Absolutely true. That has been my experience as well. When I pointed out an observation to a friend of mine, she said "it is people like you who discover these things and us scientists who often have to figure it out."
Why was that so remarkable? No, it is not what you think, the remarkable thing is that is the only time I ever heard refer to herself as a scientist. Her name is Hilary, go to her Facebook page and there is nothing that says she is a Doctor and top scientist in the area of cancer and immunology on the cellular level.
I will send a link to her Facebook page and you will see her interest in art and photography, something she shared with her late husband who was Danish like me. Half of the people at his funeral, she came up and told me, they were scientists. It was packed. We went to the Canberra Wine Club because Walter had been a former president of the club and we had a great time.
It depends a lot on how bad or good the rest of the reproduction chain is. In a supermarket the overhead speakers sound about the same at one store as compared to another. That's probably true even if they have different amplifiers.
At the other extreme, good quality electrostatic speakers in a good room are probably the most revealing of any differences in upstream system components.
Technically inferior amplifiers will be effected a lot by the speaker load it sees. This effects the frequency response which is quite easy to detect. Also, amplifiers with a lot of distorsion will be appreciated by some listeners as for these listeners, it is a nice effect. Others don't like it at all.
So, yes, from my side it is not a belief, its a fact that there are amplifiers that do sound different from other amplifiers.
//
So, yes, from my side it is not a belief, its a fact that there are amplifiers that do sound different from other amplifiers.
//
Last edited:
Done helping already?
Calling other posters whom you disagree with psychopaths is civilized?
Joe,
To produce a squarewave like you showed, BW must be at least 4Mhz.
But since you told it to be a Riaa preamp, an even bigger challenge must have been to design the anti Riaa circuit, to be placed between square wave generator and Riaa preamp.
I would love to see the circuit diagram of this anti Riaa design, but to be honest I have my doubts if this exists.
On top of that, what could be the rationale for a Riaa preamp with 4Mhz BW ?
Hans
Last edited:
RE zero feedback RIAA-
Back of the envelope calculation suggests 60 dB of attenuation at 1 MHz unless you do not follow the RIAA integration, which is a choice. Still you need a high level square wave into your inverse network or a very small output.
First question, with the power off how much of the square wave leaks through the circuit?
Back of the envelope calculation suggests 60 dB of attenuation at 1 MHz unless you do not follow the RIAA integration, which is a choice. Still you need a high level square wave into your inverse network or a very small output.
First question, with the power off how much of the square wave leaks through the circuit?
That seems to be the opposite of the quote, which is that we "hear mechanisms" (whatever that means). The claim that IMD is more audible than low frequency HD (presumably at the same level represented as a percentage?)
is not exactly breathtaking, and is not at all the same thing as saying we "hear mechanisms". If a mechanism distorts a waveform, then it adds distortion which we hear. We don't hear mechanisms. I think everyone would agree that different distorting systems or functions produce different relative distortion components, and hence have different "sounds"; clipping sounds different from crossover distortion sounds different from... But what we hear are the distortion artifacts, not the mechanisms that produce the artifacts.
In the context (oh, context!) of a blog post trying to make some point about relative audibility of different distortion artifacts, the statement seems like something intended to get someone's attention, and is not the kind of thing that would appear in a journal article or technical analysis. Naturally Joe grabbed on to that and skipped all the interesting parts.
This may not be absolutely unique in the world, but I do think, at least n my experience, this is the first time i've seen a 70 year old troll. Whatever your defenders say, that was textbook trolling. To post something, with no other reason than to try and provoke a reaction, is trolling.
Hi Hans, appreciate your input and yes, this is an extraordinary bandwidth and even more, it stops on a dime (yes guys, I know it is called settling time, so calm down).
I can't show you the circuit as there are commercial issues. Re RIAA, I gathered somebody would remark about that, so I was prepared. I am pretty sure that you know about the Hagerman Inverse RIAA and how he was influenced by Allen Wright re the Neumann cutting amp is set at 3.18ms – or
50,048Hz.
Allen and I came up with our Inverse RIAA that is slightly different in values from Hagerman's - our's we feel are tighter than his 'off-the-shelf' that you can buy. No issues with that. It's still pretty good.
The square wave I have published was done using our (call it Allen's if you like, I am not claiming anything) Inverse RIAA. I think there are only three made and the screenshot is from a 200MHz oscilloscope. So it was made using that 'anti-RIAA' as you called it, and tested using it.
Do I feel a need for 1MHz, let alone 4MHz? Good question, but as an exercise, that screenshot is still pretty amazing. I never checked that it was 4MHz, but both Allen and I rated it within 1dB at 1MHz.
It's how the circuit sounds that is important and yes, incrementally it has been improved to the point it has reached the end. In some ways, it sounds like what I would call 'correct' tubes, and fast and yet not emphasising it unnaturally. So there you are.
What a load of trollop!
Making a statement that one agrees with, is that trolling?
Let he who is without sin... comes to mind. Everybody here is a troll if that is to be the standard. It sounds more like closemindedness to me. Lighten up, if the eyes are dark, then the soul is dark. So please, let some light in.
I did end up reading it and, I mean, fine. Definitely, "hey we're trying to lower intermodulation" layered on top of a huge amount of fluff. The quote and the paragraph around it fitting more in the fluff.
But seeing as I'm living in a small condo with a roommate right now, if it's not headphones I'm not listening to it. 15" woofers sound excessive for me, but low displacements are less susceptible to IMD sooooo
