Preamp difference : if it's not the frequency, not the slew rate, and not the harmonics, what is it ?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hard to be sure a study for this or that is really valid cuz variables often can't be controlled tightly enough. And a test is not exactly real world. The market is usual the best indicator of quality and the subset of value for price, since not everyone can afford the best. First time I heard a $4 mil violin in person it was astonishing ( I had previously heard many violins played by Hollywood movie score orchestras and those players are considered triple scale.)
Sure, you can criticize most studies as limited, using a smaller sample size than is ideal, and so on... but I'll take studies that at least TRY to control variables and do blind testing over an internet rando's non-blind testimonials every time.

"Studies" seek to have a study group chosen at random on the assumption that will help guarantee the study results are widely applicable. "random" studies are often comprised of people who need the payments and are more or less the average chud. That's good for medicine cuz the largest patient group is comprised of chud. But such studies are not actually randomized, they are weighted towards chud.

I guess you didn't even look at the titles of the stuff I linked to, which was mostly not about randomly sampled "chuds," as you so sweetly describe normal people, but about judgments by EXPERTS like "elite violinists," supposedly expert wine tasters, etc.

I'll take professional concert violinists' judgments of violins over your internet rando testimonial above, for sure. (I'm pretty sure you're not a concert violinist if you're the most prolific pro audio gear repairer in the world... you wouldn't have time for TWO such intense, committed careers.)

Note that in at least one of the experiments the violinists were allowed to PLAY the instruments and gauge their feel, as well as listening to others play them.

If they can't tell old violins costing millions from good modern violins costing thousands, I'm guessing you can't either.

If you can explain away their result, it's far easier to explain away your "astonishing" experience with a $4M violin... maybe you just happened to hear the right performer playing the right piece in the right way at the right time for you to enjoy it from your particular acoustic vantage point in the right place, for your own idosyncratic reasons involving your blood sugar, caffeine level, genetic predispositions, etc.

For sure, some people may be able to hear some things that others can't about the sound of a particularly great old Stradivarius, and maybe these particular pro violinists all missed it.

But the quality differences between very good modern instruments and "great" old ones are pretty clearly not as big or striking as many people think from the reputation the old instruments have. They're at most the kind of subtle and/or inconsistent effect that makes measuring them difficult, not the kind of thing that all of the experts can easily hear.

And that's true of a whole bunch of audiophile stuff that's billed as making a significant positive difference, such that the effect is supposedly "astonishing" (as you say above), or "a veil was lifted," or "just listen to it once; you'll love it."

When it comes to blind tests, such discussions often go from things like "the difference is night and day," or "a veil was lifted" to things like "I think I heard a difference, but I'm not sure; you'd need a better test with a big sample to be sure" and "you haven't proven there isn't a difference!"

That's the kind of thing that markets often suck at putting a value on, partly because people know that the market value depends on what other people think, not so much on whether other people are right to think that---things are worth what other people with money are ignorant enough to pay for them.

Market values are like gossip. Sometimes the gossip is true, certainly, and price is often correlated with quality. But often only roughly, and sometimes not at all, such that often the "gossip" about something's value is false.

That's why economists have terms like "the greater fool theory." It can make sense to pay a lot of money for something with little intrinsic value, as long as you know there are rich suckers out there willing to pay you even more for it.

What's particularly sad about inflated prices for musical instruments and audio gear is that it's not just rich people buying the stuff. I don't mind if doctors, dentists and lawyers in dad bands throw away tens of thousands of dollars on their hobby, but when hard-up musicians do it, that sucks.
 
Last edited:
The market is usual the best indicator of quality and the subset of value for price, since not everyone can afford the best.

I've probably never disagreed more with an opinion that was posted here. The field of Behavioral Economics arose because the classic economic models of markets didn't account for the irrationality of the humans that participate in those markets.
 
I've probably never disagreed more with an opinion that was posted here. The field of Behavioral Economics arose because the classic economic models of markets didn't account for the irrationality of the humans that participate in those markets.
Don't forget marketing... I've read multiple books on the subject of persuasion.

I escaped from the hifi business back in the 80s because I did not perceive a strict correlation between product performance and market success. One thing that attracted me to live sound reinforcement is because its harder to BS an auditorium full of people than a handful of people in a small demo room. 🤔

JR
 
I've probably never disagreed more with an opinion that was posted here. The field of Behavioral Economics arose because the classic economic models of markets didn't account for the irrationality of the humans that participate in those markets.

Yeah. I once met a guy (Herb Simon) who got a Nobel prize in Economics for work he did along those lines long ago. He coined the terms "bounded rationality" and "satisficing," among others. (He also cofounded the field of Artificial Intelligence.)

More recently Daniel Kahneman got one too. He was coathor with Amos Tversky of the very influential book "Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," and other work about how people and markets systematically misjudge things.

(In between I'd guess there were some others, but I haven't kept up.)

Sane economists don't think markets are always the best arbiters of actual value, especially for things that aren't major commodities, and in circumstances where most buyers don't have good ways of determining actual value... like the vast majority of musicians and audio gear buyers who don't know how to evaluate all the conflicting "expert" claims, or have the gear & expertise to measure things for themselves.
 
Yeah. I once met a guy (Herb Simon) who got a Nobel prize in Economics for work he did along those lines long ago. He coined the terms "bounded rationality" and "satisficing," among others. (He also cofounded the field of Artificial Intelligence.)

More recently Daniel Kahneman got one too. He was coathor with Amos Tversky of the very influential book "Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," and other work about how people and markets systematically misjudge things.

(In between I'd guess there were some others, but I haven't kept up.)

Sane economists don't think markets are always the best arbiters of actual value, especially for things that aren't major commodities, and in circumstances where most buyers don't have good ways of determining actual value... like the vast majority of musicians and audio gear buyers who don't know how to evaluate all the conflicting "expert" claims, or have the gear & expertise to measure things for themselves.
A funny joke about economists is to get three opinions ask two economists... 🤔
===
I've read at least one book from Kahneman... (fast /slow thinking).
===
I find it interesting to watch the gambling markets about future events (like elections). I suspect people when betting their own money on outcomes are more likely to tell the truth than when answering polls.

JR
 
lol no one can agree, or prove what they hear most of the time, and I’d argue we don’t really know fully. Variables are too many. Best is to A/B stuff yourself and see, I’ve been led astray many times by the internet..
and yet we try!
 
I've usually heard that one about jews. (And usually from jews.)

In the case of Kahneman and Tversky, it works either way.
In medicine that's called a differential diagnosis (list of things it could be).
==
IIRC both Kahneman and his fellow author Tversky are Jewish, so not really a slight. We have a lot more latitude to make self-deprecatory comments than make the same comments about others.
====
Back on topic, (warning I've shared this anecdote before) I discovered back in the 1980s while using a friend's recording studio to evaluate tweaks to a studio effect (Loft delay line flanger) I was designing. After a couple hours of tweaking everybody (but me) needed a cigarette break. I got a paper cup of lousy coffee machine coffee from the break area and chilled until people returned from their smoke break.

I was shocked to discover that that the tweak I was working on sounded dramatically different than it did just before the break. For years I have speculated about caffeine or sugar making some impact on my personal audition but my ultimate conclusion is that human audition can be unreliable. Like a VOM with 8 digits of resolution but only 3 digits of accuracy. Not the best allegory but all I got. 🤔 Over decades designing gear I have determined that I can measure nonlinearities or response errors far smaller than I can reliably perceive. That's life working with our meat computers.

JR
 
Back on topic, (warning I've shared this anecdote before) I discovered back in the 1980s while using a friend's recording studio to evaluate tweaks to a studio effect (Loft delay line flanger) I was designing. After a couple hours of tweaking everybody (but me) needed a cigarette break. I got a paper cup of lousy coffee machine coffee from the break area and chilled until people returned from their smoke break.

I was shocked to discover that that the tweak I was working on sounded dramatically different than it did just before the break. For years I have speculated about caffeine or sugar making some impact on my personal audition but my ultimate conclusion is that human audition can be unreliable. Like a VOM with 8 digits of resolution but only 3 digits of accuracy. Not the best allegory but all I got. 🤔 Over decades designing gear I have determined that I can measure nonlinearities or response errors far smaller than I can reliably perceive. That's life working with our meat computers.

JR
Hearing changes with with age, fatigue, food, rest, time, temperature. etc. It's very hard to pin it on one variable. Or maybe the circuit changed on its own. A lot of variables with time and temp in a gizmo that depends on perceiving very fine subtleties in performance.

Thats's my unarguable experience.
 
I was shocked to discover that that the tweak I was working on sounded dramatically different than it did just before the break. For years I have speculated about caffeine or sugar making some impact on my personal audition but my ultimate conclusion is that human audition can be unreliable
Over the years I’ve worked in studios either recording or mixing, or installing and testing gear I’ve noticed the same thing with coffee, tea and alcohol - I think the blood pressure goes up which could alter the performance of the auditory system. Also “fatigued ears” is a common thing - after a break and they’ve settled down things sound different. Muscle fatigue? When doing long haul sessions we would never commit to a final mix until the next day following completion - making final tonal and level balance tweaks or reevaluation of recording takes with fresh ears.
 
Creative product industries are like 'variable ratio schedule' business. Music is not a commodity yet at times can be treated as such (Billie Eilish eg) The intended market was so well flushed out that she turned garment line that was pre-sold/distributed long before the songs dropped. So many hands were also in the pie that together; all these huge driving business machines basically made it a lock return. Took a class with Skinner in school and although he was very science like in most approaches he would discuss what students said and thought and IMO he digested different points of view. Yes artists can be replaced and plugged in like product lines and models in the 'big' machine; yet there is always a 'future shock' happening where a success arises that is unseen or way off the radar of the industry 'experts'. It is easy to create music that people won't buy but not easy to create music people will buy. If a persons desire/motivation is to be happy (or not depressed) it is a solid guess that this is the 'type' of stuff these people will gravitate towards; but it can get complicated in a hurry because defining 'what' makes them happy can be as different as night and day - such death metal vs sunshine pop.

Indescribable subtleties add up for better or worse. Often producing is as much as getting rid of these the bad subtleties as much as getting the 'right' subtleties - and that be be as simple a transformer, capacitor or tube switch. Sound juxtapostition has vastly different effects to each listener.

People tend to create formulaicly. And IMHO this is often the downfall of today's music makers on a whole. A song like "I want to Give You My Everything " vs Kung Fu Fighting "B" side; which was totally anachonistic in most every sense of the word. Kids Kung Fu fantasy lyrics backdropped by disco guitars and stereotypic oriental highlights. The one thing it did is made people want to move and mimic a bit. This has often been the hit breakthrough theme that many experts never saw or see coming. The inherent desire to physically move when hearing something. Saturday Night Fever, Uptown Funk, Happy or even a Bossa Nova. There are countless ways to create a song that 'resonates' with listeners even it is the conundrum-like physiological effects of right and left brain processing of the audio signals. What a cool industry!
 
In medicine that's called a differential diagnosis (list of things it could be).
==
IIRC both Kahneman and his fellow author Tversky are Jewish, so not really a slight. We have a lot more latitude to make self-deprecatory comments than make the same comments about others.
====
Back on topic, (warning I've shared this anecdote before) I discovered back in the 1980s while using a friend's recording studio to evaluate tweaks to a studio effect (Loft delay line flanger) I was designing. After a couple hours of tweaking everybody (but me) needed a cigarette break. I got a paper cup of lousy coffee machine coffee from the break area and chilled until people returned from their smoke break.

I was shocked to discover that that the tweak I was working on sounded dramatically different than it did just before the break. For years I have speculated about caffeine or sugar making some impact on my personal audition but my ultimate conclusion is that human audition can be unreliable. Like a VOM with 8 digits of resolution but only 3 digits of accuracy. Not the best allegory but all I got. 🤔 Over decades designing gear I have determined that I can measure nonlinearities or response errors far smaller than I can reliably perceive. That's life working with our meat computers.

JR
Love it 'meat computers' Similar to how ears can naturally compress loud irritating sounds like jackhammers; and in a few minutes can block them out.
 
Over the years I’ve worked in studios either recording or mixing, or installing and testing gear I’ve noticed the same thing with coffee, tea and alcohol - I think the blood pressure goes up which could alter the performance of the auditory system. Also “fatigued ears” is a common thing - after a break and they’ve settled down things sound different. Muscle fatigue? When doing long haul sessions we would never commit to a final mix until the next day following completion - making final tonal and level balance tweaks or reevaluation of recording takes with fresh ears.
Not only fresh ears but critical listening is best performed over time when possible. Human audition can be a little squishy.
===

What made me so crazy back several decades ago when I was flirting with the hifi business was how variable the magazine reviews were that I received for the exact same SKU (a RIAA phono preamp). I speculate that the reviewers were hearing errors introduced by their personal playback systems and listening room acoustics. The best (glowing) review I received was from one well known reviewer who no doubt had a high performance personal playback system. Upon reflection I can only speculate that my phono preamp was not the weak link but instead revealed flaws in their systems, but they were writing the reviews, so my preamp got blamed. :rolleyes:

JR
 
Going back to the original post, my own recent experience is that, we tried our EQ ONE with a line amp card that I designed with a friend in his home studio. He is also a member here and I hope he chimes in. I did the line amp deliberately very basic with bear minimum as far as the active circuitry is concerned. A single (old stock) 5534, input tx and output tx. We run drum tracks. When the line amp was switched in the difference was obvious. Particularly, I was sitting off-centre to his left and when he switched the line amp in the sound image shifted towards the centre. No question about that. One has to be deaf not to sense the change. However, I could have done a trick with that. If I started with the line amp switched in and then switched it out and said the line amp is in, then I bet one would go, wow, look how the sound image got wider. So, when it is claimed that the transformer (and/or discrete) sounds always better that's where I part company. If a piece of design sounds mediocre it will still sound mediocre with a transformer stuck to its input and/or output. Equally, if a piece of design sounds good it will not sound better with a transformer stuck to its input and/or output. It may sound different.
 
Last edited:
If a piece of design sounds mediocre it will still sound mediocre with a transformer stuck to its input and/or output. Equally, if a piece of design sounds good it will not sound better with a transformer stuck to its input and/or output. It may sound different.
I have to use a line amp as a makeup gain for one of my many compressors that don't have one. In order to get a fair comparison of what the compressor does to the original audio, I have to bypass the compressor and use the line amp first as a control because it changes the sound so much... It's actually subtle but not....
Wish I knew of a super clean line amp? 🤔
 

Latest posts

Back
Top