That's the theory and that what might have happened. May be there is similar triggering mechanism where a distortion differences that is not supposed to be heard can be heard through speakers.
Hi Andrea,
Correlating measurements to what you expect to hear is a visual thing. You get to know what levels and orders of distortion might sound like with some practice.
As with everything, other factors also come into play. So I assume the unit is of a reasonable quality level and build level. I don't even measure junk as there isn't any point. I have measured some pretty horrific sounding equipment only because I was tasked with improving it. Afterwards the measurements merely confirm what is still wrong, even if the customers are delighted with the results.
Generally speaking, the cleanest looking spectrum's do sound the best. That is assuming they don't have other issues that crop up at higher power levels. Having said that, some distortion spectra don't sound terrible. They don't sound as clean, and I wouldn't go as far as to say they sound more musical. For sure, more complicated music causes them to not sound as good. That's why quartets and singers are a favorite among the SET crowd, but not full orchestral music (as a rule).
I don't know if that helps you at all. But measured response does give very good clues as to how something might sound assuming nothing else is an issue (speakers, room, other electronics). For example, the best system in the world will sound terrible through the EQ on a Bose 901 system.
-Chris
Correlating measurements to what you expect to hear is a visual thing. You get to know what levels and orders of distortion might sound like with some practice.
As with everything, other factors also come into play. So I assume the unit is of a reasonable quality level and build level. I don't even measure junk as there isn't any point. I have measured some pretty horrific sounding equipment only because I was tasked with improving it. Afterwards the measurements merely confirm what is still wrong, even if the customers are delighted with the results.
Generally speaking, the cleanest looking spectrum's do sound the best. That is assuming they don't have other issues that crop up at higher power levels. Having said that, some distortion spectra don't sound terrible. They don't sound as clean, and I wouldn't go as far as to say they sound more musical. For sure, more complicated music causes them to not sound as good. That's why quartets and singers are a favorite among the SET crowd, but not full orchestral music (as a rule).
I don't know if that helps you at all. But measured response does give very good clues as to how something might sound assuming nothing else is an issue (speakers, room, other electronics). For example, the best system in the world will sound terrible through the EQ on a Bose 901 system.
-Chris
In amplifiers, distortion in one stage is carried forward to the next stages.
Distortion that we hear in speakers is not at 0.01% or 0.001% levels. They are typical distortion values in amplifiers (output versus input). If it were H2 distortion that we hear (it doesn't have to), it is at higher level.
syn08,
A brief clarification:
I disagree with the meaning of the terms "signal, AC, standing wave, oscillation" and other notions as implied in popular textbooks.
Electrical signals carry purposeful information and are generated in the ionic regime, while, for instance, phonons (thermally excited charges) consist of strong covalent bonds (collective lattice vibrations). A distinctive difference. Resonant vibrations (standing waves) cannot convey signal information. Nor can AC voltages. Closely spaced energy bands (resonant overlaps) produce a continuos spectrum.
Electrical signals made up of an immense amount of extremely short duration, unique (incomparable) electrical changes. Signal characterization involves intricate vibrational and rotational transitions and is in detail beyond comprehension. In light of this, the representation by primitive logical methods (in one dimesional space) is simply ridiculous.
A transmission is said to be resonant when the driving frequency equals the frequency of the magnetic dipole moment. At resonance, resistance is at its minimum and driving forces accomplish the most intense transitions (largest amplitudes). At resonance, unbridledly growing standing waves build up as forces ramp upon a bunch of particles confined within high impedance barriers consisting of saturated covalent bonds. Disintegrating the bonding structure, standing waves radically upset the properties and the behavior of the entire system.
Also near resonance transitions are highly detrimental for the development of signals. Toroidal transformers, rectifying diodes, Schottky diodes, zener diodes, whatever diodes, SMPS power supplies, buck converters, Class D amplifiers, digital chips, CMOS chips, logic gates, clock generators ladle out unstoppable high energy switching transients all over the place. The only thing that remains neat is the distortion graph.
A brief clarification:
I disagree with the meaning of the terms "signal, AC, standing wave, oscillation" and other notions as implied in popular textbooks.
Electrical signals carry purposeful information and are generated in the ionic regime, while, for instance, phonons (thermally excited charges) consist of strong covalent bonds (collective lattice vibrations). A distinctive difference. Resonant vibrations (standing waves) cannot convey signal information. Nor can AC voltages. Closely spaced energy bands (resonant overlaps) produce a continuos spectrum.
Electrical signals made up of an immense amount of extremely short duration, unique (incomparable) electrical changes. Signal characterization involves intricate vibrational and rotational transitions and is in detail beyond comprehension. In light of this, the representation by primitive logical methods (in one dimesional space) is simply ridiculous.
A transmission is said to be resonant when the driving frequency equals the frequency of the magnetic dipole moment. At resonance, resistance is at its minimum and driving forces accomplish the most intense transitions (largest amplitudes). At resonance, unbridledly growing standing waves build up as forces ramp upon a bunch of particles confined within high impedance barriers consisting of saturated covalent bonds. Disintegrating the bonding structure, standing waves radically upset the properties and the behavior of the entire system.
Also near resonance transitions are highly detrimental for the development of signals. Toroidal transformers, rectifying diodes, Schottky diodes, zener diodes, whatever diodes, SMPS power supplies, buck converters, Class D amplifiers, digital chips, CMOS chips, logic gates, clock generators ladle out unstoppable high energy switching transients all over the place. The only thing that remains neat is the distortion graph.
I'm not Adrea's fan. I'm your fan actually. You have very good knowledge of engineering and sharing many good stuff. But I do not like your hypocrite and arrogant
This is my experience as well. And for me, it doesn't hurt that it is scientifically well grounded. It means that the whole quest has a technical path and isn't an alchemy adventure which is comforting and hints on eventual success. Nuff said.
//
Well, when sound is forming and departs from the surface of the cone ( whatever form...) and music spreads in the air and the ears catches it and the brain processes it, yeah, that's a strange 'alchemy adventure'.
Probably the vocabulary for describing the process is not yet 'formed' in our world, as I see most of the vocabulary is borrowed from the magazines - those have produced real damage to the brains!- and extends to anything audio-electronic related device.
An amplifier is....musical? How you define musical? Is music part of it? So we must know what music means...and so on
Probably the vocabulary for describing the process is not yet 'formed' in our world, as I see most of the vocabulary is borrowed from the magazines - those have produced real damage to the brains!- and extends to anything audio-electronic related device.
An amplifier is....musical? How you define musical? Is music part of it? So we must know what music means...and so on
You are confusing reality with reproduction. Nothing magic in capturing and recreating a sound event. It just takes a lot of engineering and science. No alchemy anywhere, just boring signal processing. And there is a long way to go still. Music is magic
I think that when someone once phrased the saying "This amp is musical" it was due to that it very faithfully transfered the signal it was supposed to amplify - i.e. it didn't alter it at all and thus, preserved the original "musicality" of the music transferred.
Music can never be recreated or enhanced by an amplifier, only lost. An amp or D/A could have a fault that luckily happens to compensate for an other error in the system however. This fault does not make this amp or D/A "musical" in my mind - cant see how that can be logical sound in any way (PI).
//
I think that when someone once phrased the saying "This amp is musical" it was due to that it very faithfully transfered the signal it was supposed to amplify - i.e. it didn't alter it at all and thus, preserved the original "musicality" of the music transferred.
Music can never be recreated or enhanced by an amplifier, only lost. An amp or D/A could have a fault that luckily happens to compensate for an other error in the system however. This fault does not make this amp or D/A "musical" in my mind - cant see how that can be logical sound in any way (PI).
//
- Status
- Not open for further replies.