Amplifiers
 Again a little out on a limb, I'm a fan of Single Ended Triode amplifiers. |
Welborne Labs had a pair of Yote 300B amplifiers in need of a little TLC listed in their bargain bin at $1000. The simple addition of tubes and a couple of plate chokes was enough to get them both working again and they sound sublime. The 96dB sensitivity of the Supravox driver marries in well enough with the 8W output of the 300B tubes. While 8W does not sound like a lot compared to the power output of most solid state amps, it's more than enough to drive the Supravox drivers to ear splitting levels. I seldom need more than 85dB or so at the listening position, so can barely account for 1W of power from the amps.
The remarkable simplicity of SET amplifiers means that they reveal every nuance of detail from the source and throw an utterly convincing soundstage that's full of texture and tone. While SETs are not everyone's cup of tea, partnered with the right speakers they manage insight and dynamics that other topologies seem to smear. I have found the addition of these amplifiers driving the 3D Sonics speakers to be revealing of almost every change I have made to upstream components, making them a perfect base to use as a test system.
A Stevens & Billington transformer volume control provides volume attenuation rather than using software level volume controls in Vista. Unfortunately, software based volume controls attenuate the signal in the digital domain by dropping bits, which can lead to a loss of resolution as soon as the volume is moved below maximum output. I've found transformer based volume controls to be very close to sounding neutral, even outperforming shunt volume control made up entirely of 0.1% tolerance laser-cut metal film resistors.
Lastly, I suppose I should mention cables. Despite my attitude towards other components, I don't do funky high-cost cables and all the fuzz associated with them. For speakers, I use a single strand of solid core 24-gauge silver covered in a simple cotton jacket. The whole shebang costs a few dollars per foot from most good audio DIY outlets and sounds fine to my ears. Interconnects are made up using either Cat 5 cable or suitable solid core coax. Power cords are all generic off the shelf types, no special plugs or dielectrics needed.
The PC
There's nothing remarkable here: a Gigabyte X48T, 4GB of OCZ Platinum DDR3, a Corsair modular PSU, and an X6800 dual-core processor. A 250GB Western Digital Caviar hard drive stores audio files in WAV format. The operating system is Vista 64, which is not ideal for audio due to some of the open source software failing to function properly if at all. There have to be compromises somewhere and current study requirements keep me on the Vista coach just to keep up to speed with its administration. Anything using a dual-core processor running at over 2GHz is likely more than sufficient for an audio server. 4GB of memory is pretty much mandatory for Vista 64 to work efficiently when placed under any kind of load. Another caveat is that I have not managed to locate any USB-ASIO drivers for the Vista 64 platform. ASIO drivers are preferred to help lower latency by routing signals directly to hardware where possible. Vista 32 and XP are fully supported by USB-ASIO, so that's something to bear in mind if you'd like to keep latency as low as possible.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
mindless1 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
The fact is, even audio streams that measure the same can and do still sound different. The problem is the resolution of measurement and the misconceived notion that the brain interprets sound at a fixed interval as measured.There's a lot of snake oil in the audiophile world, but there's also a lot of what you'd like to call "magic" only be cause you don't accept it as non-magic.
Any decent DAC would in idealized theory be as good, but in practice a different IC topology may lend itself better to certain inherant localized noise frequencies and cutoffs, be better mated to the circuit it's dropped into, have drifts from thermal changes, etc. If they were all the same why would there be so many? I will agree that which modern DAC is used in a reasonably good design matters less than what follows after it in the chain but the best way to minimize any potential for degradation is to start out with what is most likely to minimize it in every way possible then following this concept the entire time, waiting and seeing if the end result is audibly different rather than downplaying them all without knowing the additive result yet.
CSMR - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Yes if you are maximizing quality you will choose the best of all components. But it's more sensible to care about cost and time too, so you have to prioritize. The value of the research about the unimportance of DACs (at at beyond a certain level) is that you can stop worrying about this part of the chain and spend you time/money where it is important.JonnyDough - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Exactly my point. Why spend more on one component if it's going to be "bottlenecked" by another one. Spending $2000 on a nice amp is crazy if your other components are crap. I think in the end it's like all other techs. You want decent stuff for a reasonable price unless you have more money than brains. While I scoff at people willing to spend more than few thousand on a sound system, without them we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today - with good possibilities on the market. As long as you like what you hear, who cares if it's perfect? At one point is something "good enough?" I mean honestly, there are people starving in the world, friends dying of cancer, etc...and we want to worry about whether or not something is inaudibly "perfect." Blow your money on something that MATTERS, you can't listen to music every hour of everyday unless your job is singing.CSMR - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
I meant you can spend time/money on speakers/room acoustics/dsp but food for starving people is admittedly a better use of time and money.JonnyDough - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - link
That's actually a matter of perspective. For example, you can donate food to a starving kid in some third world country and next thing you know that child has three kids and no way to feed them - and you've just marginally made the problem worse, not better.I think money is better spent on education, which leads to fewer babies. Many countries do not have quality farmland that can support the population on their own (the U.S. supports a large percentage of the world's population). Then there's natural habitat destruction, pollution from oil for having to ship food to them, etc. You get the picture.
JonnyDough - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
While I was generally agreeing with CMSR above, I guess what everyone ends up saying is that hearing is subjective, which is something audiophiles are always agreeing upon yet they still love to argue over things.Does a vinyl record produce better sound than a CD?
It depends on what an individual values most.
A CD may produce less static noise, but have a "duller" sound, seemingly less highs and lows. It all depends on what one appreciates with their own ears.
While there are measurements that can be taken in a closed chamber, one sound system might actually sound better in a specific home or room than another for whatever reason. Even so, the average person can rarely tell a difference these days between the moderately priced components.
The really silly thing is that people will spend $200 on a sound card and then use cheap plastic speakers.
Rajinder Gill - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Lol, it's ok, everyone in entitled to have their say.It's the first piece so bear with us while we try to cater to a wider set of ideals.
With regards to the obj/subj stuff, it's an argument that'll never be solved.
later
CSMR - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Sorry if I came on too strongly; I was just expecting that Anandtech would have not necessarily an expert take but at least a more technical take than you get in audiophile communities.I would do some more fundamental thinking about what are the key factors in computer audio playback.
As a start you could rank in terms of what is most critical:
computer performance, computer quietness, software (drivers, dsp), analog line out, volume control, amplification, cables, speakers, room acoustics.
I won't give you my list but you should think about it and it is possible to compare many of these things in a very quantitative way, and some are more important than others by several orders of magnitude.
AnnihilatorX - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
A dumb question about correction.The theory behind it is simple enough, but why do we need dedicated hardware to do the correction? Why can't we use simple graphical equalizers? I understand graphical equalizers are quite discrete in the range of selectable frequencies. How much difference does it make?
Rajinder Gill - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
DRC - ease of use and range of control, plus taking care of things in the digital realm rather than in the analogue.You could fudge some control with a multi band digital equaliser and the means to measure the response, but it'd be damn tedious and utimately limited.