 years ago

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." --Carl Sagan

Steve443• 8 years ago

I know this isn't what the original article is about but for quite some time I used a Topping TP31 amp, it's the same technology you are talking about.

It's not the best amp I've had, it's not loud enough for parties, or even very loud music, and it doesn't drive my planar headphones well.

What it does do is easily fill my home/office room well above comfortable working & listening level, it drives my Sennheiser headphones pretty well, it's cheap & small and it just works.

For what it is, it's brilliant.

brokenmachine5• 8 years ago

TPA3116 can do about double the power of the TA2024 in the TP31 at about the same distortion.

The TPA3250 from the article, and the TPA3251/TPA3255 that have higher power from the same range are in a different class to those IMO, with much less distortion, and are just ridiculous value for money.

archi424• 8 years ago

Oh, that one looks neat. I've got another Ali module with integrated Bluetooth for use in my study room. Theoretically the parts have decent specs, but the module has a high noise level and the speaker makes a loud popping sound with a lot of movement on power on :(

Maybe I'll replace it with the amp you linked :)

rubatuga2• 8 years ago

Yes, you definitely don't want a bluetooth combo. Also, you don't want to buy the 100W version that combines two TPA3116 chips. These models are using a special sync pin/line, but when I bought this model, the manufacturers screwed up the design, it doesn't sync properly, and it's super noisy.

dbrgn4• 8 years ago

There also seem to be TPA3250 based amps all over Ali Express: https://de.aliexpress.com/item/NFJ-FXAUDIO-FX502S-PRO-HIFI-2...

kposehn• 8 years ago

Nobody is having those arguments anymore. There are many class-D amplifiers on the market now, and the best of these are dominating the upper reaches of the high end.

Not quite. Frankly, Class A or AB still has the upper hand from a pure sound quality perspective, and class D struggles to output sufficiently at high levels with lower levels of distortion in my experience.

That said, there have been many small class-D Amps from Lepai and Dayton that are excellent choices for near-field and non-demanding applications. They definitely have their place. The tech is advancing rapidly but it has not supplanted A or AB.

If you want some background in why there is still debate, I highly suggest reading some of Nelson Pass’ interviews and writings:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/parttimeaudiophile.com/2018/02/... https://www.passlabs.com/press/single-ended-class https://www.passlabs.com/press/leaving-class

radus• 8 years ago

This may be true of Class D amps commonly used in home equipment, but many high end powered PA speakers use Class D amps and get very loud with minimal distortion.

TylerE10• 8 years ago

You'd be surprised how much you can get away with in a PA.

Being powerful and reliable is more important than being all that good, since the room always sounds bad anyway.

mrob7• 8 years ago

It's bizarre how none of these chips seem to have a digital input. All my music is digital, and despite the modern rise of vinyl, I don't think that's unusual. If I want an amplifier like this then I'm forced to have a completely useless DAC/ADC pair degrading the signal quality. Does anybody know of an easily available class-D amplifier with digital input? You'd think that would be an obvious feature for a digital amplifier.

blattimwind4• 8 years ago

You'd think that would be an obvious feature for a digital amplifier.

That's because these amplifiers are not digital. The control loop is generally analog. Though there are chips which do in fact use digital inputs and do most of the work via fixed-function DSP, but those are mostly bigger chips targeted at 5.1 or 7.1 systems.

mrob7• 8 years ago

From Wikipedia: "The term "class D" is sometimes misunderstood as meaning a "digital" amplifier. While some class-D amps may indeed be controlled by digital circuits or include digital signal processing devices, the power stage deals with voltage and current as a function of non-quantized time."

So what's it called if it is time quantized? The simple open-loop design depicted on the Wikipedia page could have the analog comparator + triangle wave generator replaced with a digital delta-sigma modulator (1-bit DAC). Then the switching times of the power stage would be quantized to the sample rate multiplied by the oversampling ratio. (Although it seems this open-loop model is an oversimplification, and real class-D amplifiers have feedback, so it wouldn't be that simple in practice.)

kazinator4• 8 years ago

It's not a digital amplifier. A class-D amplifier is basically somewhat like a switched-mode power supply that varies its output voltage in response to swings in the input signal.

evancox100• 8 years ago

Uh, if you want to "amplify" a digital signal, just multiply all the samples by some number.

WalterBright3• 8 years ago

All stereo components, except the amp connection to the speaker, should be ethernet. Turntable, CD player, cassette, pre-amp, everything.

Then make it wifi.

Just think, you could eliminate that awful rat's nest of cables. The sound quality would be better. You could locate components where-ever convenient. Each component could have a web browser interface.

It'd be awesome.

jordanthoms• 8 years ago

Linn's exakt system is a little like that - the signal is sent into each speaker in digital form and then decoded and amplified there.

jabl• 8 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Video_Bridging

tsukikage• 8 years ago

Digital, sure. Standardized even, sure. But wifi, going through who knows what network stacks, routers, filtering, and sharing with other traffic? I'd like some guarantees on latency, please; I like my video in sync with my audio.

baq• 8 years ago

Sonos, d&m heos and Yamaha's multiroom iirc do half of that and yes, latency must be tightly controlled. I imagine with sources also being 802.11 it'd be much harder to keep it in reins.

archi424• 8 years ago

Don't they make these ICs with I2S? Then all you need is something that digitally interfaces with your source (eg toslink, usb) and "unpacks" the PCM data and sends it out via i2s.

Edit: look for example at TI TAS5756M, TAS3251 or TAS5825M.

mrob7• 8 years ago

Thanks, those are the kind of chips I was looking for. And S/PDIF to I2S transceivers are also available, so they could be used with common consumer audio equipment.

squarefoot• 8 years ago

They don't have it because they aren't digital at all; a Class D amplifier essentially is to amplifiers what a switching power supply is to power supplies. They're still 100% analog, but they use a different driving method compared to their traditional linear counterparts to maximize performance.

dbrgn4• 8 years ago

How would one best control the output volume on such a DIY amp? 2-channel logarithmic 10K potentiometer in front of both inputs?

What if you use balanced input?

kazinator4• 8 years ago

If your input is balanced, it will be handled by some op-amp circuit or whatever, which converts to single-ended internal signal, like the "balanced line input module" shown in this page:

http://sound.whsites.net/project30a.htm

You can easily insert a volume control right after such a stage.

dbrgn4• 8 years ago

Yeah, but in the context of this article, I'd have to cut some traces on the PCB to get there. Doesn't sound like the ideal solution to me :)

MrTonyD2• 8 years ago

I'm probably the only one with this opinion...but I sure miss the old days of tube amps that weren't able to be highly accurate. They would roll-off the on the high end, distort a bit all over, and gave a very warm and relaxing feel to the albums I played obsessively. Now I've owned high-end tube and solid-state gear, and the music hasn't sounded good for decades. Combine that with the very limited bits provided by CDs, preventing any possibility of good playback, and music has been completely destroyed. Old timers like me are dying off, and most of the people who remember good music will be dead. Kind of makes me sad.

mrob7• 8 years ago

Combine that with the very limited bits provided by CDs, preventing any possibility of good playback

16 bits gives you 96dB SNR (and subjectively more with dithering), which is plenty at non-deafening listening volumes. It's more than even the highest quality vinyl ever had. High bit depth is mostly useful so you've got some headroom during editing.

MrTonyD2• 8 years ago

That is absurd. Anybody who has read about the history of CD bit depth would know just how absurd that is. And I even personally investigated CD accuracy in burning using an electron microscope to understand how the laser burning process worked on the plastic media. It was absurdly inaccurate. All these claims about how great digital is are just crazy - claims made by people who are relying on old data about hearing accuracy and a religious faith in technology. Anybody who has actually designed instruments using the known laws of physics understands the incredible limitations - and those limitations apply to both characterizing hearing as well as reproducing sound digitally.

pps433• 8 years ago

16 bits give you 96 dB SNR only if your signal is one-bit. In a quiet room with decent headphones set to comfortable level I can easily hear one-bit flips in otherwise silent WAV file.

Not a problem for popular music that's consistently loud, but a real problem for classical music with wide dynamic range.

brokenmachine5• 8 years ago

You can get tube preamps that are supposedly good, which might give you the distortion you crave even when paired with a low-distortion Class-D power amplifier.

CDs are still 1000x better than records with all their hiss and distortion in my humble opinion.

Not saying you're one of these people, but I think lots of old-timers who complain about the quality of CD's or anything digital don't really understand how they work - Even though the bits are "limited", they do not actually output a staircase as shown in the explanations, the signal is interpolated between samples by analog filtering on the output. So it's actually outputting a smooth line that goes through the sample points.

Also lots of stuff is available in 96k and above FLAC now if the limited bits are a problem. I get any music I care about in that quality but it's often because the mastering is better on those releases than the actual quality of the reproduction.

Sometimes there's a SACD, Bluray or DVDA release if there's no hi-res digital download available.

Anecdotally I'm happy if I can get anything at 48k 24bit or more.

It's really the loudness war that has ruined music. That's the only thing about records that I consider better than digital - because of the limitations of the medium, they can't brickwall compress everything or the needle will physically jump off the record.

Genuine question: what was so good about music before that is missing in your opinion now?

Also, do you enjoy digital re-releases of records you previously enjoyed as much as before? Why or why not?

lelandbatey• 8 years ago

Your statement that CDs have a very limited number of bits is false by every known objective measure (compared to any prior consumer analog medium). CDs afford a bit depth of 16, while tape provides at most 6, and vinyl at most 12. See this great video by signal engineers for more info: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

I suspect this is a classic case of "you think you want X, but what you actually want is your youth."

TylerE10• 8 years ago

Your statements about tape and vinyl are ludicrous and unsourced. What do you think most of your CDs were recorded on in the first place? (Hint: tape)

aidenn04• 8 years ago

On a similar note, anybody know why you can get a very good A/V receiver for ~$500 but not a pre/pro for under $1k? Is it just the lower manufacturing volume?

jpmoral• 8 years ago

When I wrote my previous article, class-D audio was fairly new

Not sure what this means. I had a group undergrad project in 2002 to build and characterise a class-D audio amp. The idea was well-established at the time.

KamiCrit• 8 years ago

It's great that with some research and drive one can make something better and cheaper than the engineered factory version.

Time well invested.

S_A_P3• 8 years ago

Audiophilia is a study in contradiction. The ask is a flat "uncolored" accurate sound. The gear that sells for ridiculous prices is usually tube gear with limited bandwidth and makes ~15 watts at 5-10% (admittedly usually even order harmonic) thd. Hardly uncolored.

That said, and Ive mentioned this before on HN. My (now late) uncle had a bunch of audiophile friends in Dallas. He hung around folks who had spent upwards of 500,000 (yes you read that right) on audio gear. I can't forget the time I rolled up to a modest middle class home, only to find out that inside of this house was a pair of Focal Grand Utopias (selling retail for 250k at the time, though he said he paid around 60k for the pair). He had 2 750 watt tube amps, current era but the brand escapes me. For source material he had a heavily modified Technics SP-10 with 2 tone arm/cartridge combinations and a boutique tube phono preamp. This fed into a similarly heavily modified Dynaco tube preamp from the 1960s. When he really wanted to get serious, though, he had a studer 2" tape machine and a sizable collection of low generation master tape copies. If I hadn't seen this with my own eyes I would say my uncle was full of shit when he told me about it. You know what? it sounded freaking amazing.Im sure it is 90% placebo, and 10% the fact that he was able to play high bandwidth audio to concert levels with no stress or strain from the amplifiers. Was it worth 6 figures of money? not to me. But I am glad I got to hear it...

sjwright6• 8 years ago

The three critical paths for high end sound reproduction are: loudspeakers, speaker placement, room acoustics. Of course all parts of sound reproduction matter, but those three are the ones that affect real systems in practice.

Most other factors are rarely an issue and/or inferior parts have a much lower magnitude of impact on sound quality. Sufficiently good source material (256kbps AAC or better) is widely available. Most amplifiers are fine. Almost all wire/cable is perfectly good. High quality DACs are more abundant than you might think (e.g. the digital inputs of any half-decent AV receiver made in the past decade).

Good speakers.

Good placement.

Good acoustics.

Those are the ones to focus on. They're the ones to spend money on. If you wanted to add a fourth to that list, I'd add an honourable mention to in-room calibration systems like Audyssey and DIRAC. Depending on the sorts of imperfections in a given system the opportunity for improvements with DSP might be substantial and dramatic, or marginal to the point of being irrelevant. (For most systems it's somewhere in the middle.)

quakenul• 8 years ago

Not in that order though, unfortunately: Unless you are using really shitty speakers, room acoustics trumps everything else pretty quickly. For anyone who has never listened to music in a well treated environment I found https://youtu.be/dB8H0HFMylo?t=355 to be pretty eye opening.

scns3• 8 years ago

The weakest "link" in the "audio-chain" (if you exclude the room) are passive speakers with distortion above 1%

The best speakers i heard to date are from a german company called Backes & Müller. Active crossovers, each speaker has its own poweramp and a sensor attached to the membrane. The signal of the sensor is fed back into a comparator which calculates the difference to the music signal, this is then used to force the speaker to follow the music signal exactly.

On the basis of physical factors all drivers make mistakes, which one must accept in passive and uncontrolled systems. In contrast, all BM drivers are a part of active error correction systems.
Active loudspeakers know no conduction loss, no impedance issues; have faultless crossover performance, exact phasing, an optimal amplifier-chassis ratio, more actual output stage power at their disposal, quicker impulse processing and higher dynamics. All of this produces active regulatory intelligence. A sensor system continuously compares and corrects the membrane movements with the actual music signal.
B&M uses two types of negative feedback: inductive and capacitive. Intelligent electronic fuses ensure that the entire system is reliably shut down in the case of an impending overload. The BM electronic crossover splits the music signal into individual paths of respective frequency ranges and allocates these to their individual output stage. Every individual output stage drives to its respective driver, optimised for its frequency range.

from http://www.backesmueller.de/en/b-m-technology.html

Pricey and not DIY friendly, but you can pick them up used on ebay for "peanuts". W0as thinking about buying an BM8 (3-way) refurbished for 2800 Euros, BM10 (4-way) refurbished costs 10000 Euros, got a BM12 (5-way) used for 1400 Euros.

The company is now owned by http://ksaudio.com

S_A_P3• 8 years ago

You’re absolutely right about that. I didn’t even mention how all of the drywall was replaced strategically with acoustic wall board. The entirety of the living room was gutted and refurbished to be the ultimate listening room, complete with stadium seating. Another recollection I just had is that he had a separate electric circuit run to the house(as in a second set of wires coming off the utility pole) so he could properly condition the power feeding his audio gear.

Every aspect of the room was built around the grand utopias and their placement. If you’re not familiar with them check them out here. https://www.focal.com/en/home-audio/high-fidelity-speakers/u...

The subwoofer drivers are unique in that they use an electromagnet instead of the usual strontium or neodymium permanent magnet.

I think what impressed me the most was that this guy was not annoying or in to the hand wavy audiophile hocus pocus. Just super passionate about getting everything done to get the absolute best sound even if the bang per buck was low. He had a wall of vinyl and was happy to let me pick several selections to play. From what I understand, this guy would open his home to anyone interested in a listening session. If anyone is in the DFW area and you can get plugged in to that community it seemed like a great group of folks.

nerdponx• 8 years ago

Apparently the iPhone 6 has a surprisingly high-quality DAC: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/22843-how-do...

setquk3• 8 years ago

I’ve heard such things. Two points to note:

1. Decent monitor headphones or speakers sound the same. That’s under $500. Even some Sennheiser HD25’s are literally up there.

2. The equipment used to record such music cost less and was lower quality. Adding $500k doesn’t add anything because there isn’t anything there.

Then again I have no problem with people who spend $500k on audio kit. That’s up to them. If it makes them feel good buying something in that range then fair play to them. It’s mostly just art.

What I object to is little bags of stones wrapped around cables, magic boxes which absorb non physical entities in the room and directional cables. Woo and such needs to be taken down.

TheOtherHobbes• 8 years ago

Not actually true about recording equipment. Top end mixing desks cost > $1m. Top end engineers and producers usually have at least $100k of outboard processing on hand - everything from mic preamps to vintage compressors. Top end mastering studios will work with similar budgets.

Add exotic guitars, vintage synthesizers, and other esoterica, and the total hardware budget for a mainstream commercial hit album is comfortably high six/low seven figures.

Some genres - mostly electronica - are 100% "in the box", generated and mixed with software. But they're usually still mastered in a high end studio with a combination of digital and analog tools on reference-grade monitors.

But all of that equipment is used to produce recordings that "translate" - play well on everything from ear buds to high end systems. That requires processing of its own.

True hifi recordings that aim to be as transparent as possible are very rare.

There's no such thing as "transparent" in pop/rock because it's all artifice. But even in classical recordings the sound has usually been edited and significantly processed, so the abstract concept of fidelity doesn't really apply.

beat6• 8 years ago

The original directional cables, sans mythology, are a real thing. Grounding for cable shielding matters a lot, and is plainly audible in many circumstances. "Directional" cables only ground the shield at one end, preventing ground loops and interference from grounding both ends. This is electronics 101.

An interesting aside on cables... I play electric guitar a lot, which is far more sensitive to cables than hi-fi gear, because guitar pickups are high impedance, low output devices - enough that capacitance can have audio-frequency passive filtering, and grounding is a huge problem. With passive pickups, I can easily hear differences in various cables I own. But some of my guitars have active electronics onboard (EMG pickups or other preamps), and produce a low-impedance signal. I can't hear the difference with those guitars.

When it gets down to it, I use the cables that are most reliable and comfortable to handle. Sound quality doesn't even enter into it, whether or not it's audible.

crispyambulance• 8 years ago

It's very easy for an audiophile to start going down the slippery slope into madness.

It usually starts with amplifiers, then speakers, then source equipment... and then they start rearranging furniture, tearing out drywall and putting absorbers everywhere, and then it starts all over again in a cycle.

I find it best to stick with a nice comfy pair of headphones and keep expectations low for everything else. If you're only managing the volume of air between your ear drums and the headphone cups-- that can be done to an obsessive level for vastly less cost (and without divorce) than if we're talking about a whole living room.

52-6F-62• 8 years ago

I used to sell medium-high end audio visual equipment in Calgary during the height of the oil sands boom. Plenty of money moving around.

I knew customers who built the foundation of their homes around speaker placement, having separate foundations for their towers so that fewer resonant effects from the house would impact the speakers. Haha. Madness is right!

And that $500,000 number is easy when you’re dealing with those circles for sure.

utopcell• 8 years ago

What did he listen to ?

chadcmulligan4• 8 years ago

The cannons from the 1812 overture, over and over again. Did you hear that? Did you hear that? wasn't that awesome? Hang on I'll play it again, let me just adjust this setting first....

Balgair• 8 years ago

2750 watt tube amps

WOW! That's ~5% of a Ducati. That's ... insane for a sound system.

cardinalfang• 8 years ago

A Ducati is a sound system.

ryguytilidie• 8 years ago

I don't think that your first paragraph is an honest assessment of the issue. People who buy tube gear are absolutely not looking for "flat, uncolored sound".

mnemotronic• 8 years ago

{quote} ... I connected it to a pair of 30-year-old, three-way Panasonic speakers, which I frequently use for testing.{/quote} Ummmm. I'm tempted to dismiss the author's entire project based on that. Why not use a pair of decent speakers or some high-end headphones like the Stax electrostatics or Audeze planars? Weakest link in the chain and all that.

WalterBright3• 8 years ago

What's the output power of the amp?

mmaunder• 8 years ago

Google audiophile headphones. Then go to sweetwater and search for studio headphones.

If the price of source gear is a quarter of the price of gear attempting to reproduce source, something is broken.

Tsiklon2• 8 years ago

I like to look on high end headphones as I would any other luxury item - I'm willing to pay for nice materials of a higher quality or a better experience, if the item is right.

That could perhaps explain some of the price - plus I think we're at the point where many of the headphone companies have discovered that there is an ultra-high end market for some of these products.

You can see this in the prices of many top brand flagship headphones - the majority of the well regarded brands have been gradually putting out exceedingly expensive flagships in the past 2-3 years.

10 years ago - then the Sennheiser HD650 was seen as a flagship at $400, now look at the Sennheiser HD820 released earlier this year at $2200.

You aren't going to find too many people who will say that the sound improvements between the two justify an $1800 increase in MSRP.

However if you reframe the perspective to that of a luxury good, given the perception of headphones (regardless of use case) has changed somewhat in the interim and are seen as a fashion accessory and there's a larger enthusiast pool - you can see that manufacturers would be willing to push new boundaries when it comes to price.

However I think it's only the lunatics, or the conspicuous consumers who are ignorant to the law of diminishing returns when it comes to headphones and audio in general.

beat6• 8 years ago

Some people understand the law of diminishing returns, but have the resources to not care. If a $2000 pair of headphones is no more real financial pain for you than a $200 pair, and they're better despite diminishing returns, then why not get them?

mark-r3• 8 years ago

I needed a good set of headphones a few weeks ago, as my work environment has changed and I have more background noise than before. Instead of trying to find something audiophile (I have Grados already) I went to Guitar Center. They had a huge selection and in 30 minutes of trying out different models I had something I was happy with and could leave in an unlocked drawer.

neya2• 8 years ago

After I started building my own audio gear, I am no longer impressed by what you can buy in the consumer market, no longer how much "audiophile" these systems claim to be. Usually, it's just a simple 2-way boombox sold for $xxx - $xxxx. I started my project after being disappointed with the sound quality of the Apple Homepod. So, I built my own version with inbuilt basic voice command integration. And I couldn't be happier. Funny, that I just finished building mine this week[1][2].

It's also based on Tubes, and the sound is very, very satisfying. Will be happy to share a detailed guide, if anyone's interested.

[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/Bpl71mUHLbm/?taken-by=discovery....

[2] https://www.instagram.com/p/BplhIIqHNhl/?taken-by=discovery....

jollyrogerbass• 8 years ago

That looks awesome, post the guide please!

neya2• 8 years ago

Alright, will post it soon on my Medium1: https://medium.com/build-ideas

Thank you :)

beat6• 8 years ago

Modern class D amps are terrific, but it's annoying to see THD brought up as a measure of audio quality. THD is terrible measurement - its value is not that it's relevant (except to demonstrate things aren't actually broken), but rather that it's easy to measure.

An amplifier's ability to reproduce a 1khz sine wave into a resistive load tells us nothing about how it behaves in the face of 8-10 octaves of frequency range and the real dynamic range and harmonic complexity of actual musical content, when hooked up to the absurdly complex and nonmusical behavior of real speakers. The 5% THD of single-ended tube amps that people who've never heard one tell us proves how "inaccurate" they are is inaudible, but the grimy, dull sound of cheap amps that have excellent THD specs is plain to hear.

It's frustrating, in part because this stuff is, so far, mostly impossible to measure. It's hard to get a sense of how an amplifier will sound from specs.

mark-r3• 8 years ago

I'll never forget my wakeup call on the differences of sound between amplifiers. I had been listening to headphones on my Techniqs receiver, a well regarded unit with a THD of 0.04%. For some reason I plugged the headphones into my Nakamichi cassette recorder instead, and was blown away by how much better they sounded. Until then I had thought that amplifiers were a solved problem and the inaccuracies of transducers like headphones would mask the tiny differences between them. I never expected to be wrong.

linsomniac• 8 years ago

I kind of want to build one of these amps and connect it to a set of speaker built with these cheap exciters... One of the Youtube channels I follow messed around with them https://youtu.be/zMCyF400l1c but he got that from this other video https://youtu.be/zdkyGDqU7xA where he goes into all sorts of experiments he ran on the exciters to find the right design.

kunkurus• 8 years ago

A DIY 0.0001% THD Amplifier: The MJR7-Mk5 Mosfet Power Amplifier http://www.renardson-audio.com/mjr7-mk5.html

neuralRiot• 8 years ago

there seems to be too many different thinghs mixed up, "professional amplifier" "high end audio" and "class D" are three different worlds. It's like a Humvee a Maybach and a Prius in the same vehicle.

lalorieri• 8 years ago

[for guitars] Depends on what you consider professional. We've made a simple, cheap, modular project that works in hard conditions for a long period of time and has enough quality for a gig.

https://medium.com/@leolorieri/underground-bands-get-more-wa...

Build Your Own Professional-Grade Audio Amp on the Sort-Of Cheap

Related Stories