Monsieur le Groove,
can you explain why a different resistor type can make that DHT SET sound 'better', more real ?
It's all about parasitic behaviours - every component, and how it's used is not "perfect", and the subtle impact of those parasitics is enough to alter the distortion spectrum just a touch, sufficient to have audible, subjective impact. The 'sound' of a system is that of the spectrum of the remaining, audible distortion artifacts - the aim is, or should be, to eliminate every one of those "mosquitos" ...
Last edited:
Yet you have a theory for the SET to sound real, despite of it's level of distortion.
But not for the resistor, in spite of it's lack of distortion.
(I'm sorry, I only have a grain of genie and a pint of folly)
Last edited:
Then why do those amps inevitably have pitiful linearity with lots of high order distortion?
Here's what $140,000 gets you:
Lamm Industries ML3 Signature monoblock power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
And the more expensive ones are even worse.
Except that distortions from electronic transfer functions all appear at the same set of frequencies, i.e. the -40dB seconds on an LP are at the same place as the -130dB ones from the resistors. When you play an LP there are probably distortion components at every harmonic and intermodulation frequency at least 2-3 orders of magnitude more than any passive component in the signal chain.
In the end the argument ends with, "I hear what I hear and I don't care why".
Last edited:
Hi,
No, I said DHT are often more linear than IDHT devices.
IOW, start with a linear device so less corrective paintwork is required.
From the few things I've seen from LAMM....Hmmmm.
BTW, thank you for having me invited to your place, Stuart. I very much appreciate it but am in the middle of moving places now.
That dog too...........
Ciao,
No, I said DHT are often more linear than IDHT devices.
IOW, start with a linear device so less corrective paintwork is required.
From the few things I've seen from LAMM....Hmmmm.
BTW, thank you for having me invited to your place, Stuart. I very much appreciate it but am in the middle of moving places now.
That dog too...........
Ciao,
Hi Esperado,
Re; laughing during funerals #56,539. In our country (Australia) things have changed a lot over the last few decades. I have conducted about 300 in the last 35 years and in 1980 NO ONE ever laughed but now it is very common.
And seeing this thread is in an audio forum I will share an interesting incident from 15 years ago. Two deaf people had married and although their children were born with good hearing they, and many of the friends of the family used sign language. About half the people at the funeral could hear and the other half were hearing impaired. At the funeral of one of the parents a friend delivered the eulogy (by spoken word) and there was an interpreter next to her who "signed" all that was being said.
On at least two or three occasions the speaker recounted funny incidents that caused the hearing members to laugh immediately and then 4 or 5 seconds later all the hearing impaired laughed too after it was signed. So there was this nice "echo" of laughter as the "signing" content was effectively on a 4 second delay.......
And please don't close this thread. I don't understand 90% of it but it IS fun.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Re; laughing during funerals #56,539. In our country (Australia) things have changed a lot over the last few decades. I have conducted about 300 in the last 35 years and in 1980 NO ONE ever laughed but now it is very common.
And seeing this thread is in an audio forum I will share an interesting incident from 15 years ago. Two deaf people had married and although their children were born with good hearing they, and many of the friends of the family used sign language. About half the people at the funeral could hear and the other half were hearing impaired. At the funeral of one of the parents a friend delivered the eulogy (by spoken word) and there was an interpreter next to her who "signed" all that was being said.
On at least two or three occasions the speaker recounted funny incidents that caused the hearing members to laugh immediately and then 4 or 5 seconds later all the hearing impaired laughed too after it was signed. So there was this nice "echo" of laughter as the "signing" content was effectively on a 4 second delay.......
And please don't close this thread. I don't understand 90% of it but it IS fun.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Hi,
The crux of the matter most discussions are about is why something that does not even measure all that well can sound so good.
Discarding the obvious effect boxes it still makes you wonder, no?
Cheers,
The best systems I have heard were at some level effects boxes, several I could listen to all day long. My listening to higher end stuff mostly all predates digital.
That sense of bottomless dynamic range and low noise goes a long way, the distortion per se really does not matter much. Mechanical and electrical components generally are low order and go to zero at zero input in a "nice" fashion.
Speakers, LPs both are mostly 2nd and 3rd order same as resistors but orders of magnitude more, frankly the resistor thing does not excite me because I don't hear it.
Last edited:
BTW, thank you for having me invited to your place, Stuart. I very much appreciate it but am in the middle of moving places now.
That dog too...........
As long as you don't smell like mayonnaise, she won't harm you.
But why tie those two concepts together - if a system allows you to hear more of the musical performance, and less of the defects of the recording and playback chain, what is 'wrong' with that? Would you want a prestige vehicle to have incredibly stiff suspension, so that you feel every bump in the road, that it's more "revealing" of the "truth"?
The trick is to get the positives happening for all types of recordings, "good" and "bad" - that way you know you're on the right track ...
Hi,
Yeah, that sums it up quite nicely.
The entire passive component thing fascinates me. Not really much to do with musicality (others may disagree) as such but more about the search for ultimate neutrality.
In that sense I do understand the likes of John Curl and whoever was in the same fight in that era but passive components rarely are just that.
In all honestly, I think you would hear the difference between say a Resista and a naked bulk foil resistor in a switched attenuator.
To my ears it's like opening another window, removing another veil.
Best and see you at Leon's one day,
Yeah, that sums it up quite nicely.
The entire passive component thing fascinates me. Not really much to do with musicality (others may disagree) as such but more about the search for ultimate neutrality.
In that sense I do understand the likes of John Curl and whoever was in the same fight in that era but passive components rarely are just that.
In all honestly, I think you would hear the difference between say a Resista and a naked bulk foil resistor in a switched attenuator.
To my ears it's like opening another window, removing another veil.
Best and see you at Leon's one day,
An excellent example of the balancing of parasitic behaviours. The switch mechanism generates subtle distortion artifacts, by its very nature, and the two types of resistors inserted then mitigate those characteristics in different ways - hence achieving a change of sound.
Me, I would pull out the switch mechanism, and throw it into the rubbish bin - and proceed from that point ...
If a prestige vehicle is defined as the one with the best road handling, at the highest speed, that's indeed the case.
If you prefer one that floats across holes while you listen to 8-track, and goes off-road at the first corner, you may still find a mint condition prestige gass-guzzler for 250 bucks at a scrapyard.
But, vehicle companies get the compromise right, to suit their customers - most don't want ultimate road handling, they want a balance between comfort, and the ability to corner fast, and the capability of doing it all on extremely unforgiving roads.
Engineers spend much time on getting the optimum compromise, hence some of the cost ...
Engineers spend much time on getting the optimum compromise, hence some of the cost ...
I don't mind effect boxes if they are enjoyable (such as in a trade-off situation).
Yeah I think dynamic (and/or "sonic", whatever that means) is important (to everyone).
Yes, in this era of low distortion amplifiers. My Aleph J was made to compensate for what the original Aleph J is lacking. As the result, the distortion at 1kHz if I'm not mistaken was drop from 0.004% to 0.02%. But to my opinion, that's the best Aleph!
I don't know why speakers should be "considered" mostly 2nd order or 3rd. Okay, true, but... it doesn't mean that speaker distortion is enjoyable.
I can hear resistors but I have never thought of distortion. I think it was noise. In case when it was not "noise-like", I think the difference is not crucial, unless when the price is high. That small grey Caddock for example, I don't want it.
Psst. The real answer is global negative feedback. IF you design around it, AND don't add anything super nasty like crossover distortion, then some amps and preamps that measure sort of bad, still sound good. We have been discussing this for more than 40 years, and Richard Heyser said it first. I can get witnesses to Richard's opinon if required.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.