MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Integrated Circuit Upgrades...?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Tech DIY Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Author Integrated Circuit Upgrades...?
Peake
(Posted on my ebolatone.blogspot.com page, but it always is useful for further discussion.)

I remember and respect the great, late Tim Smith for among other things his paper and work regarding upgrading synth signal paths and digital synth D/A sections/reconstruction sections. Thank you Tim for the great information and friendship, and God bless and keep you always.

Tim was into the Analog Devices OP275 dual opamp and IIRC the Burr-Brown 0604 as well. He made the ARP 2600 into a new beast through this and many other modifications.

I am sorry to have to eventually slightly differ on this, but taste is for each person and there are many choices. Tim and I start with the early discrete machines as a reference, such as the Moog 901 series oscillators, which he called "as close to listening to current as is possible" (again, IIRC, close paraphrase). The Moog and Buchla second-generation and later version oscillators went to early ICs on the outputs (CBS Buchla 158 has LM301A). Going discrete in these cases would be wonderful, but for those with these items, upgrading the ICs is of interest.

I note that the TL071 was created (indicated in the specs) to directly replace the LM741, as a direct drop-in, hopefully at least in audio-related circuits (check the paperwork). This should be easy to try on the Moog 921 series oscillators, for example.

I recommend the 071 to at least try as it is much faster than the 741 (and you may only wish for 741-style phase and bandwidth characteristics in vintage phasers, delays, and not in oscillators). In some cases the bandwidth limiting etc. may be required for desirable spectral balance, the Oberheim FVS Four Voice etc. being a possibility, would have to hear the new next to the old to decide. The later opamps have slew rates of 25V per microsecond and over, and depending upon the circuit in which it is used, can result in tight, closed-sounding, controlled, slightly hard or glossy treble and overall character. You might like this. I am tending to the middle ground 07X type, as the discrete oscillators do not sound closed, controlled, tight, etc.

Again, I'd have to listen to two versions side-by-side in order to decide. I'm willing to do so smile

It's a very interesting question, especially regarding oscillators and filter signal paths.

I am of course aware of those who will mock the use of earlier opamps. They should be aware of the effect such opamps have in the signal path of early effects devices compared with their modern counterparts. Some phasers etc. can become too clean, and lose that gut-level musical "Yeah!" result. The same with synthesizers.

Overall spectral balance, especially on a multitimbral device, is very important. You may have seen the EQs in mastering labs; they may have 0.5dB adjustment increments. A musician will be able to hear these adjustments as they are made. A mastering engineer knows where to make these adjustments resulting in an overall musical improvement. I venture that the same occurs in synthesizers.

When I was at Alesis, a musician brought back a prototype of a new version of the QS line, saying that there were (specific problems) in the audio, compared to the older version. We craned our necks and cupped our ears listening for it, and it was there, subtle but definitely measurable on the test equipment. Yes, it was slightly brighter, and yes, this made a difference in overall character and musicality (spare me the "QS sucks!" remarks; I'm well aware, and was working to improve them while I was there, which was part of my personal goal at the company.).

Subtle changes in spectral balance can produce large musical results. Or the inverse.
paults
Things to consider:

a) really high slew rate/high gain-bandwidth op amps will exhibit ringing if just "swapped out", especially in sockets. The OP275GPZ is such a part. This part is a MOTM favorite for VCAs and in cases where a clean, clear output is needed. But, you have to add a small (say 10pf) cap across the feedback resistor or you will get nasty stuff.

b) the TL072ACP is still the best 'bang for the buck' overall upgrade (and the single TL071ACP). If you like the '80s sound (MS series, Mono-Poly, etc) use a NJR4558D dual part. I use these on several MOTM modules to get a specific mid-range tone. They are also cheap as dirt.

c) you can't upgrade the squirrelly RC4136 quad, it had a bizarre pinout (it was Craig Anderton's op amp of choice for his books). It was a 'poor man's TL074' back when a TL074 cost $0.80 in 100,000pcs (this part was about $0.45).

d) the best improvement is to be made in CV summers. Early op amp CV summers were crap. Also, the resistors were crap. Lots of drifting was due to the summer component. The best CV summer (in dual) is an AD822, AD821 in singles. I use these on the MOTM-650 MIDI-CV and the Euro E340/E350 (because I got a hell of a deal on some). The next best (dual) is the Linear Tech LT1013CN8, which I use on every MOTM module that has a CV summer. This part is REALLY REALLY accurate in summing applications. For resistor, use RN55E or the slightly bigger RN55C/CNF-55 parts. In the 70s/80s, these parts were $5 each (err...2X minimum wage). Now, they are <$1ea and they are 10 TIMES better than the vanilla 1% ones used today. The LT1013/RN55E combo is 50% of why the MOTM-300/310s track as well as they do and only drift 1Hz in 24 hours (Peake's head just exploded.... Dead Banana )

e) another cheap improvement is: gut the power supply. Power supply parts SUCKED in the 80s. Many synth designers had *no idea* how to design power supplies. Capacitor technology is vastly improved in the last 10 years. Take advantage of it.
Peake
Of course I don't recommend swapping the high speed devices into circuits made for the early low-speed devices, without planning ahead regarding optimisation, although it's worth doing blindly in circuits featuring the mid-level ICs such as the 072, just to see what happens.

Even in "correctly designed" circuits, I find that the new ICs aren't quite for me, re-read the comments regarding even subtle spectral shifts. Big spectral shifts from "upgrading" or using "new" parts may provide lots of treble, but this immediately reminds me of hi-fi stores back in the day, selling speakers with graphic equalizers set to a "smile" configuration so that it was all boom and zizz. Perhaps impressive to some on a showroom floor, yet useless when considered over time. Some speakers were perhaps even made to this curve...shameful.

"More treble" is not automatically "better". I've long since stated this regarding the spectral balance of certain discrete vintage modules, and stand by it from a long-proven musical perspective. ADAMs, anyone? And again, listen for that closed, tight treble in circuits using the fast ICs. Some call it "audiophile"; I call it "closed and tight". Depends upon what experience you define as "music"...and to reiterate from the above:

..the discrete oscillators do not sound closed, controlled, tight, etc.

The 4558? It's in the TR808, good enough for me. Nice that you and Jurgen have listened to me regarding the need for such "slow" ICs as used in vintage FX, to provide that vintage FX sound. Thanks for listening. I see 741s in Jurgen's Schulte phaser clone, so that it will sound that close to the original. Very, very good.

Also, don't overlook the J-FET chips such as the LF353. Very useful for good-sounding upgrades of early chips, but not "too far" into the changes described earlier. Same sort of slew rate as the 072.

http://www.national.com/mpf/LF/LF353.html#Overview

"Lots of drifting was due to the summer component."

Hooray! More ways to get at musical response Mr. Green

The AD821 is long since economically and perhaps technically superceded by the Linear Systems parts. They have duplicates of several vintage unobtanium, quite interesting.

"(Peake's head just exploded.... )"

Only because you have absolutely nothing new to say, nor any developments in the all-essential politeness department, over a period of one decade. You do know that you then and now sound like a child, which is perhaps part of the reason I've taken task. Pay close attention to what Obama quoted as he took office: "It is time to put down childish things." There is indeed a better way, and the coming years shall reveal the true need for such, and the greater ease in so doing.

thumbs up

Send your vintage power supplies to me. How often, excepting perhaps the Moog Modular, have you set aside an instrument due to its power supply's normal behaviour? applause Say, if it weren't for this power supply, I'd enjoy this instrument. applause
sduck
Oh goody! Peake's head just exploded!
Peake
What's wrong? Own too many 80s synths with sucky power supplies which are causing you to grind your teeth?
Peake
I truly don't understand why some people are so threatened by my research and opinions, and sometimes the facts which come from them. I'm speaking of music gear in general. Really. I'd truly prefer to not have to deal with these sorts of reactions.

seriously, i just don't get it
sduck
Mr. Peake, your opinions and research are just fine, and I appreciate you sharing them here. Your knowledge is one of the things that truly adds to this forum.

However, you have a very obvious chip on your shoulder about MOTM stuff and Mr. Schreiber in particular. You two have a long history of bickering on various other forums; personally I'd prefer it if you'd keep that bickering to the other forums.

Personally, when I read Paul's response to your original post, I saw nothing childish or personal in it. The "exploding head" part could have been read as a personal jab if one was looking for that, but it also could have been read as a humorous aside, not unlike one thrown in between colleagues with a long history. Otherwise, it just looked like innocent engineer to engineer type stuff - but I'm no electrical engineer, so I may have missed something.
Luka
stop taking everything so seriously peake (re: other peoples comments i mean)

i agree re: 4558s in 808

jeff found that in mb808 using tl072 made the sounds to clean and lost the 808 vibe. 741s in the schulte phaser sounded great
the bad producer
Peake wrote:
...although it's worth doing blindly in circuits featuring the mid-level ICs such as the 072, just to see what happens....


I wonder what the Schulte Phaser (or indeed the Polmoog Resonator) would sound like with different IC's, I have another Phaser to build up, maybe it would be interesting to try swapping and doing an A/B comparison...

I don't know a lot about the science behind such things, but if it 'sounds' different I'd like to hear it...
paults
Mike:

I was using 4558s in 1981. We first crossed paths in 1998. So, sorry. I had 17 years of design experience (and 9 patents) before we started our "discussions". I was a beta tester for Audio Precision, I did 100s of plots of every (literally) op amp in the word used in audio DAC reconstruction filters (I worked with Apogee as well). This was around 1985. I have a MSEE in analog filter design. So, tone it down a notch screaming goo yo

Certainly, going 'too overboard' in using really high speed op amps (there was a trend in the .com era to use AD797 op amps in audio DACs but they turned out to be too "twitchy") (not nearly as bad as the LF442, the most twitchy op amp in history). A lot of op amp swaps is to move out the dominant GB pole in unity gain parts so that the passive parts (resistors & caps) are more 'ideal' and the group delays are more suited for fast rising edges (what pundits call 'slam' in speakers). I spent many hours writing bandpass filter optimizations for 4558 op amps in my modem filters, to adjust the pole-spreading effect due to GB (gain-bandwidth product) and use of standard cap values and 1% resistors. I also worked in undergrad at Texas A&M with Dr. Randall Geiger, he published several IEEE papers on biquad filters and sensitivity to GB (I built all the circuits and gathered the data and drew all the graphs in the papers).

But enough of that.

Equally important in upgrades is to use modern polyproplyene caps if possible (the Panasonic ECQ-P series are great). Precision (say 2%) caps were VERY expensive up until 1998 or so, so manufacturers of 'consumer' gear never used them.

I will agree that NS-10/Genelec 'bright' music is not my personal taste. I have B&W 803 speakers and like their tone a lot. I still have good high-frequency hearing even being 54 and to this day don't like crash cymbals or soprano sax squanks.
beta
sorry to just jump in, but...

where does one get an msee in analog filter design?

thanks, and carrry on.
JohnLRice
beta wrote:
sorry to just jump in, but...

where does one get an msee in analog filter design?

thanks, and carrry on.


I think you can get a degree in pretty much anything (I heard of a guy who got his master's degree in playing the bass drum, no lie! woah ).

Paul will correct me if i'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the kind of analog filters in symphamasizers is a very small little spot in the big picture of filters used in communications and entertainment devices etc.

Hey Paul, did you happen to work with Dan Lavry when at Appogee? I would think you guys would have gotten along well. (I'm a fan of Lavry converters! love )
paults
a) My MSEE is from SMU (Southern Methodist University). Back when I was there (early 90s), you took 5 'core' classes that everyone took, and then you got to pick 5 other classes for your major. JLR is correct: the classes were all in telecom (I was designing central office telecom I/O circuits to analog phone lines, called a 'channel bank', that in turn had very elaborate analog gain/filters called DST (Data Station Terminals). There was one 'general theory' class that was lots of switched-cap stuff (all the rages in the mid-to-late '80s) but had lots of transfer theory stuff of non-ideal filters (most cookbook filter stuff you see leaves this out entirely. In fact, the thing that you get out of grad school is that 95% of what they tell you in undergrad is the 'simple version' that is 95% correct but not *entirely* correct).

I was involved at this time in the transition from high speed copper T3 lines to SONET (the fiber optical high-speed carrier for T1 lines). There is a LOT of equalization going on the T3 copper lines, it's all passive LRC stuff (it's running 44MBS, that is 28 T1 lines multiplexed). ISDN was also poking it's nose into stuff, I was doing equalization there as well.

b) I was working with Bruce Jackson at Apogee. He was a very interesting dude. I first met him when he was at Fairlight. He hand-delivered a Fairlight from Australia, flew it in his Mooney plane. This was in early 1980, I was working at University of Texas (Barton and Priscilla McLean) in the audio lab fixing their Moog modular (serial #6, 1/2 of the modules were hand-soldered on *perf boards*). In the mid-80s he was at Apogee, then he became Barbra Streisand's musical arranger.
Norman_Phay
Rad weblog, Mr Peake. I boomarked it. Thx for taking the time to write it.
Peake
Norman_Phay wrote:
Rad weblog, Mr Peake. I boomarked it. Thx for taking the time to write it.


Which one?

Remember to check the first post, Oct 2009, on the second. Perhaps I love exploding heads, as well, doing what =I= do. seriously, i just don't get it

I don't do math. I do music and sound, from that viewpoint. For example:

Mr. Roberson states:

"Music is the most transcendent expression of energy that you experience in your daily life. Music is the language that bridges all dimensions of existence — intensely personal and gloriously communal — there is no complexity of thought and emotion that music can not communicate. Singing raises your vibration, activates your throat chakra, and tunes your heart. The beat has accompanied humanity’s practice of ritual ecstasy from the bonfires to the dance floors."

http://sladeroberson.com/prayer/songs-that-shift-your-spirits.html

And

"But that's the task of art," Lotze said. "To advance the spirituality of man, over the sensual."
-The Man in the High Tower, Phillip K. Dick.

I just use synthesizers. Fairly well. And I like art. I like synthesizers and musical gear which give me that art, that experience. I point at that which I've found does so, if any are interested in trying it out, and post, like this, wondering about that which may provide such in other equipment.

Paul wrote:

I was using 4558s in 1981. We first crossed paths in 1998. So, sorry. I had 17 years of design experience (and 9 patents) before we started our "discussions". I was a beta tester for Audio Precision, I did 100s of plots of every (literally) op amp in the word used in audio DAC reconstruction filters (I worked with Apogee as well). This was around 1985. I have a MSEE in analog filter design. So, tone it down a notch."

Using, in synthesizers, to produce a specific tonality, versus a technical application?

We first crossed paths several years before then. You don't even know.

I've been buidling and using synths since 1980, professionally since 1987, and am well-reviewed and maybe was part of a team which won some awards. But such things don't seem to matter to you at all. You have no respect or politeness for those who actually use gear, and have for years, and as such have something genuine to say.

Me turn it down a notch? I'd not challenge you in math. You may have noticed that. I've been polite. But when it comes to using synthesizers..as I'd asked a decade ago, can you patch a basic string sound? I do not challenge your technical skills. I have every right in the world to challenge you at what I know and do, and have done for years. "tone it down." You try being polite to those who know something you do not, who have skills where you have none. Skills which matter utterly regarding synthesis...the actual use of synthesizers in any meaningful (or non-meaningful) manner. It would be a nice change. I'm trying to bring things into politeness. You insist that your degrees inure you against any other possible opinion or skillset. I take task with such nonsense. You are dick-measuing and AGAIN turning an informatory/searching post into such. Please stop attempting to challenge me using non-relevant issues. Please stop wasting forum bandwidth. You disagree with me, and need to unzip to display it. Fine...if you do it at home and not online. You don't see me and my facts in your threads, which I have and could share but would be highly impolite. I've stopped, years ago, as I didn't want the fora to suffer. You haven't, but have succeeded in...making the fora suffer.

You didn't need to post in my thread, and have only, AS ALWAYS, done so in order to irritate, to challenge. You are obviously greatly threatened by me, my experience, and my continuing to post anything which threatens you. Or worse, make gear which would validate my points and detract from yours. Face it, it comes down to that. I'm trying to take a polite, do-the-right-thing approach to the problem of your fear, but nothing, but nothing has done a thing to raise you to the level of polite, of co-existing. I've made several apologies and overtures to you, all of which have been rejected. Fine, but take your worries away from my work. Are you a censor? Consider that please.

I wanted to be polite here, but the ludicrous dick-measuing is out of control. What a waste of everything. Who now is the hater? I'm under treatment for my two illnesses, alcoholism and "severe" bipolarity. I can show up now without it turning into trouble. Why not show a small measure of politeness and understand that my past is the result of dual mental illness, over which I've had zero control? Not that this in itself hasn't been the subject of a great deal of zeal on the part of some- BAD KARMA.
Peake
sduck wrote:
Mr. Peake, your opinions and research are just fine, and I appreciate you sharing them here. Your knowledge is one of the things that truly adds to this forum.

However, you have a very obvious chip on your shoulder about MOTM stuff and Mr. Schreiber in particular. You two have a long history of bickering on various other forums; personally I'd prefer it if you'd keep that bickering to the other forums.

Personally, when I read Paul's response to your original post, I saw nothing childish or personal in it. The "exploding head" part could have been read as a personal jab if one was looking for that, but it also could have been read as a humorous aside, not unlike one thrown in between colleagues with a long history. Otherwise, it just looked like innocent engineer to engineer type stuff - but I'm no electrical engineer, so I may have missed something.


-Thank you.

-I'm not bickering, I'm posting my thoughts on laymen-level IC replacement. Look what happened. Don't blame me.

-This level of dick-measuring and absolutist attempts to shame mean nothing to you? All math and no music. I will not be censored in an area in which I have been proven to be right. I have the right to share, and to learn where I'm wrong. I've been unbelievably polite and wish for politeness to be the standard, and only have since the beginning. It appears to be absolutely impossible, and I'm not the one being impolite here. These are his standard inflammatory remarks, enticing more flamewars. So:

http://ebolatone.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-flame-wars.html

Please pass it around, as it appears that most have not read it. Thanks.

Also, I heard that synth at NAMM, on Paul's chosen headphones. I was immediately struck to turn and leave for several reasons long since archived in various fora. I won't bring them up again, suffice to say, any chip I have is two-fold: Paul's belligerent behaviour which negates my own skillset, pushing his own, and secondly, I don't like the very things he proffers as improvements. If I weren't hearing correctly, Paul would not be after me. I wasn't going to bring it up, but it bears repeating that my experience puts me at odds with his work. I have no doubt that he is a greatly skilled engineer. I myself search for a particular type of musical instrument.

And his belligerence continues. Please. Just, please. I'm not the one with a problem here. Paul won't let go. I worry that he can't. At all. I'm now able (remember, dual diagnosis treatment) to "co-exist". My opinions are over here, I'll do my thing, and Paul can be over there, doing his thing.

It will take two for this to work. Remember, this is my thread. I'm not stirring anything up. This was not a call for a flamewar or blatant dick-measuring. Period. And look.

I'm in no way ashamed by having exactly average skills at math, and in having zero regarding an EE. For what I do, I don't need them. The problem is, people attempting to repeatedly negate what I do because it's in conflict with them. I'm done trying to do that, and I'm embarrased and ashamed at how my mental illness made it impossible for me to avoid such anger and to allow people to "get my goat". Publicly. On the internet, for the rest of time. For everyone to not know that things have since changed for me. Would you like something like that following you around for the rest of your life? I'm working to grow up and move on. Please understand that. Thanks..

Luka wrote:

"stop taking everything so seriously peake (re: other peoples comments i mean)

i agree re: 4558s in 808

jeff found that in mb808 using tl072 made the sounds to clean and lost the 808 vibe. 741s in the schulte phaser sounded great."

Hi Luka, I hope all's well...I'm not taking it too seriously- it's not the comments, it's the spirit in which they are forced upon me, over and over and over, when I'm not engaging in same. I want everyone to move on, and that appears impossible.

Interesting about it "losing vibe". Yes, I agree (and many high-end stereo designers also agree) about vibe or musicality being first, being the goal. Yesterday I was reading a review about a particular Pass amplifier, about it being supremely musical (paraphrasing?) and that this negated its weaknesses. I'm in that school of things. I know that Paul disagrees with me and my perspective. =Everyone= is well aware of that. I'm perfectly happy to let it go. Now it's his turn.

the bad producer: 071s are a good idea, as listed in its paperwork. Drop them right in without worry of any sort. You'll likely get a much cleaner sound, which you might or might not enjoy. I find that I prefer phasers to have that "vintage" midrange blur and whoosh. It gets me to say "yes!" and is to me musically inspiring. The Moog is the only recent phaser which causes in me a grinning musical response. I wonder what they're using, and how much is the result of the excellent overdrive circuit.

Thanks to those in this thread who did not act to entice flames or to dominate. Cheers.
Norman_Phay
Peake wrote:
Norman_Phay wrote:
Rad weblog, Mr Peake. I boomarked it. Thx for taking the time to write it.


Which one?



The first one! I didn't know about the second one (or the first one, before yesterday, actually)

Peake wrote:
The Moog is the only recent phaser which causes in me a grinning musical response. .


I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Oakley unit, if you get a chance to hear/play with one. My favourite phaser for years was the TC Mk12 (bass/keyboard one specifically), the Moog (which I owned for a year & did like) I didn't like quite as much as the TC, the Oakley unit though, that sounds quite beautiful.
Peake
Norman_Phay wrote:
The first one! I didn't know about the second one (or the first one, before yesterday, actually).


Yeah, you weren't in the later parts of that tgs thread, IIRC. Please to enjoy. Some should gain much laughter there.
Norman_Phay
I'd ask which tgs thread, but i'm avoiding the place since the last time i was there i got all snarky with z-man! just like "the good old days", eh.
sduck
Ummm... ok. <backs out slowly>








keep coming back!
paults
Mike:

The only reason I post in 'your thread' is that you have this pattern of stating *opinion* as *fact*, when it crosses over into engineering. As you may have noticed (cough), a lay-person like yours will rapidly annoy EEs, especially statements like this one:

Quote:
Nice that you and Jurgen have listened to me regarding the need for such "slow" ICs as used in vintage FX, to provide that vintage FX sound. Thanks for listening.


Now, perhaps this was done with tongue firmly planted in cheek. However, you need to understand why I would read this an entirely different way (and so would JH, who also has a MSEE).

Here is a protip: the 'sound' of the 4558 is NOT because it's "slow". It's *slower* than some other op amps, but that's not the point as you just state above (again, this is why I object you when make this sort of statement). If this were true, then why all the fuss about *certain date codes* for Ibanez TS-9 Tube Screamers? They're all 4558s.....except that pesky die shrink and new ESD diode structure in the newer ones....there I go *explaining* again, sorry.

Trust me: I really *don't care* if you think MOTM sounds like dog crap. I have 700 other people who think differently (called 'customers'). This issue is a larger one: try to separate your opinions of stuff with the design of the stuff. People who design the stuff take offense. Non-engineers will not understand the difference, and will defend there is no difference, there should not be a difference, why must there even be a difference..... whatever.

BTW: I've personally designed the following, all had op amps in there. Some were NE5532s, some had 4558s, some had TL072s. One even has LM348s.

- car stereos for Apline, Blaupunkt, Pioneer and Radio Shack
- CD players for Philips and Tandy
- the entire audio path for the Philips DCC (Digital Compact Cassette)
- the Moog MG-1
- oh, and my analog modem filters used about 1.3 *million* 4558s. I'm kind of an expert on them SlayerBadger!

and ALL of this was between 1981 and 1988.

I do not automatically object when you try to play in my sandbox. After dealing in this market for 13+ years (Monday is my 13th MOTM anniversary) I still get a kick of non-engineers assigning mysterious properties to electrical parts soldered together. And, the *automatic* assumption that old stuff is ALWAYS BETTER than any new stuff, although at one time that same OLD stuff WAS THE NEW STUFF Dead Banana

For whatever reason a lot of musicians want gear to be 'mysterious'. They somehow think that A plugged into B driven by C is some secret sauce that cannot ever be duplicated/topped/improved on. And this has been going on since the 1960s. I personally think the majority of this is due to the fact that if a musician stumbles upon a 'secret sauce' they see this as their ticket to riches. Which it very well may be (Clapton's Strat through off-stage Leslie? Wakeman's invention of Minimoog external 'loopback'? Keith Richard's playing every note exactly on the beat of the tremelo in 'Gimme Shelter'?)

The point is: musicians dislike anyone "spoiling it" with simple explanations. And much audio design HAS simple explanations. EEs are attracted to the fact there are explanations.

MOTM audio demos:

basic pipe organ, using only 1 VCO through a MOTM-120 Sub-Octave Mux and the MOTM-440 VCF (designed by JH using fast TL072 op amps):

Simple Organ

Since in your blog you like Larry Fast/Synergy and 'Cords', how about this MOTM ditty: MOTM does Synergy style

And that whole 'string patch' thing (with some brass tossed in): MOTM orch Brass + Strings

Yep, these all sound so horrible I can imagine why you ran screaming from the NAMM booth Rockin' Banana!
Peake
I'm just not going to read anything "posted" since this (again) incredibly rude thread-jacking began. I will say:

"There has been a failure in the attempt to use specifications to charaterize the subtleties of sonic performance. Amplifiers with similar measurements are not equal, and products with higher power, wider bandwidth, and lower distortion do not necessarily sound better. Historically, that amplifier offering the most power, or the lowest IM distortion, or the lowest THD, or the highest slew rate, or the lowest noise, has not become a classic or even been more than a modest success.

For a long time there has been faith in the technical community that eventually some objective analysis would reconcile critical listener's subjective experience with laboratory measurement. Perhaps this will occur, but in the meantime, audiophiles largely reject bench specifications as an indicator of audio quality. This is appropriate. Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgement."

http://www.passlabs.com/pdf/old%20product%20manuals/a4man.pdf

we're not worthy
Peake
Oh, and I double-checked. The B&W 803 use that damn kevlar cone driver. Mike Dvorkin had a similar system, and I noted immediately that this driver composition indeed has a particular, forward tone. All driver composition proffer a specific tone, such as pure, untreated paper cones (NS10), and even the Hexacone drivers in ADAM gear have (very slightly) their own characteristics. You have to choose what you like, and live with the differences.

For B&W, I'll only go with the legendary 801 Series 4. Now THAT'S a speaker system.
paults
Quote:
There has been a failure in the attempt to use specifications to charaterize the subtleties of sonic performance. Amplifiers with similar measurements are not equal, and products with higher power, wider bandwidth, and lower distortion do not necessarily sound better. Historically, that amplifier offering the most power, or the lowest IM distortion, or the lowest THD, or the highest slew rate, or the lowest noise, has not become a classic or even been more than a modest success.


I agree 100%. Now please try to figure out the difference between saying this statment, and the other one I highlighted.

Maybe we're on to something nanners
Muff Wiggler
Peake wrote:
taste is for each person and there are many choices.


Well put, I think that's the heart of it. If one person likes a sort of character to sound, and another likes it differently, neither is wrong. Preferred musical style is the same. We do this for fun and enjoyment! I don't understand people who deride the preferences of others when it comes to subjective things. No matter what the test equipment may or may not say, if you like it one way, you like it that way. Simple as soup.

This is an interesting thread. Many may not realize that parts of their gear can easily be swapped in and out to change the sound character. This is fantastic for those who like to tweak, explore, tailor things to their liking. There's no wrong move if it is an improvement to the ears of the owner. Thanks for posting this Mike.

Peake wrote:
"as close to listening to current as is possible"


What a great quote, I love it!

Peake wrote:
Only because you have absolutely nothing new to say, nor any developments in the all-essential politeness department


I don't see anything impolite in Paul's comments, which may not be new information to you, but most likely is to many people reading this thread!

I don't think he or anyone else is trying to 'derail' this, your post was made in a public forum, not on a personal blog with an ability to moderate comments. I think it's great you made this thread! But posting a thread on a forum is the same as asking for public discussion of the content involved. I think anyone who finds your comments valuable (as I do), will also find Paul's interesting (as I do).

I've always found it helpful to take in as many perspectives and opinions as possible on any topic. People posting different, or new, or old, information aren't necessarily out to derail or argue with you! However it's always easy to find an argument if you are looking for one wink
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Music Tech DIY Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Page 1 of 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group