Linear vs Switched mode PSU

[PalsHuffMor]

You're right, and I agree, although I may not necessarily like the effect. However, in order to judge things properly, I'd need to hear the 'untamed' thing compared with the 'tamed' version, in order to decide which I preferred. Ultimately, however, I'm of the mindset that I prefer things 'fucked about with' the least.

Not for me, as long as said "raw" recordings are produced with the goal of achieving the highest fidelity. Those types of recordings really show off what a good system can do!

When I say "raw" I don't mean thin and hard, or distorted - I simply mean messed about with the least, much in the way recordings used to be produced in the 50s and early 60s, with valve microphones/recording desks and minimal 'bumph' in the way of the signal path.

In that respect, some of the best recordings I own are of live music from that era (on vinyl), which sound "raw", but incredibly detailed and dynamic

Most recordings these days sound 'artificially processed', and somewhat 'soft' in comparison, thus lack the sheer unadulterated realism of the best examples from said 'golden era'. That's what my ears tell me anyway!

Marco.

I have a decent number of pre 1970s classical LPs. They mostly sound open, immediate and engaging. Simpler than many modern recordings but often preferable for it. That said, I do enjoy the latest 24 bit recordings from the likes of Harmonia Mundi and Channel Classics.

[RothwellAudio]

At first glance your argument seems valid but the reality appears to be impossible or you yourself or your peers would have done so already and we would all be using one. The reality is that all components have compromises and we tend to choose the one that suits our preferences.

Yes, I agree, different types of distortion have different effects on the music being reproduced. For me, minimising the most objectionable distortions is the way to make the amp sound good. However, I wouldn't call that "voicing" - I'd call it just making it sound good.

I suggest getting yourself a Naim amp or an NCC200. Listen to it with the 22K TR2 collector resistor in place and shorted.
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/...xpnj7TRdibQkKT

This resistor subtly alters the distortions profile, albeit well below the supposed threshold of audibility (0.1% according to H Leak). Then you mght understand that amps can be voiced.

As above, I don't consider that voicing. It's just reducing distortion.
BTW, I have researched (practically, not just theoretically) the effects of various aspects of amplifier design and I'm quite capable of understanding that an amp's sound can be altered, thank you. I just prefer to call it reducing distortion rather than "voicing".

[Marco]

Hi Christopher,

I have a decent number of pre 1970s classical LPs. They mostly sound open, immediate and engaging. Simpler than many modern recordings but often preferable for it. That said, I do enjoy the latest 24 bit recordings from the likes of Harmonia Mundi and Channel Classics.

I agree, as I have access to some of the modern recordings you mention. Don't get me wrong, superb results can be achieved these days in the digital domain, it's just that more often than not, the results are mediocre, as opposed to spectacular, as indeed they could be if the required effort was put in and the right equipment used.

Marco.

[Marco]

Yes, I agree, different types of distortion have different effects on the music being reproduced. For me, minimising the most objectionable distortions is the way to make the amp sound good. However, I wouldn't call that "voicing" - I'd call it just making it sound good.


As above, I don't consider that voicing. It's just reducing distortion.
BTW, I have researched (practically, not just theoretically) the effects of various aspects of amplifier design and I'm quite capable of understanding that an amp's sound can be altered, thank you. I just prefer to call it reducing distortion rather than "voicing".

Yes, but "voicing" is simply a subjective term, which names the process you're describing. You could call it anything you like, Andrew.

The point is, in the final analysis, you're altering the sonic characteristics of the equipment concerned, in order to make it "sound good" (as you've admitted), and in a way that is beyond being dictated solely by your test equipment.

In short, using your ears as the final arbiter to determine what is considered as 'accurate', which ultimately is what counts!

It also shows that our ears can detect rather more than we can currently measure, otherwise what 'sounds best' would automatically be determined by test equipment alone, without the need for said "voicing"

Marco.

[Jimbo]

Yes, but "voicing" is simply a subjective term, which names the process you're describing. You could call it anything you like, Andrew.

The point is, in the final analysis, you're altering the sonic characteristics of the equipment concerned, in order to make it "sound good" (as you've admitted), and in a way that is beyond being indicated solely by your test equipment.

In short, using your ears as the final arbiter to determine what is considered as 'accurate', which ultimately is what counts!

It also shows that our ears can detect rather more than we can currently measure, otherwise what 'sounds best' would automatically be determined by test equipment alone, without the need for said "voicing"

Marco.

I feel we have been down this route before regarding 'voicing'. I know what you mean Marco but amplifier designers and techies seem to find it hard to admit in simple terms. They like to design out the distortions they perceive we don't want or they don't want according to what their ears or oscilloscope tells them. Then it must be correct-right!?

Anyone designing a piece of kit chooses what circuit design and what components they use to get the type of sound they want, I would call this voicing.

[Marco]

I feel we have been down this route before regarding 'voicing'. I know what you mean Marco but amplifier designers and techies seem to find it hard to admit in simple terms. They like to design out the distortions they perceive we don't want or they don't want according to what their ears or oscilloscope tells them. Then it must be correct-right!?

Lol - indeed!

Ultimately though, it's only "correct" to them or the customers who buy into the sound that their gear makes, which is why (as has been stated before) we all use different kit to play our music on, as opposed to some predetermined, objectively and conclusively judged 'boxes of indisputable accuracy', which therefore everyone would use, if such things existed.

Anyone designing a piece of kit chooses what circuit design and what components they use to get the type of sound they want, I would call this voicing.

So would I, as ultimately that's what it is (much like a chef may tailor a specific recipe to suit his or her idea of what 'tastes better'), but for some reason the term 'voicing' rubs 'techies' up the wrong way!

Marco.

[Firebottle]

I suppose I am in the camp that doesn't like the word 'voicing'.

It conjures up an image of changing things so it doesn't sound like an ABC amp but an XYZ amp instead. This infers to me that the 'sound' is chosen to be different as opposed to better. Better in the context of improving the performance, of making the amplifier disappear sonically, which is the goal I aspire to.

[Marco]

Then we need to find a different word that conveys the same meaning, because the process itself is, quite clearly, an integral part of designing good hi-fi equipment

Marco.

[Starterman]

Yes, I agree, different types of distortion have different effects on the music being reproduced. For me, minimising the most objectionable distortions is the way to make the amp sound good. However, I wouldn't call that "voicing" - I'd call it just making it sound good.


As above, I don't consider that voicing. It's just reducing distortion.
BTW, I have researched (practically, not just theoretically) the effects of various aspects of amplifier design and I'm quite capable of understanding that an amp's sound can be altered, thank you. I just prefer to call it reducing distortion rather than "voicing".

Putting the defeinition of "voicing" to one side, I think you missed the point about the extra resistor in the Naim/NCC circuit. It adds even order distortion (actually it's rather clever, it makes the LTP act more like a singleton input at ac whist retaining the excellent dc characteristics of an LTP) and alters the sound significantly. All this is at a level below the supposed audibility level for distortion. I cettainly the prefer the higher distortion version and I suspect >90% would if they did the experiment.

How does that fit with your research?

BTW, I also have a compoung chip amp with ppm levels of THD. It's far from my favourite amp.

[Marco]

Interesting... Consider then the notion that not ALL forms of distortion are bad, and that some may in fact increase the 'musicality' of the equipment concerned, thus enabling it to portray voices and instruments more convincingly and realistically to the human ear.

In actuality therefore, in terms of adjustments to the Naim circuit in question, you've made things better, not worse. Sometimes, in the quest for making something as 'pure' as possible, based on measurements alone, it can end up simply being sterile....

Marco.