The terms used must be clearly defined and, above all, physically (and mathematically, technically) correct.
In Germany,
the public discussion regularly makes my feel: As if I were in the wrong movie.
I would like to take a final look at the radio station, which only broadcasts once a week.
The senior program director and presenter in one go, asked:
"why, why, why ..." and simply put a question mark after every component (of the basic circuit, that I call Eisenport "der Alber").
And I answer:
why not, or because I want it that way, or even because the hidden objection here has no relevance whatsoever.
I'm looking forward to next Saturday and the program.
#
Thank you to all the voices in this thread. You give me back confidence, take away the disappointment.
kindly,
HBt.
The senior program director and presenter in one go, asked:
"why, why, why ..." and simply put a question mark after every component (of the basic circuit, that I call Eisenport "der Alber").
And I answer:
why not, or because I want it that way, or even because the hidden objection here has no relevance whatsoever.
I'm looking forward to next Saturday and the program.
#
Thank you to all the voices in this thread. You give me back confidence, take away the disappointment.
kindly,
HBt.
That seems a philosophical dodge, for what is a physical system. Digital amplifiers are not properly described as true of false behaving, they are either on, or off is a much more applicable description. While the off part, for all pratical purposes, of the same physical definition. The on part is physically scalable, between the off state, and the digital amplifier’s upper power limit.
I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Regarding whether there is such thing as a digital amplifier, I didn’t directly address that. What I did was to point out that true-false are logical, philosophical constructs, and as such, are not clearly applicable to a physical system, such as an amplifier. The terms, switched-on, or switched-off allows the switched-on state to be scaled to any magnitude. Also, in a true-false philosophical context, there is no transition state between those two. It’s either one, or it’s the other. In a physical system, however, a logically invalid, yet physically real transition state must exist. The one thing which both contexts have in common is that they are discretely binary in functional interpretation, and so, are both digital in that sense.
Last edited:
I'm currently preparing the drawing for publication here - the circuit is simulated only, never build (to say: completed actually, postponed due to personal matters), nor tested in reality. My goal was to build this intertwined balanced bridge Hiraga in a defunct (main amp and destroyed power supply) Sony TA-N86B chassis, the power rails with halogen transformers (dual channel separated 2x12V/4.5A~), plenty caps and all obvious design conderations set overboard. No protection, zobel, filtering or what. Just a switch to put it on and off. As straight & simple as possible.
About the two perspectives: analytical versus ambiance.
Suppose we're talking museums here. We can go to the museum of science, and learn how we as humans has achieved the understanding of the working of the universe in all its facets. We have deduced, measured, prooven all facts, and we wonder about this marvel. We also can visit the museum of arts, were we gaze at statues, pictures, listen to speeches, singing and instruments to explore and express the human feelings, as a mean to communicate beyond unmeasurable words and thoughts, and we wonder about this marvel. Which museum is the representation of the reality? None? Both?
Superposition is a very usefull tool during the visit of both museums. What set of observations and experiences do we use during our visits? Are we thrilled by the clinical facts of relativity and quatum mechanics? Are we going to perform a spectral analysis of the Mona Lisa? We can do such things, but our natural gift of superposition is right to choose the lens for the proper environment. Neither is right or wrong, but accepting another view then one's own perpective seems difficult. So, does a very precise operation amplifier perform better then a 'swinging' device?
To take a position (to polarise me as a person), I've a better preference towards the less precise instruments, as these seem to recreate their own ambiance, alike the reality in this or that concert hall. Yet, my pre amplifier (the TA-E86B) is like a swiss clockwork, and performs very well at home, too. Thus, I'm more inclined towards the arts.
Please do this as soon as possible, a pencil drawing would be enough for me personally.
With regard to living according to the rules of one's own religion! Is this what you mean?
If you are only talking about preferences that don't bother or affect anyone else, then I don't see any problem of acceptance here. At most, I can identify insecurity or a pathological problem, often expressed in the compensatory measure of making something else look bad.
Another rhetorical question, very manipulative, because after the preface one is inclined to agree blindly (depending on preference and level of education). Quite inductive - and yet very easy to answer, namely technically - and that's simply not where the connoted term "perform better" belongs in the context of "swinging".
So clearly a yes. The (ideal) operational amplifier is better.
But you can't connect a transducer/actual loudspeaker to it, so you won't be able to make an audible comparison with the hypothetical "swinging power amplifier".
An apples and oranges comparison is always a bit problematic.
I also like what we commonly call art, but I can differentiate very well.
#
The standards we apply to others and other things must also apply to ourselves.
Bye,
HBt.
In the narrow sense or in the broad sense? - the turmoil revolves around the eternal question of what we perceive and describe as beautiful.
I like to describe an elegant solution to a technical problem, or a technical task to be solved, as beautiful.
I assume that the plenum will agree with this.
Deliberately confusing taste and preferences with frequently recurring solutions could be described as unacceptable.
I like to describe an elegant solution to a technical problem, or a technical task to be solved, as beautiful.
I assume that the plenum will agree with this.
Deliberately confusing taste and preferences with frequently recurring solutions could be described as unacceptable.
Aside: Einstein did not allow one of the two observers created by motion to observe: he disregarded the symmetry of relativity;-) He also claimed that a distorted image corresponds to the physical reality of the depicted. The RTs are nonsense, and also not scientifically proven. How so;-)
Quantum physics is also Einstein nonsense: he did not understand concepts: he turned quantum (quantity, amount) into quanta (particles, objects). The majority does not understand concepts - for example, they let themselves be persuaded that its are physically bendable;-)
Do you belong to the ever-growing German movement of regulars' table conspiracy theorists?
By the way:
The accumulation of winking smileys does not contribute to a better readability of texts.
Would you like to name the missing components of the good sound? As concretely and actually as we babble in New German.
Regards,
HBt.
By the way:
The accumulation of winking smileys does not contribute to a better readability of texts.
Would you like to name the missing components of the good sound? As concretely and actually as we babble in New German.
Regards,
HBt.
That is no argument;-) So no discussion, science, but conspiracy;-)
Maybe, the missing components are the good sound;-)
Components sound as different as beers or wines taste different. I wouldn't miss the opportunity to saddle the horse from the front: a simplest circuit and then choose components by listening;-)
A mishmash of components is just a mishmash of sound. A fat Hiraga Classe A, for example, sounds like a thick brush with a few thick strokes of oil paint. It also sounds cool, you can have it standing for this purpose, e.g. to party - and for contrasting and comparing;-)
I did not have to emphasize anything argumentatively, it is not an argument, but a question. And this question seems to have been answered indirectly.
You squirm and try to avoid giving a clear answer. We can only speculate about the background to this.
Unfortunately,
everyone has to accept that.
I have no more questions and politely apologize.
HBt.
Diving into this a bit deeper, a ‘Digital Amplifier’ is digital, or is not digital in the same sense as is a 1-bit DAC. They both are either Pulse-Density Modulation (PDM), or Pulse-Width-Modulation (PWM) in operation. Both techniques also proportionally modulate a binary switched signal in amplitude. In other words, they change between those fixed binary amplitudes in proportionally varying time instants. Their on/off switching instant is proportional to the analog signal amplitude they are converting. To my mind, proportional equals analog. In that sense, 1-bit DACs and Digital Amplifiers are not fully digital, but inherently are a hybrid.
The fundamental advantage of digital information coding is its high resistance to noise being added to information being moved from one point to another. Pulse-Code-Modulation (PCM), for example, is fully digital. By which, I mean that, it does not exhibit any proportionality to the analog signal’s amplitude. The unfiltered analog signal output of a 1-bit DAC, or a Digital Amplifier, however, while discretely binary in amplitude, is also proportional to the signal in its switching instant behavior. That binary amplitude switched output signal is then sent to a low-pass analog filter stage to suppress the large degree of out-of-band noise present, and so, recover the desired analog signal hidden within it.
.
The fundamental advantage of digital information coding is its high resistance to noise being added to information being moved from one point to another. Pulse-Code-Modulation (PCM), for example, is fully digital. By which, I mean that, it does not exhibit any proportionality to the analog signal’s amplitude. The unfiltered analog signal output of a 1-bit DAC, or a Digital Amplifier, however, while discretely binary in amplitude, is also proportional to the signal in its switching instant behavior. That binary amplitude switched output signal is then sent to a low-pass analog filter stage to suppress the large degree of out-of-band noise present, and so, recover the desired analog signal hidden within it.
.
A well designed circuit should not be dependent of external correction mechanisms, being pots or otherwise.
I prefer to listen to music, not to adjust settings into eternaty.
