back to the subject of mirrored topology in mirrored circuits.
the problem then returns to parts matching.
Once that is solved as best can be, an old but rarely recognized bugaboo rears it's head:
Poor balanced cable/signal transmission/translation.
Building perfect symmetry in both cable design and cable termination, and how that needs be implemented in the mechanics of signal I/O handling, at the mechanics of the terminals and thus the transfer junctions themselves, is a point that is rarely recognized or addressed.
Improperly done, listening wise, this will create a 'micro-sheen' in the transient function. A micro slur in both amplitude, phase and thus a distortion component.
The human ear is one hell of a sensitive device. However, the capacity of the given brain connected to it and the training/understanding of the given brain, this becomes key to understanding what is 'heard'.
due to how the ear works, this 'noise' in the micro-transient region, this noise is recognized by most, including most audio reviewers, as being 'air' and 'space', and 'shaping of instruments in 3d space'.
The point is always to remember that the best, I repeat THE BEST that any signal transfer or translation system can ever do, is to be slightly darker and slightly slower than the original. For either a cable, termination, or any given circuit or source... this is the only logic that can be applied, period.
Remember what you are doing. You are working with a system of controlled losses, not gains. We can get to systems that have lower distortion and do indeed bring more 'micro detail' to us, but if it comes along with an increase in HF micro detail, without the body of the notes also being increased in micro-information...then the odds are very high is that it is a lie, a distortion we observe, not any real gain in information.
That we are listening to noise, to distortion, and mistaking it for signal.
Thus, one can make a near perfect systems from input, to output, and then have a signal source or transfer system (cable) come along and add distortion and someone will call it 'amazing' ....for all the wrong reasons.
The problem has always been that 'sex sells'..and that sex is 90% in the head.
Mediocrity always buys the bimbo.
Thus the inherent and continual mediocrity in the game of 'component flipping', where satisfaction...... can never be reached. That is a situation where the given buyer and seller of components (the high end gear flipper) has not reached a clear understanding of what is going on and is not yet moving in the right direction.
The sad part is how may companies and retailers stake their reputation and business on such a scenario. In many ways it is impossible to do otherwise, for the customers must clear their minds and their understandings on these subjects, all on their own.
the problem then returns to parts matching.
Once that is solved as best can be, an old but rarely recognized bugaboo rears it's head:
Poor balanced cable/signal transmission/translation.
Building perfect symmetry in both cable design and cable termination, and how that needs be implemented in the mechanics of signal I/O handling, at the mechanics of the terminals and thus the transfer junctions themselves, is a point that is rarely recognized or addressed.
Improperly done, listening wise, this will create a 'micro-sheen' in the transient function. A micro slur in both amplitude, phase and thus a distortion component.
The human ear is one hell of a sensitive device. However, the capacity of the given brain connected to it and the training/understanding of the given brain, this becomes key to understanding what is 'heard'.
due to how the ear works, this 'noise' in the micro-transient region, this noise is recognized by most, including most audio reviewers, as being 'air' and 'space', and 'shaping of instruments in 3d space'.
The point is always to remember that the best, I repeat THE BEST that any signal transfer or translation system can ever do, is to be slightly darker and slightly slower than the original. For either a cable, termination, or any given circuit or source... this is the only logic that can be applied, period.
Remember what you are doing. You are working with a system of controlled losses, not gains. We can get to systems that have lower distortion and do indeed bring more 'micro detail' to us, but if it comes along with an increase in HF micro detail, without the body of the notes also being increased in micro-information...then the odds are very high is that it is a lie, a distortion we observe, not any real gain in information.
That we are listening to noise, to distortion, and mistaking it for signal.
Thus, one can make a near perfect systems from input, to output, and then have a signal source or transfer system (cable) come along and add distortion and someone will call it 'amazing' ....for all the wrong reasons.
The problem has always been that 'sex sells'..and that sex is 90% in the head.
Mediocrity always buys the bimbo.
Thus the inherent and continual mediocrity in the game of 'component flipping', where satisfaction...... can never be reached. That is a situation where the given buyer and seller of components (the high end gear flipper) has not reached a clear understanding of what is going on and is not yet moving in the right direction.
The sad part is how may companies and retailers stake their reputation and business on such a scenario. In many ways it is impossible to do otherwise, for the customers must clear their minds and their understandings on these subjects, all on their own.
KBK, we have been talking about a certain area of circuit design, namely topology. From there, wiring, soldering, layout, shielding, crosstalk, power supply noise, and ground problems need to be discussed.
Whether you KBK, have the 'answers' I do not know, but IF I can't understand you completely, I doubt that others here will get much out of it.
Whether you KBK, have the 'answers' I do not know, but IF I can't understand you completely, I doubt that others here will get much out of it.
too bad. I've spent my entire audio life working at correcting that small area, as the other part, the other +95% ..... is already there.
It's the same in optics, which I had to understand on the photonic/molecular level, in order to build/execute a projector better than anyone else and to design reflective surfaces better than anyone else.
The entire issue of optics, in all ways...... is channeled into the last 3-5%. That's it..... that's the whole damned thing. And it is quantum issues, pure and simple. Where the dimensional/quantum, meets the mass aggregate.
Extreme Audio is the same way, the limits are in the micro-molecular and all our endeavor in the extreme high end comes down to the area that begins to step -hell no- RESIDES in the quantum issues, the very limits of reality and perception.
You've worked hard at microphone and similar levels of signal handing and amplification issues, so you know this, understand this, from that angle, at the least.
The very existence of mediocrity as the center mass of humanity's condition, and it's associated boundaries ....dictates that few will understand or cognate, and thus the cutting edge of endeavor will be dismissed as quackery and insanity, by that center mass.
Signal is inherently a quantum function beast due to the existence of change in state or delta. Electricity, as a system of information flow, is a ionic function and therefore inherently quantum, thus the inevitable distortion and limits when it is channeled via imperfect mediums such as solids. Understanding or visualizing the quantum components becomes key, when addressing the engineering challenges.
The rest, the residual and mechanistic +95%..... is mundane..and academic.
Ed, thanks. Your post is what should be called a really informative answer.
When I come to US in 2000 I could not understand why compact line arrays are not popular here. All I've seen, multiple modifications of what Lancing designed in 1036'th for Cinematograph. I made my foldable concert speakers and tested them with succes in different environments, from campgrounds to reverberant halls.
Later BOSE made one, but with speakers facing different sides making gaps of HF response, it was not a competitor, but then finally on AES I saw Renkus-Heinz presented some good speakers and realized that I lost.
Later BOSE made one, but with speakers facing different sides making gaps of HF response, it was not a competitor, but then finally on AES I saw Renkus-Heinz presented some good speakers and realized that I lost.
You can build these circuits and get good perfomance and sound with many similar devices. But in the end the Toshiba parts seem to have a sonic advantage. It some cases it is slight but it is there and that justifies them for top products. Not really sure why this is but just my opinion.
Well also other peoples if reviews, awards and magazine covers matter.
Actually I agree with KBK for the most part, but it is not for discussion here. If KBK and I started a discussion about what he wants to convey here, we would be jumped on by high school dropouts and PHD Physicists, alike. It JUST ISN'T WORTH IT. The only way to know if we are on the right track, inevitably, is to listen to different approaches. Yet, that is not 'honored' here by many, and every excuse in the world would be put forth as to why we heard a difference, and how it is all 'stuff and nonsense'.
For the record, KBK makes one of the most interesting audio connecting cables that I have ever come across, and I know from people who have been in the position to personally evaluate these cables that they are exceptional.
For the record, KBK makes one of the most interesting audio connecting cables that I have ever come across, and I know from people who have been in the position to personally evaluate these cables that they are exceptional.
And the most vocal critics of the cutting edge - in any field - are the most fully educated/experienced who are either incapable or unwilling to go the extra distance necessary to 'know' where they stand, or, alternatively, are guarding their own position......they are the biggest wall to true progress in any field.
I'd disagree with the last statement. Leading-edge practitioners in audio and acoustics barely even notice the folks who are stuck in 1968 or those hyping silly ideas. Those reactionaries have a niche audience, but that's all.
John if you want to say nothing the industry has done in the last 40 yr. has any use to high end audio that is fine. I don't mind that at all, I might even agree at some level but only in the sense that the sophistication required is limited. Doug Self takes that to the limit in his recent article i.e. the 5534 is as far as IC's need to go.
I did a volunteer science fair today and an 11 yr old left handed kid came in and grabbed a right handed guitar and played the heck out of it. Now that requires sophistication.
Was his name Jimi?
And of course I have to ask, was the guitar STRUNG right handed as well?
se
Was his name Jimi?
And of course I have to ask, was the guitar STRUNG right handed as well?
se
Yes, the owner was stunned. The kid was shredding like crazy. That wasn't the only thing a couple of other 11-13 yr olds came by and started playing "Stairway to Heaven" and "Smoke on the Water" to early to give up on the next gen.
EDIT - I think "Freebird" got in there too.
Last edited:
Cool!
Though I wonder how he'd do if you put a left handed guitar in his hands. If he originally learned to play left handed on a right handed guitar, I guess it's really no more amazing than if he'd started on a left handed guitar.
That wasn't the only thing a couple of other 11-13 yr olds came by and started playing "Stairway to Heaven" and "Smoke on the Water" to early to give up on the next gen.
EDIT - I think "Freebird" got in there too.
Guess it just goes to show nothing's changed in the last 30 years. Same songs I first tried learning.
se
Guess it just goes to show nothing's changed in the last 30 years. Same songs I first tried learning.
No, changed a lot. Mine was this one: http://patefon.knet.ru/33/songs/Sincron_-_Sprosi_u_voshodyaschey_luny.mp3
Extreme high end, what a concept... Most of what I listen to and whether or not it sounds musical or real does not exist at the molecular level, it's right there in the body of the music. Textures, edges, congestion, it's all right there. When they are tamed and the music blooms and puts a smile on my face, I know things are going in the right direction.
The concept that Extreme Audio is something that only the chosen few who have studied physics can achieve or master (not to mention afford) seems a bit narrow minded. There are too many examples of this approach sounding like S*$! to discount and enough example of other approaches that challenge the concept.
The music lives on a much simpler playing field.
Regards, Mike
I've learned to keep my opinions to myself, for the most part, but I let my hair down a bit after a very enjoyable night of music.
The term Extreme high-end just tweeked my keyboard fingers. I was repeating myself anyway as I've said a few times that I don't believe that the factors that make an amp or preamp sound realistic are buried in the sub 100db artifacts, with this latest twist requiring a Quantum Physics degree...
As Gilda would say, never mind.
Mike
Yesterday, the May issues of 'Stereophile' and 'The Absolute Sound' came in the mail. I realize that these are 'enthusiast' magazines and not some stiff journals of higher science, BUT they are saying the same thing that I have espoused here over the years.
AND they seriously acknowledge my efforts over the decades, as well as my colleagues.
Now who writes these articles and reviews?
I don't know any of the reviewers very well, but I have met a number of them at CES, etc, over the decades. Especially the editors. They seem to OK guys to me, about the same education level as me, however with a bigger collection of music. They usually have a 'day job' where they can make enough to support their family, and they do this audio reviewing on the side for the love of it, and becoming an 'insider' in the audio industry. This gives them access and discounts on audio products, much like an audio dealer does. Most often, they just 'borrow' audio equipment for a time, and have to give it back, after the review is over, unless they want to buy it at a discounted price.
I personally have never given a reviewer anything, except a discount on the retail price. I personally have never advertised any of my designs, yet I still get reviewer approval, more times than less.
Of course, I am talking about products in my direct control, such as the Vendetta Research products, from more than 20 years ago.
The CTC Blowtorch was never owned by any high end reviewer, because we could not discount the product, and it was just too expensive for just about everybody. It too, was never advertised, although we did get one review in a now discontinued magazine called 'Ultimate Audio', that gave us some exposure.
Yet, even with these products, I have shown what CAN BE DONE, rather than what can be gotten away with. The difference is subtle, not usually easily revealed in an ABX type test, yet it is consistent over the decades, and appreciated by people who just use their ears to determine if the designer has 'got it right'.
AND they seriously acknowledge my efforts over the decades, as well as my colleagues.
Now who writes these articles and reviews?
I don't know any of the reviewers very well, but I have met a number of them at CES, etc, over the decades. Especially the editors. They seem to OK guys to me, about the same education level as me, however with a bigger collection of music. They usually have a 'day job' where they can make enough to support their family, and they do this audio reviewing on the side for the love of it, and becoming an 'insider' in the audio industry. This gives them access and discounts on audio products, much like an audio dealer does. Most often, they just 'borrow' audio equipment for a time, and have to give it back, after the review is over, unless they want to buy it at a discounted price.
I personally have never given a reviewer anything, except a discount on the retail price. I personally have never advertised any of my designs, yet I still get reviewer approval, more times than less.
Of course, I am talking about products in my direct control, such as the Vendetta Research products, from more than 20 years ago.
The CTC Blowtorch was never owned by any high end reviewer, because we could not discount the product, and it was just too expensive for just about everybody. It too, was never advertised, although we did get one review in a now discontinued magazine called 'Ultimate Audio', that gave us some exposure.
Yet, even with these products, I have shown what CAN BE DONE, rather than what can be gotten away with. The difference is subtle, not usually easily revealed in an ABX type test, yet it is consistent over the decades, and appreciated by people who just use their ears to determine if the designer has 'got it right'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.