The one with the better grasp of engineering. Or in fashion audio, the better huckster.
Perhaps not in the LTSpice freeware, but for other Spice flavors:
Yes it does, and no need to spend months. It's called Monte Carlo Analysis.
Yes it does, if you know how ask for, and understand Spice models parametrisation.
No, but a good engineer will know how to estimate those parasitic elements and insert them as lumped or distributed elements, where they really matters.
Yes it does, it's called Smoke Analysis in certain Spice distros.
Yes we can.
Yes they are, if so desired, it's just a job of macromodelling.
If one wants more than a first order approximation of a certain functionality or parameters, then he/she should be prepared to pay the price for pro software, models, computing power and skill set. You can't expect pro quality results from freeware and ultra simplified device stock models. You may want to ask any pro in the semiconductor industry about the budgets allocated for extracting accurate models and their simulation tools integration.
Yes it does, and no need to spend months. It's called Monte Carlo Analysis.
Yes it does, if you know how ask for, and understand Spice models parametrisation.
No, but a good engineer will know how to estimate those parasitic elements and insert them as lumped or distributed elements, where they really matters.
Yes it does, it's called Smoke Analysis in certain Spice distros.
Yes we can.
Yes they are, if so desired, it's just a job of macromodelling.
If one wants more than a first order approximation of a certain functionality or parameters, then he/she should be prepared to pay the price for pro software, models, computing power and skill set. You can't expect pro quality results from freeware and ultra simplified device stock models. You may want to ask any pro in the semiconductor industry about the budgets allocated for extracting accurate models and their simulation tools integration.
On the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERP9ND0AffY , Jan showed the graph of sin. signal explaining that it is not a delay, it is a phase shift... Ok seems logical.
So, what would delayed sin . signal graph look like then??
My experience also that musos do not hear system flaws..they listen for other music parameters, like arrangements, pitch, timing etc, but don't hear distortions.
I have had customers who swear that 'Elvis' is in the room...while the junk 3in1 system is driving me out of that same room.
Same thing as musos, they are listening to the main parts and not the details.
That said, they do appreciate better quality replay, but replay sound quality is not of great importance to typical musos and typical consumers.
Dan.
You're now taking the position that subjective bias clouds proper assessment of audio reproduction quality?
I must be missing the point again.
A sine wave delayed by some amount of time looks identical in shape with a phase-shifted sine wave. Linear operations cannot generate
other frequencies, so the shape of a single frequency sine wave must remain the same.
If you vary the sine wave's time delay, the amplitude stays constant. However, in most circuits the phase and amplitude will vary together.
Last edited:
No, I'm talking about various ways one can listen to music, and equipment. Like everyone else, I'm also hearing sound coming from a variety of equipment, like a cheap bedroom TV, or an old car radio - and I could listen to them as if they were trying to be an impressive piece of audio equipment, but that would be rather dumb of me! So, I adjust my expectations of what I will hear, depending on what I believe the system should be capable of, or pretends to be capable of.
So, if I'm listening to something that I know won't deliver, then I just listen to the music, like everyone recommends
- and tune out if the music is not to my liking. But if I'm listening to something that has potential, then I'm listening for flaws, glitches, abberations - I'm a mechanic with a car that's playing up, trying to pick the problems. In the final stage, if I'm comfortable with the system's capabilities I can then relax and just go with what it tells about the musical events that were recorded - the equipment has now completely disappeared from my "focus".
I think "the measurement groupies" are simply saying that at some point the adjust expectations stuff needs to be factored out of the listening equation.
But much of audiophilia thrives on said expectations. And braggadocio.
Well, if I'm seriously considering improving sound quality then all listening, subjective type, "adjustments" are off the table, I'm listening for raw flaws at this point. Like someone who is engineering the rumble out of a TT, what I'm listening for has nothing to do with the music content, it's about extraneous noises, that shouldn't be there. And that extraneous noise can a blurring of a sound that shouldn't be blurred - that is then a direct, clear defect in the replay chain - and needs to be fixed. IME, it always can be fixed - which surprised me initially, but I now expect that all such artifacts can be successfully attenuated to a level below that which is subjectively significant.
It's about what is MORE important to every each individual. At the end, it is who can enjoy the music more who win!
I have a big stock of quality parts (that I have also compared by ears), and I have used best circuits for power supply etc. So I'm usually not dealing with noises and the like (tho grounding is always an art).
Musicality is what I'm listening for. It translates to CURRENT and PHASE in theory. Listening wise, you want to be able to appreciate the VOCAL and MUSICALITY of the performers.
May be we need talent to be able to appreciate music. If we don't, may be designing for test equipments is a better job than designing for audio.
Jay, I'm talking of all distortion elements in the playback chain being considered as noise. Something that is not right in the sound is a distortion, and I consider that "noise" - something that doesn't belong there.
Musicality automatically rises up and comes full forward, when the distortion "noise" is ejected from the system. Every time. You don't have to conjure up good sound, it's automatically there if you clean the dirt off properly - it happens for me, each time I do a good springclean ...
Musicality automatically rises up and comes full forward, when the distortion "noise" is ejected from the system. Every time. You don't have to conjure up good sound, it's automatically there if you clean the dirt off properly - it happens for me, each time I do a good springclean ...
Yes and those models will never be published to the world (and competitors) to use. The man years alone put into it over time is a huge expense and involves all the intellectual property of many (paid) people over time --becomes that companies most valuable investment/asset.
So, where does that leave us? With a healthy dose of skepticism of our SIM results and a blend of hands-on build experience and knowledge of our own. DIY can collect all that varied electronic personal experience to add to the SIM and do a very good job. Fortunately, we can test the results by measuring the distortion as well... at least to -100dB or more fairly accurately and relatively inexpensively.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
that is why the ITU specifies the room size and shape even to evaluate a telephone handset:
P.800 : Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality
and in one the the other P series tests they even have a drawing of the room shape so there is no confusion.
That's the crux. A delayed signal will, well, start and stop with a time delay from the original.
In the phase shifted sine wave case, both signals start/stop at exactly the same time.
Send a sine wave current into a cap, and the voltage across the cap will start to rise at the very instant you start the current. No delay.
But if you look at the cap voltage versus the cap input current, in the middle of the signal with no view of the beginning or end, it looks like a delayed sine wave - but it is not!
Jan
I'd like to modify the view of the musicians. My hands on experience dates back to 2002, the time when a friend and I were developing my speakers. In the process, we had a panel of professional musiciany, all with academy derees, and two were professors there, purposely included to balance age, the rest were younger men and women.
It's true that they tend to fill in the missing gaps surprisingly well, but that is true only of musical material they are familiar with. Give them something they don't know, and it's a new ball game.
However, when asked to do so, they can concentrate on the actual reproduction of music. In other words, listen to hear whether that is a convincingly real reproduction, and what flaws does it have. As is to be expected, each indicvidual does best with the instrument he or she actually plays, no surprise there. The surprise came when we got comments on other instruments.
For example, they were most unlikely to be even aware that The Blue Man group exists. When listening to them, very precise comments surfaced, like "that's sound like x, but it isn't really x itself"; bull's eye, the Blue Man Group designs its own instruments using plastic pipes. Or, in case of a Spanish bagpipe player Hevia, the comment was: "these are clearly bagpipes, but they have been somehow modified" - again, spot on, Hevia has indeed modified his bagpipes to be semi-electric, and holds several world patents on that.
The best one yet was when I played some Waldo de los Rios for them. Several people commented that whoever did the arrangements must have been South American, as there was a distinct note of that region in that sound. And true enough, WdlR is indeed Argentinian, but lives and works in Madrid, Spain. He's best known for his modernized arrangements of classical works, surfaced in the mid 70ies, when his version of "Ode To Joy" hit the No.1 place on many European pop charts.
My point is, professional musicians can do much, if properly instructed as to what you want them to listen for. The most amazing thing about them is that some of them had put together some excellent sounding budget systems which I doubt many of us could do with such panache. They are short of money, but ask them what would they like to have if money was not a problem, most would name Levinson amps as their choice. That aside, they are totally operated from being impressed by names and price tags, they make quick work of audio, it either sounds real or it doesn't, period. It can cost whatever it likes, it can be made by God himself for all they care.
It's true that they tend to fill in the missing gaps surprisingly well, but that is true only of musical material they are familiar with. Give them something they don't know, and it's a new ball game.
However, when asked to do so, they can concentrate on the actual reproduction of music. In other words, listen to hear whether that is a convincingly real reproduction, and what flaws does it have. As is to be expected, each indicvidual does best with the instrument he or she actually plays, no surprise there. The surprise came when we got comments on other instruments.
For example, they were most unlikely to be even aware that The Blue Man group exists. When listening to them, very precise comments surfaced, like "that's sound like x, but it isn't really x itself"; bull's eye, the Blue Man Group designs its own instruments using plastic pipes. Or, in case of a Spanish bagpipe player Hevia, the comment was: "these are clearly bagpipes, but they have been somehow modified" - again, spot on, Hevia has indeed modified his bagpipes to be semi-electric, and holds several world patents on that.
The best one yet was when I played some Waldo de los Rios for them. Several people commented that whoever did the arrangements must have been South American, as there was a distinct note of that region in that sound. And true enough, WdlR is indeed Argentinian, but lives and works in Madrid, Spain. He's best known for his modernized arrangements of classical works, surfaced in the mid 70ies, when his version of "Ode To Joy" hit the No.1 place on many European pop charts.
My point is, professional musicians can do much, if properly instructed as to what you want them to listen for. The most amazing thing about them is that some of them had put together some excellent sounding budget systems which I doubt many of us could do with such panache. They are short of money, but ask them what would they like to have if money was not a problem, most would name Levinson amps as their choice. That aside, they are totally operated from being impressed by names and price tags, they make quick work of audio, it either sounds real or it doesn't, period. It can cost whatever it likes, it can be made by God himself for all they care.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.