huh? No Joe, Making a statement that you know to be slightly inflammatory and deliberately not attributing the quote, posting it as if it is your own and sitting back, waiting for a reaction. only then responding to the trap and saying who made the quote.
Is this so natural to you that you don't see anything wrong with it?
Is this so natural to you that you don't see anything wrong with it?
Last edited:
Re checking RIAA response comformity.
If someone is using simulation, Spice Laplace transform is on Page 6.20
https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/P2 Ch6_final.pdf
Follows a practical example of a Laplace Anti-RIAA function (E1)
Bonus, the triodes models
RIAA in LTspice
George
If someone is using simulation, Spice Laplace transform is on Page 6.20
https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/design-handbooks/P2 Ch6_final.pdf
Follows a practical example of a Laplace Anti-RIAA function (E1)
Bonus, the triodes models
RIAA in LTspice
George
I took the time to re-read the whole blog, and I think the conclusion, when taken in context, is absolutely logical.
The post proceeds to explain that even if the distortion from the two separate mechanisms (BL nonlinearity or compliance non-linearity) measures the same, they sound different. The conclusion that we hear the mechanism rather than the distortion follows logically. I mean, the distortion is the same, so we don't hear a difference there. The mechanisms are different, and that's the difference we hear.
Of course Bruno (or whoever wrote it; but my dollar is on Bruno) knows perfectly well that as a principle we hear level not mechanism. But as a conclusion to summarize that particular blog there's nothing wrong with the statement. A blog is necessarily limited in the amount of detail you can include, but the author could reasonably expect the intelligent reader to understand his thrust.
As a patent lawyer would say '... would be obvious to those in the trade ...'.
My € 0.02.
Jan
Last edited:
Sorry Joe, you're pretty good in tapdancing, but the gist of it is that you won't back up an extraordinary claim. My tentative view is that that 1MHz graph you showed is not what you want us to believe it is.
It's an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary proof.
Jan
Last edited:
edit: reply to Jan two posts up
I *think* Demian Martin said something very much in the same vein in his BAF2021 video. Can't find it again because the software is so buggy, so can't really pinpoint the spot. His presentation is well worth seeing, even for the over-ripe, for its warmth and subtle depth. Lots of new perspective, and some great vintage gear porn.
All good fortune,
Chris
I *think* Demian Martin said something very much in the same vein in his BAF2021 video. Can't find it again because the software is so buggy, so can't really pinpoint the spot. His presentation is well worth seeing, even for the over-ripe, for its warmth and subtle depth. Lots of new perspective, and some great vintage gear porn.
All good fortune,
Chris
Is it worth the read? See, when I read your summary, it doesn't make a lot of sense (to me). If something measures the same, but sounds different, surely you are measuring the wrong thing?
You're taking things out of context and you don't act like the intelligent reader (yet I know you are quite intelligent). Of course the two distortions are not 100% identical down to the last Hz and the last nanovolt.
The two distortion graphs look very much the same, but there is a difference buried in some of the subtle lower level and higher frequencies. Of course they must be different to sound different. But can't you see and understand the explanation, the logical reasoning and the conclusion?
Are we, as intelligent readers here, reducing our selves to mincing words in a desperate attempt to score points rather than advancing our understanding?
Jan
The two distortion graphs look very much the same, but there is a difference buried in some of the subtle lower level and higher frequencies. Of course they must be different to sound different. But can't you see and understand the explanation, the logical reasoning and the conclusion?
Are we, as intelligent readers here, reducing our selves to mincing words in a desperate attempt to score points rather than advancing our understanding?
Jan
The sound waves do not contain information relating to how they were produced. If something produces the same pressure wave, from a similar/identical shape, in the same room; it doesnt matter what produced it, it will sound the same. If it sounds different (discunding subjective effects), it IS different, whether it's a different 'mechanism' or not.
Jan, i'm not trying to score points here mate, just trying to understand the language used, because it's the same (or at least similar) sort of hand waving language and tactics used to promote nonsense audio; where things dont produce a measurable benefit, so effects are invented that 'cannot be measured'.
But without reading it, I cant contribute anything more useful and may be unfairly judging, so i'll go have a read now
But without reading it, I cant contribute anything more useful and may be unfairly judging, so i'll go have a read now
I agree that all amplifiers should sound the same.
But they do not.
There have to be reasons, output Z modulating FR is but one of them and I suspect nowhere near the worst.
The two statements that I quoted from a Purifi blog allude to that - and hence this is a legitimate and worthwhile inquiry that would interest persons of intelligence, and who has an interest in this area.
Please try to have an open mind.
Maybe the final Holy Grail in audio is to explain why amplifiers sound different.
Even more, the Holy Grail is to find measurements that finally tell us and correlate to a reasonable degree with what we are hearing. I think that must be possible and we should strive to find that measurement.
Measurement = Distortion!
There simply is no way around this. We can skirt around every which way we like, but if some amplifiers sound so clearly wrong and another one that simply seems to get the music oh-so-right and others sound as dry as a withered patch of grass.
Distortion!
Get rid of that and all amplifiers sound the same!
1. We don’t so much hear distortion levels as distortion mechanisms.
I asked, true or false? I did not have to attribute for the simple reason that those words could have been mine as well. I agree with the statement, that is not trolling. Asking others for their opinion is not trolling. An false accusation of trolling is the very act of a troll. OTOH, seeking enlightenment is uplifting!
So, as this was a fair inquiry, do you, or do you not agree with it? Yes or No would have sufficed. Do you have anything additional to say?
2. You need to understand the mechanism before you can design a test that will quantify it sensibly.
I would have thought that the logical answer is yes. Seeking confirmation is not what a troll does. If a test just punches out a bunch of numbers and they tell us little of any use, then we must think hard and ask ourselves questions like: What can go wrong and if it can, how can we produce a test signal that exposes a weakness that is potentially there? If we have a 50Hz signal of some decent output and mix it with a mid-frequency signal (sine) of a similar level, and we are measuring a Class AB amplifier, what can go wrong? Will the bias be able to handle that? I am sure some will, but all of them? (BTW, this is a Bruno test.)
Before we do a test, don't we ask ourselves why we are doing them? Are they even the right tests? I have in mind a test that I don't believe anybody has done before, and just like bias levels have to do with current, so does this one, but this time we shall use the speaker to test the amplifier. The amplifier will be the DUT. We keep the speaker the same and measure all kinds of different amplifiers and look for the current type distortions and actually develop profiles.
Finally: Lighten up, don't look for stormy weather on a clear day, huh?
We just don't yet have found adequate measurements that are of any real value.
But they do not.
There have to be reasons, output Z modulating FR is but one of them and I suspect nowhere near the worst.
The two statements that I quoted from a Purifi blog allude to that - and hence this is a legitimate and worthwhile inquiry that would interest persons of intelligence, and who has an interest in this area.
Please try to have an open mind.
Maybe the final Holy Grail in audio is to explain why amplifiers sound different.
Even more, the Holy Grail is to find measurements that finally tell us and correlate to a reasonable degree with what we are hearing. I think that must be possible and we should strive to find that measurement.
Measurement = Distortion!
There simply is no way around this. We can skirt around every which way we like, but if some amplifiers sound so clearly wrong and another one that simply seems to get the music oh-so-right and others sound as dry as a withered patch of grass.
Distortion!
Get rid of that and all amplifiers sound the same!
1. We don’t so much hear distortion levels as distortion mechanisms.
I asked, true or false? I did not have to attribute for the simple reason that those words could have been mine as well. I agree with the statement, that is not trolling. Asking others for their opinion is not trolling. An false accusation of trolling is the very act of a troll. OTOH, seeking enlightenment is uplifting!
So, as this was a fair inquiry, do you, or do you not agree with it? Yes or No would have sufficed. Do you have anything additional to say?
2. You need to understand the mechanism before you can design a test that will quantify it sensibly.
I would have thought that the logical answer is yes. Seeking confirmation is not what a troll does. If a test just punches out a bunch of numbers and they tell us little of any use, then we must think hard and ask ourselves questions like: What can go wrong and if it can, how can we produce a test signal that exposes a weakness that is potentially there? If we have a 50Hz signal of some decent output and mix it with a mid-frequency signal (sine) of a similar level, and we are measuring a Class AB amplifier, what can go wrong? Will the bias be able to handle that? I am sure some will, but all of them? (BTW, this is a Bruno test.)
Before we do a test, don't we ask ourselves why we are doing them? Are they even the right tests? I have in mind a test that I don't believe anybody has done before, and just like bias levels have to do with current, so does this one, but this time we shall use the speaker to test the amplifier. The amplifier will be the DUT. We keep the speaker the same and measure all kinds of different amplifiers and look for the current type distortions and actually develop profiles.
Finally: Lighten up, don't look for stormy weather on a clear day, huh?
We just don't yet have found adequate measurements that are of any real value.
Last edited:
Thank you. You have put it into better words than mine. You did as I did, you read it and you understood it. As for Bruno, I am pretty sure I came across somewhere that he even said it, that on another related topic, that maybe he would write a blog on it.
No, I read it some time ago, as I was/am interested in the drivers. Its only now I realise its the same one i've already read. I figured I should read it as I may have missed something important. All these posts? they are hardly many and 'all' of them except for this one and the last, were in response to the language used here, in this thread; so I hardly needed to read it to comment.
and now that I have read it again. I'm not sure how the quote relates to it? its not contained in it. is it this? post you are talking about?
Of course different distortions sound different. Distortion is an incredibly wide gamut and it's the reason why straight distortion measurements by themselves are not overly useful. Distortion being defined as pretty much any departure from the input signal. When seen as/written as a straight percentage of departure, that can contain any number of individual effects and larger ones can easily mask others, if that's the only measurement youve got (at a singular and static fs and level), as discussed, but isn't that obvious?
To me, it seems more a problem of poorly defined terms ie. not specific enough. Different mechanisms do indeed create different distortions, but if the distortions are the same, rather than just appearing the same (due to poorly chosen, or poor resolution measurement) then the sound is the same and it doesn't matter what the mechanism is.
Of course different distortions sound different. Distortion is an incredibly wide gamut and it's the reason why straight distortion measurements by themselves are not overly useful. Distortion being defined as pretty much any departure from the input signal. When seen as/written as a straight percentage of departure, that can contain any number of individual effects and larger ones can easily mask others, if that's the only measurement youve got (at a singular and static fs and level), as discussed, but isn't that obvious?
To me, it seems more a problem of poorly defined terms ie. not specific enough. Different mechanisms do indeed create different distortions, but if the distortions are the same, rather than just appearing the same (due to poorly chosen, or poor resolution measurement) then the sound is the same and it doesn't matter what the mechanism is.
Last edited:
What's the claim? It's a 100KHz square wave.
It is what it is. What else can I say.
The only added explanation needed was the Inverse RIAA included the F4 pole.
http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf
If I am able to come to ETF22, what if I brought a phono sample and get somebody to do the measurement and we both watch. I could even bring my Inverse RIAA with me, so everything could get examined. Would that satisfy?
Last edited:
Yes, he has discussed it in interviews and at trade shows as well. When he just started to get a grip on these issues he did a presentation at our local AES chapter, we were the Guinee (sp?) pigs as it were.
It is just another brick in his building the wall of better drivers.
Always tricky to judge a wall if you have only a single brick to look at ;-)
Jan
Well, I think i've answered both of your questions already, but here we go.
No, we do not hear mechanisms, there is absolutely no mechanism for sound to carry information about the mechanism. If there was, we would have no hope in this hobby. I will add, that some types may point you in a direction based on your previous experience, like something really obvious like bottoming out, or port chuffing for example.
and second question: again no, if you understood it, you wouldn't need to measure it, you could model it. Are you also saying that unless you understand the source of distortion, you have no hope of measuring it? what if you aren't expecting any distortion, does that mean it doesn't exist? yes, knowing the source and type of distortion you might expect in a design, does allow you to set up a more useful test, given the aforementioned wide gamut of distortions; or at least prevents you from having to measure them all, just to get at 1.
No, we do not hear mechanisms, there is absolutely no mechanism for sound to carry information about the mechanism. If there was, we would have no hope in this hobby. I will add, that some types may point you in a direction based on your previous experience, like something really obvious like bottoming out, or port chuffing for example.
and second question: again no, if you understood it, you wouldn't need to measure it, you could model it. Are you also saying that unless you understand the source of distortion, you have no hope of measuring it? what if you aren't expecting any distortion, does that mean it doesn't exist? yes, knowing the source and type of distortion you might expect in a design, does allow you to set up a more useful test, given the aforementioned wide gamut of distortions; or at least prevents you from having to measure them all, just to get at 1.
Last edited:
I am suggesting that we need to think like detectives?
There is broad agreement in circles that I move in, that current measurements just do not cut it. Particularly for amplifiers. As for modeling? I put that in the same bag - go for it! Bruno has made comments about the tests in Stereophile, I don't think as a criticism, just a statement of fact, it does not tell us much at all about the sound. Don't we wish it did?
I have come up with a novel approach that I hope will yield better insights. It means turning one particular test upside-down. What is the worst that can happen? I fail, but then so has everybody else... maybe somebody is beating me to it right now? So be it!
As for mechanisms, is not the ear a mechanism? I am curious that you don't get the point that is so obvious to me.
Edit: How about processes? Hidden processes because we haven't quite figured them out yet and laziness has set in?
There is broad agreement in circles that I move in, that current measurements just do not cut it. Particularly for amplifiers. As for modeling? I put that in the same bag - go for it! Bruno has made comments about the tests in Stereophile, I don't think as a criticism, just a statement of fact, it does not tell us much at all about the sound. Don't we wish it did?
I have come up with a novel approach that I hope will yield better insights. It means turning one particular test upside-down. What is the worst that can happen? I fail, but then so has everybody else... maybe somebody is beating me to it right now? So be it!
As for mechanisms, is not the ear a mechanism? I am curious that you don't get the point that is so obvious to me.
Edit: How about processes? Hidden processes because we haven't quite figured them out yet and laziness has set in?
Last edited: