op-amps with wide open-loop bandwidth ?

Cool, thanks.

--DM--

"Bret Cannon" wrote in message news:rEYSf.9924$bu.2309@trnddc04... : I have recently been working with the Burr-Brown (now Texas Instruments) : OPA656 and OPA657 and both have flat open loop frequency response to beyond : 100 kHz. Have fun testing them by ear. : : Bret Cannon : : : "Dave Moore" wrote in message : news:JkPSf.253$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews6.bellsouth.net... : >

: > "John Popelish" wrote in message : > news: snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com... : > : Dave Moore wrote: : > : (snip) : > : > In the past I've plunked a variety of op-amps into pre-designed : > : > circuits and though analysis of those designs didn't reveal anything : > : > to me that could account for the obvious difference in tone : > : > (other than some near-instability issues), I hope do a better : > : > study and compare the op-amps in circuits that are more : > : > individually optimized. Perhaps Kevin is right and it's all been : > : > done before, but regardless, I like to prove things for myself. : > : : > : You are missing my point. : > : : > : I'll start over. : > : : > : Tube amplifiers tend to be made with as few tubes as possible, for : > : obvious reasons of cost, size and complexity. This usually means that : > : each stage up to the final output is a single tube, with minimal : > : feedback around it. When such stages are over driven, as the output : > : voltage approaches the highest and lowest possible values, the stage : > : gain drops off smoothly and cleanly and the output slides in to a : > : nearly steady value, and waits for the signal to reverse directions. : > : And then the gain rises smoothly and the voltage takes off cleanly in : > : the other direction. Saturation of the output is a graceful and : > : simple process, as is recovery from saturation. : > : : > : Opamps are completely different. They are complicated systems of up : > : to dozens of devices that all work together as long as inputs stay : > : inside the input common mode range, and the output is not saturated : > : fully positive or negative, or asked to change voltage faster than it : > : is able (exceed the slew rate limit). Under these conditions, an : > : opamp is a programmable device, It performs an almost unlimited : > : number of functions that are very strictly controlled by the input and : > : feedback networks connected around them. : > : : > : However, if the input common mode specs are violated, or the output is : > : allowed to saturate (because the input and feedback networks in : > : conjunction with the input signal asked it to), or to a lesser extent, : > : if the output is asked to change voltage faster than it is able, the : > : internal circuits go to hell. And when the input signal and external : > : network, once again, puts the inputs back inside the common mode : > : range, or asks the output to come out of saturation, or slows the : > : request for output voltage change to within the slew rate limit, : > : There is a period of time (sometimes surprisingly long) that the opamp : > : struggles to regain normal operation, and can do all kinds of : > : unpleasantly sounding things. : > : : > : So, while it is perfectly good to have single active device stages be : > : slapped with overdrive, and use them to obtain a pleasing sound : > : coloration, this is not the way to do such coloration with opamps. : > : All the "effects" have to be built into the input and feedback : > : networks, so that the opamp is externally programmed to produce the : > : colored overdrive sound without it actually ever being over driven, : > : itself. If this is done correctly, there is a range of effects : > : limited only by your imagination and time to experiment, that, if the : > : opamp stays in its normal operating conditions every microsecond, it : > : will have almost nothing to do with the sound quality. It will just : > : be following its program. : >

: > Ideally, yes, However, the only place I've ever seen an ideal opamp : > is in some of my CAD programs. : >

: > : If you change opamps, the limits that it : > : can tolerate, and still be an opamp every microsecond, change, and : > : allow you different freedom as far as the program (external network) : > : goes but it still won't produce ant "sound" that is separate from the : > : program. : >

: > : : > : So I don't approach a sound effect task by surveying opamps for their : > : sound, I design the input and feedback networks that produce the : > : programming I want to hear, and then figure out what opamp specs are : > : needed to be able to execute that program. Or I build the networks : > : and check with test equipment that the opamp is able to keep up with it. : > : : > : This is how engineers "see" opamps in a circuit, and why you are : > : receiving so much static from them, here, when you say you want to : > : listen to some opamps to hear what they sound like. An opamp you can : > : hear is an opamp that is not being an opamp all the time. Some of the : > : time, it is a failure. : >

: > First off, you haven't told me a thing yet that I don't already know. : > Secondly, I never intentionally program opamps to fail at being : > an opamp for the sake of any sound coloration or effects simply : > because to do so IMO would be a problem if you ever wanted : > to go commercial with a design and that particular opamp were : > discontinued. So, in essence what I want from an opamp is : > as little coloration as possible and leave the coloration to : > components that will be available for future support. : > : : > : Now, if you have a particular programming network in mind and a signal : > : you want to pass through it, that you want to listen to, we can help : > : you figure out what opamp specs are required to carry out that program. : >

: > I can pretty much do that myself. I've got opamp application notes and : > network theory articles up the whazoo. Up until now, all I've done is : > take note of the networks and which opamps sound different in them. : > Soon I plan to sit down and pour over the specs of the opamps and : > determine if there are some specs that are being violated. However, : > there doesn't seem to be anything that really stands out about : > some of these networks that could intuitively account for an opamps : > inability to track well. Some are very basic networks and the : > signals are small. However, perhaps after I review the specs, : > something may stand out.like a sore thumb. And also, as I mentioned : > before, perhaps a comparison of reasonably spec'd opamps in : > within networks designed to complement them will reveal absolutely : > no difference in sound or tone, dunno. I do know however that : > the ear is remarkably sensitive to various distortions that are : > virtually undetectable with a scope. I do hope to eventually : > acquire some more sophisticated means of measuring distortion : >

: > However, the main limitation I encounter in guitar amp design is : > in the coupling caps. I always seem to get better sound out of high : > speed opamps operated at lower impedances, but this tends to : > dictate larger coupling cap values. Since I've never gotten any : > results with coupling caps that I like asd much as the results I get : > with oil/paper caps, generally I'm forced to operate at high enough : > impedance values to keep the oil/paper caps down to reasonable : > values and physical sizes. : > I've had good results coupling through large value electrolytics : > or other large value "crap-acitors" such as mylars and using : > some negative feedback to linearize them. : > Also had good results coupling through what I call a "crap-acitor : > parasitic nulling divider" which entails sending the signal through : > a resistor on top of a cap on top of a cap on top of another resistor : > to ground with the resistors being equal in value as well as the : > "crap_acitirs" You of course take the signal out at the center : > of this nulling divider which is the node where the two caps : > connect. Abd of course you also have to suffer some signal : > loss. I have even combined the two aforementioned : > methods. These methods do indeed reduce the coloration of : > the coupling caps. However, oil/paper caps seem to impart : > a very special coloration that most ( actually all so far) of the : > guitarists I deal with like very much. : >

: > I'm aware of opamp theory and I understand why some engineers : > think there's no reason to "sonically evaluate" opamps. However, : > I have my reasons for doing so and if anyone thinks me a fool for : > doing so, so be it. They ain't got'ta be so arrogant and snobbish : > about it however. : >

: > Dave Moore : > ( Just a fool that gets results) : >

: >

: :

Thanks for the contribution.

I generally try to stick to inverting mode being that in non-inverting mode modulation of the input capacitances with some opamps (especially bifets) can in some cases seem to impart a quite noticeable kind of chorusing-doppler effect on the high notes of a guitar. This effect isn't always entirely unpleasant, but I figure that if you want chorusing, it should be where and when you want it, and introduced by an FX unit

Apply flames here ___________ :-) : : : : -- : -- : snipped-for-privacy@rahul.net forging knowledge :

Oh?

I read your other replies in this thread, so I didnt make any assumptions. It appears that you belive that having an open loop BW at least equal to the audio BW is nessesary/advantages to get a good sound. This is easily shown to erroneous. Its pretty basic physics really.

Suppose we have an op amp design. Typically, this might even have a 3db BW of say, 100Hz! However, this is usually at enormous gain. This design would have an aspect of distortion characterised by an open loop value, divided/reduced by the loop gain. Suppose that we now simple added an internal resister at the appropriate point to broadband the BW to 20Khz. You appear to be claiming that this new configuration might sound better ust because it has better BW. This is very unlikely. All the open loop gain that is now thrown away at the lower frequencies, can now no longer be used to reduce the distortion at those frequencies. It always pays you (distortion wise) to have as much loop gain as possible over the widest frequency range.

Of course, if the amp is slewing prior to the audio BW, then...

Sure, but this open loop BW thing is a no brainer. Its not rocket science. By itself, the open loop BW is not relevant. Its not debatable at all. Its all very well understood. Very few physicists argue with the general theory of relativity, and damn less qualified EE's argue about the properties of correctly designed feedback amplifiers.

The issue here, is that I have heard all this before from endless numbers of people. You have said nothing new. Its already a dead subject. You jsut are not aware of all the prio art on this matter.

With all due respect, what this tells me is that you are really a hacker/tech, not a qualified EE. You dont know what you are really dealing with.

Sure, when I was doing my degree I used to suplement my grant (UK) by doing repairs for a music shop. However, like, I'm going to do physical work with that sort of stuff for other people 25 years on?

However... A few weeks ago I did purchase a Marshall AVT150 combo. The bloody fools have an effects loop that is not inline. This means a volume pedal, or even a phaser won't work correctly. So, I emailed for the circuit diagram and modified the effects loop to work correctly. It even had an irritation of having the clean channel with significantly more gain then the distortion channel, making it hard to get maximum volume from the distortion channels when switching. So, sure, I fixed the gains. But this is all for me personally.

Maybe for a 709 to an op-37, but in general, little chance of hearing any difference. Been there mate.

Anecdotal meanderings. AB blind tests invariable show that this is all wishfull dreaming.

As I suggested, been playing guitar and messing with electronics audio both since I was 11. I'm not deaf, yet, so If there was any truth to this sort of stuff, trust me, I would have discovered it. I actually used to believe this sort of drivel until I *really* looked into it, in detail.

Sure, some opamps might actually oscillate at VHF in the wrong circuit.

Quite frankly, I dont belive you.

I don't believe you. I have done these sort of tests ad-infinitum.

If there is truly a difference, its unlikely be due to the op-amps. Something has to be really buggered up with the circuit design itself.

All anecdotal meanderings. I have done the same, and it is in stark contrast to your claims. What's more, pro double blind tests on these

*type* of tests *always* show no differences.

I suppose you also believe in fairies, palm reading, thor, tea cup reading, astrology?

I dont belive you.

I think you are simple deluding yourself. A shame really. You sound as if you could be more objective.

As far as an audibly a straight piece of wire with gain, many op-amps are indeed ideal. You have probably been listening to 741s running at a closed loop gain of 100, where sure, that may well be a problem. Modern op amps are audible perfect. Thats just the way it is despite all this golden ears nonsense.

They certainly claim they do, but in actual tests it all disappears.

Oh dear... now you really are getting out of your field of what knowledge you have.

People become musicians because, by and large, they were introduced to playing music at an earlier time. Its the copying or replication bit of Darwinian evolution

Well, yes.

Sure, but there is a physics limit.

Oh...I don't, I'm a musician. Care to provide some credible documentable support for your "most musicians" claim?

You can claim what you like in this NG, but my experience is way different, so I dont belive you.

I don't believe you. My experience is in direct contradiction to your claim. Do you want me to actually dig up some of the real tests that have been done on golden ear claims?

The issue is that you are making claims, that are known to be erroneous, both technically and experimentally.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"There are none more ignorant and useless,than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed"

: >>> I'm aware of opamp theory and I understand why some engineers : >>> think there's no reason to "sonically evaluate" opamps. : >>> However, : >>> I have my reasons for doing so and if anyone thinks me a fool for : >>> doing so, so be it. They ain't got'ta be so arrogant and snobbish : >>> about it however. : >>>

: >>> Dave Moore : >>> ( Just a fool that gets results) : >>

: >> Not a fool, just a bit naive. : >> You are giving little credit to other : >> qualified people who have actually looked at these issues in depth. : > You are making the assumption that *they* are the fools. : >

: > You're still absolutely clueless. : : Oh? : : > Let me clue you in. I ask for some information, instead I get : > a bunch of mistaken presumptions about why I want the information : > and a slew insults to go along with the mistaken presumptions. : : I read your other replies in this thread, so I didnt make any : assumptions. It appears that you belive that having an open loop BW at : least equal to the audio BW is nessesary/advantages to get a good sound.

No, I don't believe that at all. I do believe however that in spite of what some so-called experts may say and in spite of (what are often flawed) studies that it *might* be a factor that bears looking into. It does seem to me to be of interest that out of all of the opamps I have on hand, the two that I like the best (THS2052 & THS2022) just happen to have open loop bandwidths in excess of 20KHz

: This is easily shown to erroneous. Its pretty basic physics really.

: : Suppose we have an op amp design. Typically, this might even have a 3db : BW of say, 100Hz! However, this is usually at enormous gain. This design : would have an aspect of distortion characterised by an open loop value, : divided/reduced by the loop gain. Suppose that we now simple added an : internal resister at the appropriate point to broadband the BW to 20Khz. : You appear to be claiming that this new configuration might sound better : ust because it has better BW.

I have never made any such claims. If you think that I have, please either repost whatever words I said that make you think so and prove it, or get over it. Or take up the argument with Phil Allison who is the one that that apparently has psychically divined my thoughts for you.

: This is very unlikely. All the open loop : gain that is now thrown away at the lower frequencies, can now no longer : be used to reduce the distortion at those frequencies. It always pays : you (distortion wise) to have as much loop gain as possible over the : widest frequency range. : : Of course, if the amp is slewing prior to the audio BW, then...

What you're saying is right in line with my observations about the THS2052 and the THS2022. They both have the same open loop corner of abot 50KHz but THS2022 is the better sounding of the two and it does indeed have a higher open loop gain and higher gain bandwidth product.

: : >

: > And no, I am not making any assumptions about whether : > all engineers are the *real* audiophools. I'm quite open minded. : > And I ususally believe that people have valid reasons based : > on their experiences for believing the things that they do. : > One scientist looking at one set of data will draw one : > conclusion whereas another studying the same phenomena : > with a different but contradictory dataset may draw a : > completely different conclusion. In the end perhaps a new : > conclusion is reached due to the controversy and everyone is : > happy as they were all proved to be right. : : Sure, but this open loop BW thing is a no brainer. Its not rocket : science. By itself, the open loop BW is not relevant. Its not debatable : at all. Its all very well understood.

Let's just say that it's bvelieved by some to be very well understood.

: Very few physicists argue with the : general theory of relativity, and damn less qualified EE's argue about : the properties of correctly designed feedback amplifiers. :

I suppose that depends on ones definition of a "qualified EE" When it comes to guitar amplifiers, IMO a qualified EE would be one that isn't tone deaf.

: >

: > For example, some : >> actually have extensive professional experience in analogue design : >> and pro audio, from both a technical point of view and as a : >> musician. Some of these, after such extensive study, indeed conclude : >> that it there is no reason to listen to an amplifier in order to : >> design a straight piece of wire with gain. Its purely a technical : >> issue based on gains, distortion, bandwidth, noise etc. : >

: > The fact that I'd rather prove this to myself doesn't mean that : > I don't respect the opinions of others. However there's a bit more to : > this story that might be of significance if anyone cared to find : > out first before popping off a few rounds and asking questions later. : : The issue here, is that I have heard all this before from endless : numbers of people.

Where there's smoke there's usually fire.

:You have said nothing new. Its already a dead : subject. You jsut are not aware of all the prio art on this matter.

I am aware however of my own experience which means more to me than any "prior art". There was also at one point in time plenty of prior art on the subject of why Solid State amps were an improvement over tube amps. As it turned out, those that weren't tone deaf weren't fooled.

: : > I'm working on more than one front at once. Besides design, : > I also do repair and upgrades for a select handful of musicians. : : With all due respect, what this tells me is that you are really a : hacker/tech, not a qualified EE. You dont know what you are really : dealing with.

With all due respect, you're response tells me that you are a presumptuous arrogant snob.

: : Sure, when I was doing my degree I used to suplement my grant (UK) by : doing repairs for a music shop. However, like, I'm going to do physical : work with that sort of stuff for other people 25 years on?

You don't understand that a "handful of select musicians means friends of mine? So you're in essence too full of yourself to help out your friends ? Just as I thought, an arrogant snob.

: : However... A few weeks ago I did purchase a Marshall AVT150 combo. The : bloody fools have an effects loop that is not inline. This means a : volume pedal, or even a phaser won't work correctly. So, I emailed for : the circuit diagram and modified the effects loop to work correctly. It : even had an irritation of having the clean channel with significantly : more gain then the distortion channel, making it hard to get maximum : volume from the distortion channels when switching. So, sure, I fixed : the gains. But this is all for me personally.

Yup, a selfish f*ck that'll help himself but not a friend,

: : > In some cases an upgrade might entail something as simple as : > swapping out the opamps in a unit. Under these circumstances : > there is indeed a quite noticeable difference in the sound from : > one opamp to another. : : Maybe for a 709 to an op-37, but in general, little chance of hearing : any difference. Been there mate.

Kevin, with all due respect, yer an idiot.

: : > Also, in the years that I have been : > doing this I have noticed (as well as the musicians themselves) : > very definite characteristics that always follow one particular : > opamp around regardless of which piece of gear it is plunked : > into. : : Anecdotal meanderings. AB blind tests invariable show that this is all : wishfull dreaming.

Better for me. As I said in another post, tis why I got the gig with the celebs and tone deaf arrogant snobs such as yourself are relegated to hyping their technical prowess in newsgroups

: : As I suggested, been playing guitar and messing with electronics audio : both since I was 11. I'm not deaf,

How would you know since apparently you've been tone deaf from the get go

: yet, so If there was any truth to : this sort of stuff, trust me, I would have discovered it. I actually : used to believe this sort of drivel until I *really* looked into it, in : detail.

Which involves just what exactly? Actually experimenting or reading about some possibly flawed studies?

: : > Ok, so I suppose someone is going to say at this point, well : > of course, because the opamps are being plunked into networks : > designed for other opamps. Let me address this. Firstly, sometimes : > it's not possible to get a schematic on a particular piece of gear. : > Also, often there is a diminishing point of returns to attempt to : > trace and draw out the schematic or reverse engineer the circuits : > from the PCB's themselves. So, the 'plunk in' option proves to be : > the viable alternative : : Sure, some opamps might actually oscillate at VHF in the wrong circuit.

I always check for oscillations. If the opamp is oscillating, I either compenstae it properly or rule it out of the sonic signature observation list. : : >

: > Let me give you a very recent example (like last night) : > of how this might go. I have one professional musician friend : > who is patiently waiting to pick up a completely SS circuit : > I designed that makes his opamp-plunked and capacitor-upgraded : > Pearce G1 SS amp sound like a tube amp. : > Also in his rig is a TC electronics : > DSP unit that sounds rather dull. I told him that I probably can : > do a few things to improve the TC. Well he needs the rig for a gig : > monday and told me to go ahead and do whatever I can before then. : > About the only thing I'm willing to do whithin those time constraints : > and no schematic towork from is an opamp-plunking. : > So how'd the plunking go? First off, I took my best guess at : > which opamps that I currently have on hand would best : > complement the unit. : > This entailed yanking the the NE5532 on the front end and : > replacing it with a THS2052 and yanking the NE5532 on the tail : > end and replacing it with an AD828. The result, (in guitar terms) : > much more detail & clarity on the high notes and much improved : > tightness and bounce on the low notes. OK, so now the A/B : > test. : : Quite frankly, I dont belive you.

You are obviously confusing me with someone that gives a rats ass

: >Put the NE5532's back in. Sure 'nuff. The sound is muddy : > again and it's difficult to pull out the low notes whilst finger : > picking. : : I don't believe you. I have done these sort of tests ad-infinitum.

perhaps it's time to try them again with some of the opamps I've listed and in the comapny of someone that isn't tone deaf. : : If there is truly a difference, its unlikely be due to the op-amps. : Something has to be really buggered up with the circuit design itself.

Like I said, under the circumstances, I'm not about to reverse engineer the circuits.

: : >

: > So, next up, trying the unit with a number of different opamps with : > 'better spec's' than the NE5532's Result, all combinations produced : > better sound than the original 5532's as well as imparting quite : > predictably whatever flavor or characteristics I have observed : > to follow each particular opamp as they have been plunked : > into various units over the years. : : All anecdotal meanderings. I have done the same, and it is in stark : contrast to your claims. What's more, pro double blind tests on these : *type* of tests *always* show no differences.

Well, the guy who happens to own this equipment has perfect pitch and was voted by his guitar playing peers in New Orleans to be New Orleans best guitar player which is no small feat considering that New Orleans is somewhat of a Mecca for exceptional guitar players. I've have given him on numerous occasions the option to choose his own opamps and capacitors. I never make any suggestions in advance. He invariably makes the same choices that I do. It's to the point now where he usually just says " go ahead and make the choices yourself, I trust your judgement"

As far as I'm concerned, your so-called pro double blind tests are anecdotal. I'l go with what I can hold tangibly in my hand thankyou very much.

: : >In the end I settled for the : > two opamps that I predicted would probably best complement : > the unit being that of the opamps I currently have on hand, they did : > just that, they best complemenbted the unit. So riddle me this. Hoiw : > did I know in advance that those two opamps were probably going to : > win the contest. : : I suppose you also believe in fairies, palm reading, thor, tea cup : reading, astrology?

No, I believe in the responses I get from the small handful of exceptionally gifted ( non-tone deaf) professional musicians that I deal with and tangible empirical results that I can prove for myself

: : >

: > I've also sat down with various musicians and let them decide : > which opamps they best like when plunked into their gear. : > 9 times out of ten they choose the same ones that would have : > chosen. : : I dont belive you.

again, better for me

: : >And this is without any pre-suggestion on my part. : >

: > So, as you can see, under these circumstances I have very : > legitimate reasons for wanting as large of a pool of spec-varied : > opamps that I can get my hands on and taking notes on just : > what sonic characteristics tend to follow them as they're : > plunked into one pice of gear after another. : : I think you are simple deluding yourself. A shame really. You sound as : if you could be more objective.

You say that you don't believe me and I'm speaking the truth so as far as I'm concerned, you're the one that's not being objective.

So let me ask you this, would being objective entail discarding all of the tangible and empirical results that I've accrued

: : >

: >

: >> Sure to design a tube distortion : >> circuit does require listening to it, but thats irrelevant to the : >> design of the actual amplifier circuits. : >

: > I agree. When I design, I start with as clean of an amp as I can : > and dirty it up from there. And when it come to designing a "clean : > amp" I truly do respect the skills of the more advanced engineers. : > But even here, since there is in reality no such thing as an ideal : > opamp, the issue becomes just how far which spec's need to go to : > dissappear coloration. : : As far as an audibly a straight piece of wire with gain, many op-amps : are indeed ideal. You have probably been listening to 741s running at a : closed loop gain of 100, where sure, that may well be a problem. Modern : op amps are audible perfect. Thats just the way it is despite all this : golden ears nonsense.

Try THS2013 THS2062 THS2032 THS2052 THS2022 AD826 AD828 AD829 AD843 LM6172 LM318 OPA2228 OPA2604 OPA2134 OPA275 LT1208 LT1363

running at closed loop gain of 12 and at small enough signal levels where slewing shouldn't be a factor and also in inverting mode where differential input errors are reduced

: : >And this opens up another debate about how : > sensitive the ear is to coloration. My conclusion is that the : > coloration threshold is probably different for different people. Most : > of the more accomplished and talented musicians that I've worked with : > seem to have an extraordinary ability to hear subtle nuances. : : They certainly claim they do, but in actual tests it all disappears.

Not in the actual tests that I have done. And none of my musician friends have made any such claims. They're quite humble about their abilities. But I have noticed these abilities in them and it's probably the reason that they've gone pro whereas the more tone-deaf such as yourself have opted for careers in electronics.

: : >Quite : > possibly this ability may be one of the reasons that they chose to : > become musicians. : : Oh dear... now you really are getting out of your field of what : knowledge you have.

Well Kevin, I suppose whenever I need to know more about my thoughts intentions and what my field of knowledge is, it's truly reassuring to know that I can always rely on the advice of the psychic EE's such as yourself and Phil Allison to divine it for me.

: : People become musicians because, by and large, they were introduced to : playing music at an earlier time. Its the copying or replication bit of : Darwinian evolution

: : >Or perhaps some of it is a developed skill. : : Well, yes. : : >Just : > as an EE becomes intuitively adept at analyzing a network from doing : > so repeatedly, I suppose a musicians hearing ability would improve : > with practice also. : : Sure, but there is a physics limit. : : >Regardless, I've found that most : > musicians notice exactly the same differences that I do. : : Oh...I don't, I'm a musician. Care to provide some credible documentable : support for your "most musicians" claim?

Scuse me, I should have said accomplished non-tone-deaf musicians.

: : You can claim what you like in this NG, but my experience is way : different, so I dont belive you.

Eactly, my experience is way different from yours and that's why I don't believe you. However, until you are experienced with all of the opamps I've listed IMHO, I'm the more qualified to speak on their behalf.

Are you experienced?

: : >So in answer : > to Phil Assholesons question about whether I analyze sound for myself : > or for the masses, the answer would be for myself as I don't have : > time or the means to set up double-blind studies with mass : > participants and 9 times out of ten, my perceptions seem to be inline : > with those of the people I deal with. : : I don't believe you. My experience is in direct contradiction to your : claim. Do you want me to actually dig up some of the real tests that : have been done on golden ear claims?

No, because quite frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass anyway. My own tests are *real* enough for me. I have absolutely no way of knowing enough about your so-called "real" tests to know whether they're flawed or agenda driven. Therefore I'm perfectly happy to do my own * real* tests and draw my own conclusions

: : >

: > So, in short, respect is a two way street. : > I'll respect anyone that shows me some.by getting the full story : > before hurling stones. : >

: : The issue is that you are making claims, that are known to be erroneous, : both technically and experimentally.

Right, and I also have heard that all before. I'll reiterate. My methods have gotten me where I am so I'm perfectly happy to stick with them and my inferiority as a self-taught but highly succesful hack

For the record as you're still clueless. I have never made any such claims. The only claim I have ever made is that I'm investigating possibilities to determine things for myself. Now if you think me a fool for doing this and not taking your word on things, that's all fine and well. I can live with it. But be advised, you are throwing me into a profile of your own definition. The truth of the matter is that I have other reasons for being interested in open-loop bandwidth that go beyond simply trying to clean up or "improve" sound. I have my reasons for not publically discussing the projects that I'm working on. You will however have the opportunity to hear two of my projects which are near completion and will be sound clipped and posted soon, this time around demonstrated by a real professional guitarist who plays with the likes of Robben Ford, Boz Scaggs and Jackson Browne etc.

One is entirely Solid State and the other a revolutionary new design that is destined to change the way guitar amps are made. If you've visited my website and listened to any of the sound clips there then you've had a preview of the latter.

Both designs have come a long way in the last year and what you'll hear is a far cry from the crudeness of the sound clips currently posted. Both circuits are fully capable now of producing the entire range of tube amp sound from clean to overdrive. And not just some kind of crappy buzzy buck diode clipping BS.

So, you can call me a hack and think yourself superior because you have an official college degree, but don't expect me to be impressed that you wired the FX loop of your AVT150 which IMHO is a POS When you take your incredible scholastic abilities and actually design something that a professional musician would actually want to use, then perhaps I'll be impressed with your bravado.

Dave Moore ( unedjamacated moron)

PS FWIW I also have a dgreee in electronics. Granted it's only an AS degree, but I got it over 20 years ago and one can learn a few things in 20 years no?

Also, regarding my website. The clips were posted there in response to a drubbing I've been taking from another group of self-styled elite snobs in another newsgroup "alt.guitar.amps" I've taking pretty much the same sort of abuse that I'm experiencing here in SED in AGA for quite awhile for talking about building non-valve guitar amps. Ironically, the accusations there were that I had no ears because I was a fool that didn't understand that there was no way an SS design could ever compete with a tube amp like it was written in stone somewhere or something. The gloating quality of my site was a bit of rub in the faces of the tube snobs of AGA. My way of telling them, ok, you've called me a fool for years, look who's laughing now. Choke on it assholes.

However I suppose it could easily apply to a small handful of self-important EE types in SED also.

: : Kevin Aylward : snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk :

: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode : Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, : Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. : : "There are none more ignorant and useless,than they that seek answers : on their knees, with their eyes closed" : :

a slew insults to go along with the mistaken presumptions.

My guess is that in AB blind tests, *you* cant tell the difference. Its that old delusion bit. One lies to oneself. You have an agenda that you want to purpetuate.

"A good scientist tries to find evidence to support his theory, a better scientist tries to find evidence to contradict his theory" - R. Fynmann.

I dont belive you.

No. It is indeed completely understood. Period.

I'm and EE, and not tone deaf, I play guitar, and furthermore I have actually got pro audio designs out there.

Nonsense.

Like, tea leaf reading, UFOs, astrology, thor, pixies, scientology ..yeah, get real mate. Life is full of vapourware.

People usually have an axe to grind and therefore invent all sort of nonsense.

Again, complete nonsense. Sure, *some* people used to design shit SS amps, just like some still design shit tube amps.

Look, you out of your depth. I would like to say this without it sounding like a personal insult, but I just don't know any way to say it differently. You just know what you talking about.

I have been designing amps for 30+ years, been playing guitar 30+ years. I

I am someone who has been there. Sorry if it comes out as arrogant, as noted, its just about impossible to tell someone that they are truly out of their depth without sounding insulting. Its trivially clear that you just don't have the technical background to understand why you are actually wrong. I wish it were different, believe me.

Too busy. I have a life.

A friend in need... is a pest,.. get rid of him.

Fortunately, I don't have many friends, so I don't have much of a problem in being selfish that way.

Oh... by the way you need to understand just what selfish means...

Oh...?

Oh...an argument by apeal to authority just dont wash mate. "Celebs" have no more value to to the truth then a street sweeper.

Yeah, well no ones perfect.

In other words, you can see invisable men.

Building up more audio bits and peices than you have had hot dinners. Look, I got my first electronics kit at 11, the same age I started playing guitar.

For example, one of the bullshit golden ears claims is the ability to detect small static phase shifts. Yeah, so like I never built up all pass filters to test this sort of nonsense?

Flawed studies? like rigorous double blind tests on amplifiers. Yeah...I'm that daft.

Oh dear...my usuall quote.

"Those that use 'sonic' in their audio phrasing are usually pretentious twats, using 'sonic transparency's removes all doubt.

Look mate, what's wrong with "audio signature"?

Then why reply to this post?

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

Physics impossible.

Oh dear....your serious?

Your doing yourself a disservice.

So, you're wanker, whats new?

Yeah...

No, your deluding yourself. You don't have the background to understand just how and why you are obtaining erroneous results. Again, I wish it were different, but it aint.

Yes. The reason is that your "empirical" results disagree with credible pro test results. Your lying to yourself, yet don't realise it.

Get bloody real mate. You just show how out of touch with reality you are. Success in the music busines has f'all to do with musical ability. This is trivially obvious. There are like 100,000s applicatnt for every music "position". Clever peaple take life options that give them the best chance of success, rather then bask in pathetic dreams... I can tell you I make way, way more money in my day job as an analogue i.c. design engineer then millions of wanna be guitarists.

How you can claim what you do above is beyond belief. I no longer have any more time for your delusions.

{snip unread stuff}

Kevin Aylward B.Sc. snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"There are none more ignorant and useless,than they that seek answers on their knees, with their eyes closed"