is it?
i do not think so ... no. It is not defensible
distortion is distortion
I meant they
I've simulated non-linear distortion in software to get an idea about audibility thresholds. it becomes audible, or maybe objectionable is the better word far below what that harmonic plot shows.
that's not an amp, it's an amp+FX box combo.
yes it can sound pleasant to some. trouble is that it makes more sense to add a configurable FX box before the amp. but it would never sound the same, you'll say. and the typical cyclical argument will have come full circle. nothing new under the sun as Will once wrote
Interesting indeed. Just to add another graph this is the one measured on the aleph 3
Thanks and regards,
gino
and if I may add. some audio guys shudder at the mere mention of the P-word (psychoacoustics). I'm talking from direct experience. the moment you mention that word you're forever labeled meter-reader or something along the lines.
why? because it makes them think about mp3. and, even worse, signal theory, Z-transforms, poles and tedious stuff like that. they dislike that stuff. and it's ok. so they convince themselves it's not useful.
isn't tube rolling more interesting? or opamp swapping, $2000 Audio Note caps, silver or even gold wires. it's more accessible (as in easier/faster to do) and it gives immediate results (imagined or not). why try to understand what and how we hear when you can do other simpler and more spectacular stuff? such it is. again, it's called being human.
why? because it makes them think about mp3. and, even worse, signal theory, Z-transforms, poles and tedious stuff like that. they dislike that stuff. and it's ok. so they convince themselves it's not useful.
isn't tube rolling more interesting? or opamp swapping, $2000 Audio Note caps, silver or even gold wires. it's more accessible (as in easier/faster to do) and it gives immediate results (imagined or not). why try to understand what and how we hear when you can do other simpler and more spectacular stuff? such it is. again, it's called being human.
yes and it has a sound. after all, how would a guitar sound without harmonics? like a dial tone. how many people do you know who happen to find pleasure in listening to dial tones? I know of none.
moreover, I'd suspect that the Jadis sounds nice with some types of music but not so much with others.
An amp which generates high amounts of harmonics with a sine wave input is almost certainly going to create high amounts of intermodulation with a more complex signal. The amp doesn't know the difference, as it is just doing trigonometry: it is all sum and difference frequencies. It just happens that when an input sine wave interacts with itself you get the second harmonic plus some DC; we don't notice the DC and we may like the 2nd.
Thank you for your advice
But still I do not understand which is the aim of many projects ?
Really
Great measurements ? i do not think so
Speaking of line preamps for instance is almost impossible to beat the performance of a nice op-amp like the ad797 .... or even the "humble" ne5534
So there must be something else I think
But what ? what is the real aim ?
But still I do not understand which is the aim of many projects ?
Really
Great measurements ? i do not think so
Speaking of line preamps for instance is almost impossible to beat the performance of a nice op-amp like the ad797 .... or even the "humble" ne5534
So there must be something else I think
But what ? what is the real aim ?
Last edited:
Can you explain this a bit more please? Not trying to give you an argument, just trying to understand what you mean. Are you saying that you can tell when distortion becomes objectionable from a simulation, or, that a person can hear distortion at some lower level than simulated??
I think there are two completely different approaches to this.
1) most people, including myself, take great satisfaction in building something that sounds "good", with moderately priced speakers, while intentionally leaving out elements of commercial products that we don't care for, such as USB inputs, remote controls, digital displays, etc. We accept that our DIY built amps will not measure well when compared to higher-end commercial audio. We typically do not believe that including high priced components will change the sound in a significant way.
2) a minority of DIY builders, who strive to outperform audiophile equipment with bigger/more expensive power supplies, bigger heat sinks, silver wire, and exotic transistor pairs.
The second group may well generate most of the online discussion, but does not represent the majority opinion.
Edit: Another factor is taking satisfaction in the understanding of how a simple amplifier works, as opposed to owning what is essentially a black box with a few controls (chuckle).
Last edited:
Your question seems to assume that there is only one answer. I suppose everyone might agree that 'nice sound' is an aim, but different people have quite different ideas about what that means. Some prefer low distortion, others prefer high distortion (while often denying this). Some prefer flat frequency response with a rolloff at around 20Hz and 20kHz, others want flat from 2Hz to 50kHz (even though their speakers and ears probably only work properly from 60Hz to 15kHz), still others want 'built-in fixed tone controls' which boost certain parts of the spectrum or roll-off other parts.ginetto61 said:
You keep asking these questions. If there was an agreed answer, 90% of the chatter on here would disappear! In the end, you will have to listen to what others say and make up your own mind. On science the issue is truth; some people are simply wrong. On sound preferences everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Ok ... the last one
For me realism in audio reproduction is the aim
To get the same feeling described here in a review of Stax headphones I found it disorienting to slip the headsets on and be immediately transported into the acoustic of the chapel—which makes me wonder how the characters on Star Trek can handle transporter beams with such aplomb
Virtual reality ... to have the feeling to be in front of the band and not of a wall
My question, for this purpose excellence in measurements is mandatory ?
If so I will keep looking at graph and figures
Thanks a lot
Kind regards,
gino
For me realism in audio reproduction is the aim
To get the same feeling described here in a review of Stax headphones I found it disorienting to slip the headsets on and be immediately transported into the acoustic of the chapel—which makes me wonder how the characters on Star Trek can handle transporter beams with such aplomb
Virtual reality ... to have the feeling to be in front of the band and not of a wall
My question, for this purpose excellence in measurements is mandatory ?
If so I will keep looking at graph and figures
Thanks a lot
Kind regards,
gino
Last edited:
If you pretend "realism in audio reproduction", then excellence (or at least "good enough") in a device measurements is mandatory, but you'll need a lot of additional measurements and corrections to avoid your listening room from distorting the device measurements.
Anyway, the ears and the brain are good at hiding sound errors so, if you hear for long enough, you will listen a "good sound" even when this isn't soooooo goooood
I can't see what made you think I meant that, but...
what I meant was that nonlinear distortion becomes audible at a level way below what is seen in the posted graph.
don't believe me? fine. try for yourself, then come back and post that I'm full of it.
this is all I can do for you.
At least the Stax headphones are trying something slightly different, with a logical rationale behind it. But I would cite such innovations as active crossovers and DSP as being the real 'paradigm shift' in audio with quite obvious and audibly stunning results. All the minimalists are doing is saying that the status quo c.1960 was pretty well perfect, but they can polish it just that little bit further.
A recent technical advance is digital volume control. It requires greater bit-depth to work without a loss of quality, but work it does, and it's capable of arbitrarily low levels of distortion, in contrast to any existing analog technology.
I think 'greater bit-depth' qualifies as 'less minimalist' if you don't mind a double negative.
I think 'greater bit-depth' qualifies as 'less minimalist' if you don't mind a double negative.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. All I intended to say was, that I was not sure what you meant there. No argument from me, and was not intended to sound like one...
For me a design should be minimalist as a baseline. From there any added components/complexity should answer the question, "Why not (minimalism)?" in the context of the design goal, requirements, and restrictions. It doesn't matter if the circuit is a one-off DIY project or an assembly line product.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.