Distortion is something that can spoil the hearing experience, but not any kind of it. For example a non linear frequency response. Some horn or PA speaker like constructions can sound very impressive and enjoyable, even as there are huge dips (and not so much peaks) in the response curve.
I remember when in the 80ies Japanese amps with extreme low THD where the hot thing. Even as they measured like .0000x THD =perfect, some of them sounded just bad to my ears, with the same speakers and record players. Which even more annoyed me, people argued: "it can't be, the distortion is 1000 times lower than a human ear can detect."
At that time young people used to go to so called "discotheque's", some may remember this. I visited one of these places quite frequently. One night I asked the DJ what was wrong with the installation, as the sound was much worse than I was used to. He proudly told me he had installed a much better amp, a high power, state of the art Technics product and it was supposed to be much better sounding than the old amp.
I think they called it "New Class A" and it was brownish. Surprisingly a few nights later the Technics with the two large instruments had been replaced. What I learned: DJ's in most cases have no competence in judging sound quality. They just know loud and very loud. A friend of mine who worked as a DJ for many years, at age 30 was attested by a doctor to have the perfect hearing ability... of an 80 year old man.
On the other side if an virtually distortion free amp sounds bad, this doesn't mean amps with high distortion sound better. Amps have to be done right, how this is achieved doesn't really matter.
I have two amps that sound fantastic with some PA horn speakers, but disappoint with a typical two way. At some point I simply accept such differences. I'm no scientist in audio, measurements are tools for me, not the base of academic work. I leave that to the AES guy's.
Something that IMO is very sad, the number of people that are able to concentrated listening, for even a few minutes, has become very small. Today music has to be impressive, only if the walls are shaking and the tweeter pierces the ear drum, people are satisfied. Many are unable to even realize something like sound staging and have no idea how the volume of instruments relative to each other has to be. They just don't care. Music is consumed like fast food, through some wireless gear, feed from some data reduced source. Quality has become secondary.
I'm quite sure the market for real HIFI gear is not going to grow. Sad.
I remember when in the 80ies Japanese amps with extreme low THD where the hot thing. Even as they measured like .0000x THD =perfect, some of them sounded just bad to my ears, with the same speakers and record players. Which even more annoyed me, people argued: "it can't be, the distortion is 1000 times lower than a human ear can detect."
At that time young people used to go to so called "discotheque's", some may remember this. I visited one of these places quite frequently. One night I asked the DJ what was wrong with the installation, as the sound was much worse than I was used to. He proudly told me he had installed a much better amp, a high power, state of the art Technics product and it was supposed to be much better sounding than the old amp.
I think they called it "New Class A" and it was brownish. Surprisingly a few nights later the Technics with the two large instruments had been replaced. What I learned: DJ's in most cases have no competence in judging sound quality. They just know loud and very loud. A friend of mine who worked as a DJ for many years, at age 30 was attested by a doctor to have the perfect hearing ability... of an 80 year old man.
On the other side if an virtually distortion free amp sounds bad, this doesn't mean amps with high distortion sound better. Amps have to be done right, how this is achieved doesn't really matter.
I have two amps that sound fantastic with some PA horn speakers, but disappoint with a typical two way. At some point I simply accept such differences. I'm no scientist in audio, measurements are tools for me, not the base of academic work. I leave that to the AES guy's.
Something that IMO is very sad, the number of people that are able to concentrated listening, for even a few minutes, has become very small. Today music has to be impressive, only if the walls are shaking and the tweeter pierces the ear drum, people are satisfied. Many are unable to even realize something like sound staging and have no idea how the volume of instruments relative to each other has to be. They just don't care. Music is consumed like fast food, through some wireless gear, feed from some data reduced source. Quality has become secondary.
I'm quite sure the market for real HIFI gear is not going to grow. Sad.
I'll throw it out there: the supposedly perfect peep measured values correlate with a high level of circuit and component complexity. However, each component modulates the sound (hearing measurement value) with its resonances and current behavior. The result is a "bad-sounding" amplifier, because the ear detects these noises. And many components make a lot of noise;-)
The construction style-quantity argument, above, can also apply when comparing tubes and trannies.
Tube amplifiers are generally built from few parts, while trannies are usually built from many. It is not the measured value THD, high even-numbered, TMD or more or less damping, but the lower modulation due to fewer components. Unfortunately, common electrical training is only good for capacitance, inductance, ohms, a few formulas and numbers and lines to look at, but this does not correspond to - much much more complex - hearing perception, hearing experience, hearing measurement methods;-)
Tube amplifiers are generally built from few parts, while trannies are usually built from many. It is not the measured value THD, high even-numbered, TMD or more or less damping, but the lower modulation due to fewer components. Unfortunately, common electrical training is only good for capacitance, inductance, ohms, a few formulas and numbers and lines to look at, but this does not correspond to - much much more complex - hearing perception, hearing experience, hearing measurement methods;-)
(Also) to hear, to listen is a measuring process. This is not known.
It seems at best somewhat subjective, but it is also much much much more complex than looking-measurement;-)
The problem is that looking and hearing measurement methods are still not coordinated. And the assumption that "hi-fi" is the linear reproduction of a certain frequency spectrum - or even a little "absence of distortion" - is far from correct;-)
It seems at best somewhat subjective, but it is also much much much more complex than looking-measurement;-)
The problem is that looking and hearing measurement methods are still not coordinated. And the assumption that "hi-fi" is the linear reproduction of a certain frequency spectrum - or even a little "absence of distortion" - is far from correct;-)
What is the first thing I ask myself about an electronic audio circuit?
Statements such as "Technics" do not sound good!
I heard that countless times in the late 80s and early 90s.
Always from the ranks of mildly smiling guys with big wallets and Jaguars or Bentleys as their means of transportation.
Actually, it's praise if a device has no sound, but the statement should always have a negative connotation.
Other guys in love also like to say that electronic equipment should be interpreted as a musical instrument.
- Does it work /and above all how does it work, within what limits does it work?
- How does it sound (itself!)?
Statements such as "Technics" do not sound good!
I heard that countless times in the late 80s and early 90s.
Always from the ranks of mildly smiling guys with big wallets and Jaguars or Bentleys as their means of transportation.
Actually, it's praise if a device has no sound, but the statement should always have a negative connotation.
Other guys in love also like to say that electronic equipment should be interpreted as a musical instrument.
If you want to go deep and philosophical.
With everything, keep in mind that the very vast majority of recordings is artificial to begin with.
For example, more than often extra detail and clarity has been added, instruments have been doubled and effects being used in such a way, that you won't be able to hear this ever from either a acoustic instrument or live performance.
Not to mention the sound stage you will never be able to get.
Besides, we will never know what sound the producers and mixing guys had in mind, since they used very different room and equipment.
Probably also where in a different state of mind and emotion.
All that being said, I think there a couple of ways how to approach this.
Either make sure that you don't anything harmful to the sound.
Which opens another deep debate about audibility.
Without knowing the boundaries here, that can be still 100% subjective, since our ears don't have an unlimited resolution (dynamic range, noise, distortion etc etc) by absolute definition.
(Meaning it's an absolute fact)
Or you deliberately add flavor to the sound depending on your taste.
If we go back to the previous two points, I don't see why either direction is wrong.
It's just different.
Problem is that often people mix up the two approaches, which leads to confusion and miscommunication.
I only find the in between a little tricky, since it doesn't really satisfy both goals.
For loudspeakers I find this a lot more obvious than amplifiers.
These days amplifiers are so good, that adding something significantly harmful (meaning the biggest audio noob can easily hear it) is basically not existing anymore.
Meaning we're left with the question about audibility.
It seems that the majority of people don't want or like to spend time on investigating that question on an objective way.
So since it will be unanswered, it will end up in a never ending theoretical debate.
With everything, keep in mind that the very vast majority of recordings is artificial to begin with.
For example, more than often extra detail and clarity has been added, instruments have been doubled and effects being used in such a way, that you won't be able to hear this ever from either a acoustic instrument or live performance.
Not to mention the sound stage you will never be able to get.
Besides, we will never know what sound the producers and mixing guys had in mind, since they used very different room and equipment.
Probably also where in a different state of mind and emotion.
All that being said, I think there a couple of ways how to approach this.
Either make sure that you don't anything harmful to the sound.
Which opens another deep debate about audibility.
Without knowing the boundaries here, that can be still 100% subjective, since our ears don't have an unlimited resolution (dynamic range, noise, distortion etc etc) by absolute definition.
(Meaning it's an absolute fact)
Or you deliberately add flavor to the sound depending on your taste.
If we go back to the previous two points, I don't see why either direction is wrong.
It's just different.
Problem is that often people mix up the two approaches, which leads to confusion and miscommunication.
I only find the in between a little tricky, since it doesn't really satisfy both goals.
For loudspeakers I find this a lot more obvious than amplifiers.
These days amplifiers are so good, that adding something significantly harmful (meaning the biggest audio noob can easily hear it) is basically not existing anymore.
Meaning we're left with the question about audibility.
It seems that the majority of people don't want or like to spend time on investigating that question on an objective way.
So since it will be unanswered, it will end up in a never ending theoretical debate.
This is certainly not clear to everyone, but it doesn't have to be.
However, this fact is by no means new or even unknown; in addition to being called a "measurement process", it is rather an evaluating (i.e. also assessing) thing in our brain.
That's why the headline reads FAITH QUESTIONS.
And we all know (all too well) that unfortunately you can't prove the non-existence of something.
Unfortunately, faith or even a religion are not helpful in this field, but emperie is - also, just physics and mathematics.
So it is not a question of like or dislike,
but rather a willingness to accept and recognize a fact.
greetings,
HBt.
Last edited:
Yes, but the boundary of audibility is something that definitely can be proven.
Most certainly on a more general level and with that a certain margin of error for those with special ears as well.
But it's true, if people are not willing to accept facts, the world will still be as flat as a disc.
My power amp suggestion - for home hi-fi:
A simple SE with a TO-126 transistor on a simple load resistor, TO-126 case. Nothing more. Things like CS and CCS and all that fail sonically because of the transistors. The sound of the best resistors is cleaner and clearer than that of the best transistors.
ONE psu for ALL! ALL! Connect low-voltage devices to it - with a regulator.
Of course, don't use fat multi-way rumble-bumble-loudspeakers - experience is also necessary with loudspeakers;-) Sources and placement and all that as well;-)
Similarly simple with tubes;-)
Most fat digital amplifiers, for example, do not pay attention to ground routing, i.e. current. After reworking them - if it's worth the effort at all - they no longer sound so cloudy and wispy, more sorted, clearer and more genuine.
I don't want to comment on highly sophisticated analog push-pull amplifiers. It should be clear that even lawnmowers and elevators sound terrible with them;-)
There is not such a thing as digital amplifiers.
You can't amplify a true or false to a bigger true or false statement.
So a single BJT in emitter or collector circuit - 2 to 4 watts maximum.
Have I understood you correctly so far?
As a single-ended circuit without an active current source (without VAS ?!), so we need two additional resistors and two coupling capacitors ..!
Do you know Arto Kolinummi's masterpiece, the zero-feedback-amplifier? Don't even start counting the selected and paired components. Two times five components are enough for you.
That's very interesting -
which BJT do you prefer and recommend to us?
That's right!
We differentiate here between the modulation types, PWM, the delta and the delta-sigma, DM & DPCM ...
The term digital amplifier is misleading.