Topic: Stock FR2LE vs. Busman T-Mod FR2LE true side by side comparison

[illconditioned]

I should mention that the noise floor on the (stock) FR2-LE is very good.  I saw a Nature recording article/blog that recommended it.  This differs from other gear, like the Edirol UA5, and *maybe* the original R4, that had a higher noise floor.

Sensible thoughts aside, I modded my FR2-LE myself the day I got it.  I used the new National Semi LM4562 audio opamp.  This seems to have great specs and got a lot of press.  I just bought the opamps (SOIC size) and replaced four chips.  No cap or other changes at all...

  Richard

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I observed those same issues when testing a stock ua5, as well as other gear.  The results make it clear that a lot of gear probably shouldn't be run above certain levels (unless you want the distortion).

However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

"IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real." - so can you measure the difference between a v3 and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  Can you measure the difference between an AERCO and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  How many hours would it take to develop and refine the test methodolgy and how much would it add to the cost of a mod?

[willndmb]

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I observed those same issues when testing a stock ua5, as well as other gear.  The results make it clear that a lot of gear probably shouldn't be run above certain levels (unless you want the distortion).

However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

"IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real." - so can you measure the difference between a v3 and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  Can you measure the difference between an AERCO and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  How many hours would it take to develop and refine the test methodolgy and how much would it add to the cost of a mod?

exactly what i was thinking a mod is only as good as your ears
to me there have been 2 fr2le comps done and although i can hear small differences the 175 i don't think is worth it to my ears
someone else might think otherwise or even hear otherwise

[page]

Listening to just the "silence" on both tracks, I can't hear any differences at normal playback level, but when I really crank them I can hear (and see on the spectral analysis) a definite difference

Thats what I got out of the various comps done as well. I could tell a difference if I recorded silence and run the gain/trim at full blast and then amped the resulting file another 20db or so, but besides that it's *really* tough for me to tell a difference for amplified material. Not impossible, but tough.

[Church-Audio]

I've found obvious distortion by putting in a 1kHz tone, recording it, and seeing the distortion.  For example, I saw obvious distortion on an Edirol UA5 when I drove it anywhere above -6dB.  The distortion appeared as harmonics (not sure even or odd, but obviously there).  This was not the result of a mod (it happened on both stock and modified units), but *I believe* some defect of the design.  I never did find the cause.

I observed those same issues when testing a stock ua5, as well as other gear.  The results make it clear that a lot of gear probably shouldn't be run above certain levels (unless you want the distortion).

However not all measured differences are audible, so the bar has not been raised all that high. At least show us a measurable difference that correlates with the claimed quality improved. Noise is the easiest one as noted above. Some of the other properties should show up as slew-rate or ringing differences or something. IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real.

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

"IMO, if it can't be measured, it's not real." - so can you measure the difference between a v3 and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  Can you measure the difference between an AERCO and psp2 and tell me which sounds better?  How many hours would it take to develop and refine the test methodolgy and how much would it add to the cost of a mod?

I wish I could sell stuff with out testing... but I cant... I think with today's software its pretty easy to test things and get accurate results besides I am sure if you were in the "mod" business you would want the extra advertising that good test results would provide and btw there is no labour involved in testing gear simply hooking it up to a audio interface and hitting go on the software pretty easy. I am not saying tests are everything but NOISE AND DISTORTION are minimums I would want to see on any mod. That wont tell you what necessarily sounds better but it will tell you a lot about the mods being done and if they are detrimental to the specs of the device being moded. There are always two sides to the story.. I feel if your going to charge for mods why not have this data available some of us actually do read the spec sheets... I dont let that be the last thing that makes my mind up but It does go along way towards convincing me to buy or not buy a piece of gear.
As for graphs most of us cant understand anyway? I would strongly disagree there are LOTS of us that understand graphs and specs.


I am not going to name names... But here is a preamp made by a VERY well known company the graph in Blue is my preamp the graph in purple is the "well known" preamp what one would you rather own? Don't get me wrong I am not trying to sell preamps.. But sometimes graphs can be a good thing.
Chris

[rowjimmytour]

Graphs don't tell you how something sounds to your ears.  I hear differences in these files and that is a good thing since I do the mods.



Why don't you quit telling others what to do Chris.  You have done enough to ruin my business already with your constant comments whenever tests come up of my gear.

If I made graphs then you would say I doctored them somehow so just quit it just like you did when I made some critical sound sample tests with the R4 mods a long time ago.

Hell busman my ears tell me that after you did the mod on my ole' UA5 it sounded a hell of a lot better and the test you did on the R4 convinced me to buy a R4 w/ mod. Thanks for all you and for my $$ I will stick w/ the mod gear.
Peace

[SparkE!]

The time and labor involved in testing, as well as the cost of the test gear, makes that impractical.  People pay $175 now... would they really rather pay $300 but get graphs that most can't understand anyway?

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

[Church-Audio]

Graphs don't tell you how something sounds to your ears.  I hear differences in these files and that is a good thing since I do the mods.



Why don't you quit telling others what to do Chris.  You have done enough to ruin my business already with your constant comments whenever tests come up of my gear.

If I made graphs then you would say I doctored them somehow so just quit it just like you did when I made some critical sound sample tests with the R4 mods a long time ago.

The last thing I am trying to do is "ruin" your business. I actually send alot of customers YOUR WAY... I do think however for any mods tests should be done.. If not how do you know what effect the changes you make actually have? Also to my knowledge this is the first time I have ever said anything about any of your products and actually I was commenting in general about mods not specifically your mods but any one that does mods should have performed some kind of electrical tests I also mentioned the fact that I liked the way this test was performed that was not at all meant as a slam against you........ I am not out to hurt your business obviously alot of people like your mods... Do some tests show how they are better

S/N, Distortion ect... you will sell even more mods then you do now... Anyway I wish you nothing but good luck with your business. I am not in the mod business and dont have plans on ever going into it. If I did I would however have graphs and provide sample files. But that's just my opinion. I am sorry you feel like I am ruining your business.


As for the comments I have made about your gear in the past PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post examples of me saying anything negative about your gear... you wont find any.

I also think its great that you provide this service to the community because its not something that is easy to do mods in general * good mods * require alot of research and the willingness to ( possibly ) screw something up in the name of making it better during the experimental stage. Anyway I am sorry you were so offended by my comments but I still stand by every word.

Chris

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

[Church-Audio]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

We are not trying to compair apples to oranges. We are comparing post mod to premod. Surly there would be some differences that could be measured. I hope that manufactures of the gear you use dont stop testing it. Because that would be a sad day in deed. Testing is how we determine if our designs actually work then when they are tested we then send them off to people like you to listen to and be the final judge. I personally dont build and design any product with out first testing it and then listen to it. If it fails any one of these two steps it never goes on to be a product. If we are talking about electronics you can certainly measure things and see if improvements were made to a circuits design.. That is a fact not fiction and if you have the before and after to compair it to you would be surprised what can be learned from tests. I do agree that your EARS are the final test for any gear but I still think tests do have a place in audio they always have and always will. My passion about audio is showing in this thread I meant no disrespect to Chris or to anyone that does mods. I simply and personally dont believe one should do mods with out performing some kind of electrical tests on the end results in addition to critical listening tests.


I once worked for a speaker company.... in the lab performing tests on the speakers they sold.... One day we dropped the measurement mic in the snow (we would measure the speakers outside on a pole) it was wet and obviously damaged.. I asked my fellow worker what should we do he said " this was not the first time this has happened" Obviously testing for this company was not a priority. Now that I am not longer with them they have finally spent $100,000 on a chamber and real test gear.

My point is this when you make a living changing someones circuit design you ought to have more then your "word" that things have been improved you should also have facts and specs to back it up and objective listening tests.
That only helps you sell more product.
Chris

[SparkE!]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You're not serious are you?  Do you really think that engineers should redesign stuff without using any test equipment to quantify and verify the improvements that they are trying to achieve? As long as you are doing the tests (as any responsible audio engineer will do), it takes very little effort to document the results of those tests.  It will save you money in the long run and it gives you a way to quantitatively show the improvements you've made.

Again, this is a marketing issue.  It's just one more way to show your customer that your product is worth the money you charge.  5 minutes of bench time to do a test will pay for itself over and over and over again.  Like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.  Do the test once.  Publish the picture a 1000 times.  You'll sell more units as a result.

[digifish_music]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You are going off on a tangent. My original challenge had nothing to do with what sounded better or indeed that it was audible at all...just that it was measurable.

The cost and time involved in making frequency response graphs, noise/distortion measures OR simply recording Sine, square and saw wave signals from an oscilloscope are negligible AND will clearly show the effects of a mod, if they exist.

digifish

[digifish_music]

We are not trying to compair apples to oranges. We are comparing post mod to premod. Surly there would be some differences that could be measured. ...
That only helps you sell more product.
Chris

Well said that man, +T (in spirit)

[digifish_music]

We are not trying to compair apples to oranges. We are comparing post mod to premod. Surly there would be some differences that could be measured. ...
That only helps you sell more product.
Chris

Well said that man, +T (in spirit)

Actually, while on this subject I seem to remember Mr 5 Fish Studios was poking around his mic preamp with an oscilloscope measuring the fidelity of the waveforms it reproduced & other objective measures...









etc...

none of that required any extraordinary effort for a circuit designer/modifier, it's all just part of the process.

digifish

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The idea isn't to test every unit and include a printout with the unit.  The idea is to test one unit before and after the mod.  The cost of the test is amortized across all of the sales.  This is the idea behind spec sheets.  You test one (or a small sample) and publish the results as being representative of the product you're selling.  This is basic marketing.  It would help sell units.

Sure but time is money and the cost of test time adds up fast.

I challenge anyone to quantify the difference between a v3 and a psp2.  And simple metrics like s/n or frequency response will not explain why one sounds 'better' (which is what really matters).  If these tests are so easy to do, someone please show us.

You're not serious are you?  Do you really think that engineers should redesign stuff without using any test equipment to quantify and verify the improvements that they are trying to achieve? As long as you are doing the tests (as any responsible audio engineer will do), it takes very little effort to document the results of those tests.  It will save you money in the long run and it gives you a way to quantitatively show the improvements you've made.

Again, this is a marketing issue.  It's just one more way to show your customer that your product is worth the money you charge.  5 minutes of bench time to do a test will pay for itself over and over and over again.  Like they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.  Do the test once.  Publish the picture a 1000 times.  You'll sell more units as a result.

It sure is a marketing issue.. Specs and graphs have been used for years to dupe folks into making bad purchases.  If graphs and specs could tell us what sounds best, we could be a lot more objective and save a lot of time.

There are a lot of amplifiers with great specs that sound lousy.  Same for speakers.  Folks in the hifi world have laughed about that for many *decades*.  I'll bet we could fill a 25 page thread with stories of gear with great specs but lousy sound.

I'd venture the same can be said of pre-amps.  Just because it has great specs or a pretty graph doesn't mean it sounds better than an m148, psp2 or v3.  Or how about microphones?  There sure are a lot of them with great specs.  Maybe I should sell my MGs, Schoeps and DPAs and replace them all with a cheap multi-pattern from my local guitar center?  The specs sure look great.

In comp tests comparing the v3 a/d to v3 > r09, the r09 was very often preferred.  What tests, SPECIFICALLY, would quantify why that is the case?

If you figure out how to do a test that shows why an m148, v3 or psp2 sounds so good, we're all ears.  But until then, it just seems like random venting about testing.   Don't insist this can be easily meaningfully tested when you cannot tell us how.  Simplistic graphs of frequency response or noise floor are of limited interest when considering the big picture of 'what sounds best'.

Tests for the sake of tests mean nothing.