Most systems are capacitive coupled when dealing with AC signals. The capacitors in a properly designed system do not add distortion that is anywhere even close to being audible. Thank goodness for that!
Leakage (or soakage) is an entirely different deal that doesn't apply to audio reproduction at the levels referenced. Focus people!
Leakage (or soakage) is an entirely different deal that doesn't apply to audio reproduction at the levels referenced. Focus people!
Doesn't seem as much like a lack of focus as it seems like a matter of polite disagreement. IME DA can in some cases cause produce a small yet audible linear distortion effect.
No, it is a willingness to drag in as much information to cloud the issue as possible.
This stuff has been proved beyond any doubt to professionals in the field. Engineers in industry who create equipment operating well beyond the limits of audio in accuracy and frequency. Still, we have those who hold onto a religion type view that cannot be supported. The basis of claims is often ... "well, we don't know everything", which is true in the grand scope of life. But audio - we know ... cold.
The main issues seem to stem from those who do not have the training, and cannot afford the equipment required to actually see what is going on. They want to remain part of the conversation, which is cool. However claiming things might be true that are not is not helpful one tiny bit. Then we have those who hope to gain market share in the confusion - so they encourage the nonsense. This is an ugly thought, but I am afraid it is reality. Greed and a desire "to be someone", or have a name.
By the way, bring in psychology is a total muddy attempt. It is simple as this. Recreate the same sound pressure at the ear as the original sound, and you have the ultimate in fidelity. Period. This does not involve the human brain one tiny bit. We may hear things differently, but that cancels out if the same sound pressures are presented to the same ear. In other words, we may perceive a sound differently between people, but if we can reproduce that same sound you will hear it the same. What goes on between your ears is another story.
Now if you want to bring that in, there is only one way to "hear" the same thing you heard earlier. That is to reproduce all the events leading up the the original experience so you are in the exact same condition physically and mentally. If you want to go down that rabbit hole - you will never experience the sound you heard again - ever, never. So give up, stop talking and go home if you want to bring that into the conversation.
This stuff has been proved beyond any doubt to professionals in the field. Engineers in industry who create equipment operating well beyond the limits of audio in accuracy and frequency. Still, we have those who hold onto a religion type view that cannot be supported. The basis of claims is often ... "well, we don't know everything", which is true in the grand scope of life. But audio - we know ... cold.
The main issues seem to stem from those who do not have the training, and cannot afford the equipment required to actually see what is going on. They want to remain part of the conversation, which is cool. However claiming things might be true that are not is not helpful one tiny bit. Then we have those who hope to gain market share in the confusion - so they encourage the nonsense. This is an ugly thought, but I am afraid it is reality. Greed and a desire "to be someone", or have a name.
By the way, bring in psychology is a total muddy attempt. It is simple as this. Recreate the same sound pressure at the ear as the original sound, and you have the ultimate in fidelity. Period. This does not involve the human brain one tiny bit. We may hear things differently, but that cancels out if the same sound pressures are presented to the same ear. In other words, we may perceive a sound differently between people, but if we can reproduce that same sound you will hear it the same. What goes on between your ears is another story.
Now if you want to bring that in, there is only one way to "hear" the same thing you heard earlier. That is to reproduce all the events leading up the the original experience so you are in the exact same condition physically and mentally. If you want to go down that rabbit hole - you will never experience the sound you heard again - ever, never. So give up, stop talking and go home if you want to bring that into the conversation.
I was a professional in the audio field years ago.
Have also done this with particle accelerators, medical devices, scientific instruments, etc. However, I also learned how to hear along the way. Among other things, I sorted audio opamps in order of distortion by ear double blind. So, I wish to respectfully disagree. That's all.
I will leave the last word to you.
There is a difference between being a professional in the audio field, and an electronics professional in the same field having equipment capable of identifying what you are hearing and quantifying it.
Knowledge is key, coupled with experience. I forget your details, but I am experienced from the creation of music, the recording studio and reproduction chain entirely. Also live sound.
We both listen, and hear. But instrumentation gives me (and many others) a guide and explanation as to why things are the way they are - for the good, bad and just plain ugly. I have never done anything other than report on the truth of the matter having verified what more experienced engineers have pointed out to me. I sit near their shoulders, not stand on them. I don't sell equipment or advertise my services, so I have no commercial iron in this fire. I don't even have my name as an ID, so it isn't a reputation I'm after either.
Knowledge is key, coupled with experience. I forget your details, but I am experienced from the creation of music, the recording studio and reproduction chain entirely. Also live sound.
We both listen, and hear. But instrumentation gives me (and many others) a guide and explanation as to why things are the way they are - for the good, bad and just plain ugly. I have never done anything other than report on the truth of the matter having verified what more experienced engineers have pointed out to me. I sit near their shoulders, not stand on them. I don't sell equipment or advertise my services, so I have no commercial iron in this fire. I don't even have my name as an ID, so it isn't a reputation I'm after either.
Your reasoning is one asserting yourself a divinity.
Arguments are the result of data upon which arguments are formed. In this case the data is of auditory sensory form. The reality of sensory data to anyone is not conditional upon that individuals ability to prove, argue, or consider arguing, to you or to themselves what they have already perceived as reality, to be otherwise true or false.
What are you suggesting? That all sensory data that others take in as real (being irrelevant of argument) isn't necessarily real unless it complies with some average of the common mans reality, your reality perhaps. Are you a divinity to see the true reality when you rely on your sensory data to establish your perception of reality. What makes your reality so special?
Why do you care so much to modify someone elses reality, delusional or otherwise, into yours? Why involve yourself in the free spirited discussion with those who might be delusional? What is the nature of your offence? Who are you saving? Why speak?
Hi Hierfi,
Sorry, I've been in this industry for nearly 50 years professionally. Talked extensively to designers, design and am involved in test and measurement as well. I've studied components since the 1970's. All aspects of audio has been my life. This is not a grey area anymore like it was when I started.
So, I'm only passing on hard-won knowledge. If that conflicts with wishful thinking - oh well. Tough. You'll find what I have been saying agrees completely with anyone with similar experience and knowledge to my own.
So it's up to you. You can ignore me completely, I do not care. What I do care about is the average person wasting money due to false information on the internet where everyone an expert in hear-say. Why? Because these folks who are untrained destroy equipment and rob the average person of their sound equipment. They cause financial hardship and deny people from enjoying audio. I am sick to death of cleaning up after people who think they know.
My world is real simple. Do things correctly and performance and reliability is enhanced. Do it wrong and guess what? We get smoke and/or degraded performance. I have invested in the equipment and training to get things right- and I prove it every time I service equipment. I document what I do exactly the same as calibrating test equipment as is my training.
In the test and measurement, and telecommunications industries, you cannot do things incorrectly. It isn't (or wasn't) tolerated at all. Black and white. Those are also industries I am certified in.
Got a problem with what I'm saying? Fine, go get the experience, training and invest in the equipment you need. Then come talk to me.
Sorry, I've been in this industry for nearly 50 years professionally. Talked extensively to designers, design and am involved in test and measurement as well. I've studied components since the 1970's. All aspects of audio has been my life. This is not a grey area anymore like it was when I started.
So, I'm only passing on hard-won knowledge. If that conflicts with wishful thinking - oh well. Tough. You'll find what I have been saying agrees completely with anyone with similar experience and knowledge to my own.
So it's up to you. You can ignore me completely, I do not care. What I do care about is the average person wasting money due to false information on the internet where everyone an expert in hear-say. Why? Because these folks who are untrained destroy equipment and rob the average person of their sound equipment. They cause financial hardship and deny people from enjoying audio. I am sick to death of cleaning up after people who think they know.
My world is real simple. Do things correctly and performance and reliability is enhanced. Do it wrong and guess what? We get smoke and/or degraded performance. I have invested in the equipment and training to get things right- and I prove it every time I service equipment. I document what I do exactly the same as calibrating test equipment as is my training.
In the test and measurement, and telecommunications industries, you cannot do things incorrectly. It isn't (or wasn't) tolerated at all. Black and white. Those are also industries I am certified in.
Got a problem with what I'm saying? Fine, go get the experience, training and invest in the equipment you need. Then come talk to me.
I'm still interested in the reference for that, by the way.
In my subjective experience higher second order harmonic distortion ends up masking fine detail, likely because of the IMD products that comes "for free" with it.
Tom
I'm interested in a real divinity not of the pretentious kind you project. Try lasting another 100 years then you might learn something...
Hi Tom,
Look for minal distortion of any kind.
In real terms, a good quality capacitor, proper type and size will not add distortion. Certainly not that you can hear.
Hi Hierfi,
Whatever. I'm just telling you facts. Period. Go check your horoscope.
Look for minal distortion of any kind.
In real terms, a good quality capacitor, proper type and size will not add distortion. Certainly not that you can hear.
Hi Hierfi,
Whatever. I'm just telling you facts. Period. Go check your horoscope.
Tom,
I'm looking for that stuff. In the meantime this quote from Geddes may be of some interest:
This is precisely where the signal-based distortion metrics fail. In our next paper we will show that .01% THD of one type of nonlinear system can be perceived as unacceptable while 10% THD in another example is perceived as inaudible. Even one of these simple examples is sufficient to invalidate THD as a viable metric for discussion of the perception of distortion. Furthermore, 1% THD is not at all the same as 1% IM, but we will show that neither correlates with subjective perception.
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
Also, something from Tung-Sol:
The harmonic content of an overdriven tube amplifier consists primarily of 2nd order and 3rd order harmonics with some 4th order harmonics. The harmonic content of an overdriven transistor amplifier is primarily 3rd order with suppressed 2nd order harmonics. 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are the most important from a viewpoint of electronic distortion. Musically the 2nd harmonic is an octave above the fundamental and is almost inaudible, yet it adds body to the sound, making it fuller. The 3rd harmonic is a musical 12th. Instead of making the tone fuller, a strong 3rd harmonic makes the tone softer. The odd harmonics (3rd, 5th, etc.) produce a "stopped" or "covered" sound. The even harmonics (2nd, 4th, etc.) produce a "choral" or "singing" sound. Adding a 5th to a strong 3rd harmonic give the sound a metallic quality that gets annoying in character as the amplitude increases. A strong 2nd with a strong 3rd harmonic tends to open the "covered" effect. Adding the 4th and 5th harmonics to this gives an "open horn" character. The higher harmonics, above the 7th, give the tone "edge" or "bite."
https://www.tungsol.com/html/faqs14...rd order harmonics,harmonic is a musical 12th.
Still trying to dig up the source of this stuff.
I'm looking for that stuff. In the meantime this quote from Geddes may be of some interest:
This is precisely where the signal-based distortion metrics fail. In our next paper we will show that .01% THD of one type of nonlinear system can be perceived as unacceptable while 10% THD in another example is perceived as inaudible. Even one of these simple examples is sufficient to invalidate THD as a viable metric for discussion of the perception of distortion. Furthermore, 1% THD is not at all the same as 1% IM, but we will show that neither correlates with subjective perception.
http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
Also, something from Tung-Sol:
The harmonic content of an overdriven tube amplifier consists primarily of 2nd order and 3rd order harmonics with some 4th order harmonics. The harmonic content of an overdriven transistor amplifier is primarily 3rd order with suppressed 2nd order harmonics. 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are the most important from a viewpoint of electronic distortion. Musically the 2nd harmonic is an octave above the fundamental and is almost inaudible, yet it adds body to the sound, making it fuller. The 3rd harmonic is a musical 12th. Instead of making the tone fuller, a strong 3rd harmonic makes the tone softer. The odd harmonics (3rd, 5th, etc.) produce a "stopped" or "covered" sound. The even harmonics (2nd, 4th, etc.) produce a "choral" or "singing" sound. Adding a 5th to a strong 3rd harmonic give the sound a metallic quality that gets annoying in character as the amplitude increases. A strong 2nd with a strong 3rd harmonic tends to open the "covered" effect. Adding the 4th and 5th harmonics to this gives an "open horn" character. The higher harmonics, above the 7th, give the tone "edge" or "bite."
https://www.tungsol.com/html/faqs14...rd order harmonics,harmonic is a musical 12th.
Still trying to dig up the source of this stuff.
That's a fine theory but unfortunately it is not backed by an experiment so we don't know if stands up to any sort of scientific testing.
Geddes will obviously rather sell you on his Gm metric even though his own experiments show a moderate effect size for subjective ratings of sound quality versus THD.
Tom
Geddes will obviously rather sell you on his Gm metric even though his own experiments show a moderate effect size for subjective ratings of sound quality versus THD.
Tom
Tom,
Cheever reviews some of psychoacoustic masking starting at around page 43 of the pdf at: file:///C:/Users/MWa/Desktop/Laptop%2012-31-23/!%20!!from%20D%20Drive/BACKUP%20DESKTOP%20ITEMS/!%20!%20!%20Desktop%20backup%20for%20WIndows%20UPDATE%20!%20%20!%20!/Electronics%20%20&%20Engineering/AUDIO%20FREQUENCY%20POWER%20AMPLIFIER%20TESTING%20BASED%20ON%20PSYCHOACOUSTIC%20DATA.pdf
One quote:
...note the minor reduction in the aurally benign 2nd harmonic versus the rise of the more disconsonant harmonics...
(from page 58)
Cheever reviews some of psychoacoustic masking starting at around page 43 of the pdf at: file:///C:/Users/MWa/Desktop/Laptop%2012-31-23/!%20!!from%20D%20Drive/BACKUP%20DESKTOP%20ITEMS/!%20!%20!%20Desktop%20backup%20for%20WIndows%20UPDATE%20!%20%20!%20!/Electronics%20%20&%20Engineering/AUDIO%20FREQUENCY%20POWER%20AMPLIFIER%20TESTING%20BASED%20ON%20PSYCHOACOUSTIC%20DATA.pdf
One quote:
...note the minor reduction in the aurally benign 2nd harmonic versus the rise of the more disconsonant harmonics...
(from page 58)
As was expressed previously, in square law non-linear transfer functions producing 2nd harmonic there exists a DC component where the non-linearity occurs. When you modulate the fundamental frequency you end up with two spectral components one above and one below the fundamental. The suspicion is that added body or added weight is not the second harmonic that is responsible rather the artifacts of modulation generated below the fundamental.
In contrast 3rd harmonics generated from non-linear transfer function also cannot exist in isolation, rather the two spectral components exist as a 3rd harmonic and a secondary fundamental buried inside the fundamental. Unlike the normal fundamental changing of RMS value linearly with input changes, it changes in RMS value as a logarithm tracking the 3rd harmonic. When you then modulate the fundamental frequency in this case there are no spectral components below the fundamental to add the body.
Ultimately spectral analysis buries both secondary spectral components under circumstances using only singular steady state inputs, being hidden in two differing spectral lines. It seems doubtful that this can be ignored in judging from a psycho-acoustic perspective.
Hey, WASHING yourself is a most important practice, recommended by most Religions, so you can stop showering to make your Atheism stronger.
This is the most profound bit of reasoning I have ever read here, it is SO clear once you read it once
Congratulations.
There's pretentious with solid backing and pretentious based only on smoke and mirrors or plain nothing beyond own statements.
First kind beats the second 1000:1