Chris, I would not said that: each improvement you can measure, when you design, is something you can listen, most of the time (Unless imagination ?).
I would said that we don't know yet how to correlate numbers from known measurements with listening experience.
This said, some distortions, like little signature, are not detrimental to music, as long as this does not reduce instant dynamic, separation, details. It is a like little change of white balance in a color photography: Matter of taste that you eyes deal with.
Did we all agree ?
I would said that we don't know yet how to correlate numbers from known measurements with listening experience.
This said, some distortions, like little signature, are not detrimental to music, as long as this does not reduce instant dynamic, separation, details. It is a like little change of white balance in a color photography: Matter of taste that you eyes deal with.
Did we all agree ?
Last edited:
Certainly the difficulties of getting sound into microphones and back out from loudspeakers (and rooms!) dwarf the tiny problems we're discussing here. But maybe there's some truth in the old saying that the reason academic discussions are so bitter is because there's so little at stake. Arf!
Thanks,
Chris
There is no underlying function, as far as I'm concerned. What is wrong is that the measurements are taken of indirectly applicable characteristics, in isolation. I'm 100% certain that directly appropriate measurements will tell us everything relevant. But because this must be done in the context of a complete, fully functioning system, it's automatically thrown into the "too hard", "too inconvenient" baskets.
Just about everyone can pick a good system from a not good one; I've effectively trained myself to pick up the distinguishing characteristics, as many others have, and it's good ol' distortion that's the bugbear. Not any old distortion, but extremely irksome, irritating distortion.
As Esperado says, some distortions, like the linear variety, at least for me, are totally benign. But others even at very low, close to inaudible volume, will drive you crazy. It's like someone two rooms away dragging nails down a blackboard ...
Frank
Last edited:
I turn that completely on its head: the microphones and loudspeakers are the least of one's problems!! This is the great urban myth, the easy out for explaining away systems that don't sound right, aren't satisfying to listen to!
The "tiny problems" are exactly what causes the really irritating distortion, that which makes us walk out of the room when an expensive setup isn't right. Lumping the blame back on the innocent isn't going to solve anything, I'm afraid ...
Frank
Something very personal.
In 70/80s, with the material we where using in studios and the way sound was distributed (Vinyls) , it was VERY difficult to separate intruments. The sound was something 'mixed' by the process, not just added. This explain first the way we where producing, searching for 'sound' and 'texture'. The curtain between the music and the listener was a place to fill with your imagination
Now, with digital, everything is just added side to side, and just our ears discrimination avoid us to isolate the instruments. Perfect ? In the same time, all the little defects, in the way the musicians play and lack of quality of their instruments are perceived. And the result is just the poor reality. And, even the corrections (in digital domain) does not change the sound 'texture'. The result is we can find CDs like cold or empty... If the musicians are not pure genius and the recording session exceptional.
Some emotions in connection with love express better themselves in the twilight and the dim light.
That said, can somebody explain why i am always working to get more detailed, dynamic, separated reproduction for my system ?
In 70/80s, with the material we where using in studios and the way sound was distributed (Vinyls) , it was VERY difficult to separate intruments. The sound was something 'mixed' by the process, not just added. This explain first the way we where producing, searching for 'sound' and 'texture'. The curtain between the music and the listener was a place to fill with your imagination
Now, with digital, everything is just added side to side, and just our ears discrimination avoid us to isolate the instruments. Perfect ? In the same time, all the little defects, in the way the musicians play and lack of quality of their instruments are perceived. And the result is just the poor reality. And, even the corrections (in digital domain) does not change the sound 'texture'. The result is we can find CDs like cold or empty... If the musicians are not pure genius and the recording session exceptional.
Some emotions in connection with love express better themselves in the twilight and the dim light.
That said, can somebody explain why i am always working to get more detailed, dynamic, separated reproduction for my system ?
Here are your approx slopes
(What are the intermediate peaks (blue line)?
Pavel, do you imply that by increasing the load, the slope increases?
You two have me
(not to mention jn who has blocked me completely 
)One
and I'll think of this while counting sheep George
Attachments
Chris, best not to argue with these guys. Ultimately, it will finally depend on further refinements describing the structure of the auditory system inside us, and THEN a specific test can be created to show some departure from normal that the trained ear can detect, yet virtually all measurements today cannot.
Because this is where the real answers are: many, many years ago I had a burst of light flood me from the heavens - well, not quite, but from then on I knew exactly where to go with audio - and this was the understanding that detailed, dynamic, etc were the stepping stones on the "righteous",
, way. One can start with a somewhat murky, but still very "nice" setup, and start fiddling. Oh no!! I'm hearing more details, more separation, but it's harsh, cold, unappetising, I don't like it!! ... Fear not, Grasshopper, the journey is progressing ... this can reach a crescendo, figuratively speaking, where the sound is almost hideous to listen to, it seems as if everything and the kitchen sink is being thrown at you, you're being pummelled with sound, overloaded ... Patience, Grasshopper ... then, one "magic" day you emerge from the swamp, the last crucial change, tweak, fix is made and the sound comes together, glorious 3D Technicolor, everything in place and sounding as it should, natural and satisfying ... You see, Grasshopper, you had to make this voyage of discovery ...
,Frank
Enclosure Proximity Effects...
Whilst we are involved in the subjects of distortions and proximity effects, I am interested in measurement data on the influence of equipment enclosure material on final loudspeaker output distortions.
John Curl has made strong comment on his reasons for using aluminium enclosures for shielding properties and lessening of distortion with respect to steel enclosures.
I have had the experience of differing u shaped amplifier top covers imparting differing sounds.
In this particular after midnight experiment I had a typical decent quality integrated amplifier (I now can't recall the make or model) running on my bench, during final QA listening test before dispatching it to the customer.
I had just confirmed bias current stability, thermal stability and general operation and then placed the original steel top cover on and....the sound changed.
Hmmmm, I swapped that one for an aluminium very similar cover, and...different sound.
Hmmmm, I swapped that out for a similar plywood top cover, and.... another different sound.
So, in short that amplifier produced four differing sounds according to the top cover only....nothing else was changed during that session.
Currently I do not have the setup, facilities or time to perform the necessary experiments to confirm and document these findings, but perhaps someone here does have the inclination to measure and report on the wide held view that steel enclosures cause distortions.
Food for thought, Dan.
Whilst we are involved in the subjects of distortions and proximity effects, I am interested in measurement data on the influence of equipment enclosure material on final loudspeaker output distortions.
John Curl has made strong comment on his reasons for using aluminium enclosures for shielding properties and lessening of distortion with respect to steel enclosures.
I have had the experience of differing u shaped amplifier top covers imparting differing sounds.
In this particular after midnight experiment I had a typical decent quality integrated amplifier (I now can't recall the make or model) running on my bench, during final QA listening test before dispatching it to the customer.
I had just confirmed bias current stability, thermal stability and general operation and then placed the original steel top cover on and....the sound changed.
Hmmmm, I swapped that one for an aluminium very similar cover, and...different sound.
Hmmmm, I swapped that out for a similar plywood top cover, and.... another different sound.
So, in short that amplifier produced four differing sounds according to the top cover only....nothing else was changed during that session.
Currently I do not have the setup, facilities or time to perform the necessary experiments to confirm and document these findings, but perhaps someone here does have the inclination to measure and report on the wide held view that steel enclosures cause distortions.
Food for thought, Dan.
Hmmm, that evil 7th at -120dB obviously was just waiting to pop up its head and destroy your good work when it didn't like its new "hat" ...I had just confirmed bias current stability, thermal stability and general operation and then placed the original steel top cover on and....the sound changed.
Hmmmm, I swapped that one for an aluminium very similar cover, and...different sound.
Hmmmm, I swapped that out for a similar plywood top cover, and.... another different sound.
But seriously, this is where the real game is in audio: putting an op-amp on a testbench and measuring it to death is telling one nothing about these, real world, behaviours ...
Frank
Were you forced to hide in the toilets at the bottom of the school's playground?
For me, it's not subtle. It's eliminating a certain type of low level, obnoxious distortion, that the majority of systems generate, irrespective of cost. It's that quality which allows virtually everyone to immediately identify whether the sound from another room is coming from the real thing, or a hifi. Learning to identify its signature is only the first step, the hard bit is eliminating the causal factors ...
Frank
Audio Ignorance can Be Blissful....
Of course, you and JC already well know this.
I have no idea of the magnitude of the difference, but it was subtly but clearly audible once noticed.
Yes Frank, putting an op-amp into a complete system is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
Of course, you and JC already well know this.
Last edited:
It is not surprising at all, and you would most probably measure different noise bottom, especially different amplitude of line frequency related spectral components when exchanging plywood top cover for aluminum and iron top covers.
Then after plywood, test with another kind of wood.
If your tests show difference between the two wooden covers too, think of mechanical problems (damping of vibrations).
George
>Edit. As I have promised not to add noise to this thread, before posts start coming asking on what kind of wood ect, the test that hints toward mechanical problems can be simplified by testing with no top cover at all and a wooden top cover.
If there are differences between these two, I would definitely look for vibration issues.
George
Last edited:
Fully agree Chris!
I'm not seeing that. All I'm seeing is regurgating the same old tired personal opinions, devoid of any factual backup, again and again. I see NOBODY actually taking some initiative 'trying to get there'.
jan
Whilst we are involved in the subjects of distortions and proximity effects, I am interested in measurement data on the influence of equipment enclosure material on final loudspeaker output distortions.
John Curl has made strong comment on his reasons for using aluminium enclosures for shielding properties and lessening of distortion with respect to steel enclosures.
I have had the experience of differing u shaped amplifier top covers imparting differing sounds.
In this particular after midnight experiment I had a typical decent quality integrated amplifier (I now can't recall the make or model) running on my bench, during final QA listening test before dispatching it to the customer.
I had just confirmed bias current stability, thermal stability and general operation and then placed the original steel top cover on and....the sound changed.
Hmmmm, I swapped that one for an aluminium very similar cover, and...different sound.
Hmmmm, I swapped that out for a similar plywood top cover, and.... another different sound.
So, in short that amplifier produced four differing sounds according to the top cover only....nothing else was changed during that session.
Currently I do not have the setup, facilities or time to perform the necessary experiments to confirm and document these findings, but perhaps someone here does have the inclination to measure and report on the wide held view that steel enclosures cause distortions.
Food for thought, Dan.
Yawn... Try this: connect a resistive load instead of a speaker and do some sine wave sweeps. Then you can listen to the vibrations coming out of your enclosure. It's easy to hear differences between two different heat sink geometries, for example. An alu heatsing, when brought into vibration this way, sounds different from a wood enclosure brought into vibration. Enough vibrations to fully explain the audible differences between two physically different amps, even if they are identical electronically.
Did we forget EVERYTHING that has been done decades ago?? Wasn't the internet supposed to give us complete information??
jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.