Peculiar as it might seem, some people are motivated by a simple desire for truth (as they perceive it). This can cause them to disagree with people who seem to have a different perception of truth. In an ideal world they would then have a civil debate, regarding peception and facts and evidence and rational argument.
Some people don't like having their views challenged, and may at first resort to bragging about their academic credentials/awards won/product reviews/sales figures. This doesn't cut any ice with genuine truth seekers, so people then resort to personal insult and wild assumptions/accusations about motivation. This leads the truth seekers to assume, rightly or wrongly, that the others have a weak case.
Lurking on the fringes of any such debate (on both sides) will be those who wish to support their heroes. They often allow their loyalty to cloud their judgement, so make silly fanboy statements and sometimes appear to be more dogmatic than the person they claim to support. Their hero (presumably) understand the real issues and knows that nothing is quite as simple as it seems, but his fans do not. They raise the temperature of the debate but add little light.
How do you distinguish a genuine truth-seeker? Simple. Present him with a reasonable argument supported by appropriate evidence and he will be persuaded to change his mind. His pride may delay this process so you just have to be patient.
Some people don't like having their views challenged, and may at first resort to bragging about their academic credentials/awards won/product reviews/sales figures. This doesn't cut any ice with genuine truth seekers, so people then resort to personal insult and wild assumptions/accusations about motivation. This leads the truth seekers to assume, rightly or wrongly, that the others have a weak case.
Lurking on the fringes of any such debate (on both sides) will be those who wish to support their heroes. They often allow their loyalty to cloud their judgement, so make silly fanboy statements and sometimes appear to be more dogmatic than the person they claim to support. Their hero (presumably) understand the real issues and knows that nothing is quite as simple as it seems, but his fans do not. They raise the temperature of the debate but add little light.
How do you distinguish a genuine truth-seeker? Simple. Present him with a reasonable argument supported by appropriate evidence and he will be persuaded to change his mind. His pride may delay this process so you just have to be patient.
Sure but how many thousand posts has it been since this thread has been on topic?
Here is a link to the very first post in this (continued) thread just to jog peoples memories http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/71189-john-curls-blowtorch-preamplifier.html
Tony.
Here is a link to the very first post in this (continued) thread just to jog peoples memories http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/71189-john-curls-blowtorch-preamplifier.html
Tony.
Hi,
Perhaps. I personally prefer to not pre-conceive much at all, and prefer to to take people literal by what they write and how they behave in general. I even in some cases look how the same people behave outside of audio boards.
If I have no preconceived notions, then, if you advance the proposition "Negative Feedback is 'a bad thing'", I will not automatically believe you nor reject you.
I will rather consider who it comes from, how much experience they have, if they have commercial designs in the market how these designs are perceived and so on.
I will also consider inductively if there are any possible issues to such a process as feedback, primary or as side-effects, which may cause issues.
In short, I will try to ascertain if the opinion comes from a nobody with extremist leanings or from someone with some solid track record and will at least see if there is anything to learn here.
And in the case of feedback there is of course.
We know that feedback causes a multiplicative increase in levels and order of HD (and the related IMD), we know that to overcome this effect (e.g. to get back to something that approximates the state without feedback, as far as upper harmonics are concerned) by applying a lot of negative feedback and we should know a thing or two about audibility of higher harmonics and the related IMD.
Plus we should know that we have severe limits to the amount of negative feedback we can apply at high frequencies, while at the same time distortion and especially higher order terms increases with rising frequency.
We may even know about thermal memory and know that this can cause us trouble if very large amounts of NFB are applied at low frequencies, though this is hard to measure using steady state sine waves, except at very low frequencies, where the cause may be mistaken to be different.
Note, I do have references for serious journals and/or books including WW, JAES etc. for all the above, however I do not encourage idelness or laziness, so go look yourselves
So we then find ourselves noting that where we need help most (high frequencies) we have little feedback available to use anyway, where we can apply a lot of NFB we then need to deal with thermal memory to not introduce other problems and we know that large amounts of NFB generally have stability issues.
So we may come to the reasonable conclusion that there may be something to the "NFB = bad" thing, even though it is not as clearcut as the statement suggests. So while may not 100% agree with "NFB = Bad" we would have nevertheless learned something, by keeping an open mind.
Of course, we could have just ignored the contentious remark and retorted with "bunkum", "were is your ABX test to provide proof" and "this goes against any established science", in which case we would have not only not learned anything that might teach us how to make possibly better amplifiers but we also would have pissed of other on the principle that "those who think they know it all really **** off those who do..".
Now will an amplifier designed with knowledge of the pitfalls of NFB and with the explicit aim to minimise or better avoid them "sound better" than one that maximises Negative feedback?
This is indeed a good question.
Those who have tried will already know the answer (I do).
There is certainly a lot of purely anecdotal data that suggests that this may be the case, while even anecdotal data in favour of high NFB designs seems thin on the ground. No proof yet, just a lot of data that suggests more work is needed.
Of course, non of this will convince the Technocrati, nor is it meant to. I prefer them as they are. That way most sensible individuals will know how to consider them.
Ciao T
That is that people have pre-conceived ideas about what others motivations/intentions are and don't actually interpret what they say for what it is but rather what they want it to mean
Perhaps. I personally prefer to not pre-conceive much at all, and prefer to to take people literal by what they write and how they behave in general. I even in some cases look how the same people behave outside of audio boards.
If I have no preconceived notions, then, if you advance the proposition "Negative Feedback is 'a bad thing'", I will not automatically believe you nor reject you.
I will rather consider who it comes from, how much experience they have, if they have commercial designs in the market how these designs are perceived and so on.
I will also consider inductively if there are any possible issues to such a process as feedback, primary or as side-effects, which may cause issues.
In short, I will try to ascertain if the opinion comes from a nobody with extremist leanings or from someone with some solid track record and will at least see if there is anything to learn here.
And in the case of feedback there is of course.
We know that feedback causes a multiplicative increase in levels and order of HD (and the related IMD), we know that to overcome this effect (e.g. to get back to something that approximates the state without feedback, as far as upper harmonics are concerned) by applying a lot of negative feedback and we should know a thing or two about audibility of higher harmonics and the related IMD.
Plus we should know that we have severe limits to the amount of negative feedback we can apply at high frequencies, while at the same time distortion and especially higher order terms increases with rising frequency.
We may even know about thermal memory and know that this can cause us trouble if very large amounts of NFB are applied at low frequencies, though this is hard to measure using steady state sine waves, except at very low frequencies, where the cause may be mistaken to be different.
Note, I do have references for serious journals and/or books including WW, JAES etc. for all the above, however I do not encourage idelness or laziness, so go look yourselves
So we then find ourselves noting that where we need help most (high frequencies) we have little feedback available to use anyway, where we can apply a lot of NFB we then need to deal with thermal memory to not introduce other problems and we know that large amounts of NFB generally have stability issues.
So we may come to the reasonable conclusion that there may be something to the "NFB = bad" thing, even though it is not as clearcut as the statement suggests. So while may not 100% agree with "NFB = Bad" we would have nevertheless learned something, by keeping an open mind.
Of course, we could have just ignored the contentious remark and retorted with "bunkum", "were is your ABX test to provide proof" and "this goes against any established science", in which case we would have not only not learned anything that might teach us how to make possibly better amplifiers but we also would have pissed of other on the principle that "those who think they know it all really **** off those who do..".
Now will an amplifier designed with knowledge of the pitfalls of NFB and with the explicit aim to minimise or better avoid them "sound better" than one that maximises Negative feedback?
This is indeed a good question.
Those who have tried will already know the answer (I do).
There is certainly a lot of purely anecdotal data that suggests that this may be the case, while even anecdotal data in favour of high NFB designs seems thin on the ground. No proof yet, just a lot of data that suggests more work is needed.
Of course, non of this will convince the Technocrati, nor is it meant to. I prefer them as they are. That way most sensible individuals will know how to consider them.
Ciao T
Hi,
Well, in the cases of many I observe here the patience may have to be that of the Prophet that waits for the mountain to come to him.
BTW, I do allow for the possibility of dishonourable motives from dissenters simply because I have seen such by far too often, so to ignore them would be misleading.
Ciao T
Well, in the cases of many I observe here the patience may have to be that of the Prophet that waits for the mountain to come to him.
BTW, I do allow for the possibility of dishonourable motives from dissenters simply because I have seen such by far too often, so to ignore them would be misleading.
Ciao T
Great posts Torsten, and a clear demonstration as to why trying to rationalize the discussion around the various schools of amplifier design is impossible. So the solution if we listen to you is zero feedback, jfets and tubes only etc. There is no room for any other approach, since according to you it must be wrong, right? Every statement made by the opposing argument is either taken out of context, or blatantly misinterpreted. A pity indeed.
Two snags wth this:ThorstenL said:
1. One man's "nobody" could be someone else's guru.
2. Scientific truth is not established or debunked by the human source of the statement.
Having said that, I accept that how much time and thought is given to initial consideration of an idea may depend on where it comes from. We all do that. However, just occasionally someone's incoherent ramblings may contain a germ of truth, and a well-presented argument from a reliable source may have a serious flaw hidden within it.
Hi,
First, my approach to Audio Design is "Anything Goes". Like a certain Mr. Deng once said, “it does not matter what color a cat is as long as it hunts mice”.
To me there is room for "a hundred flowers [to] bloom; [to] let a hundred schools of thought contend."
I do however take issue with two tendencies among some of the schools of thought, namely:
For one, those that wish to hold others to standards of evidence they never hold themselves to.
For two, those that peddle patent untruth, absolute hogwash claiming it to be science and their simple say so.
I do not interpret. I take the statements as written. If you did not mean what you typed, then next time don't type it.
As for taken out of context...
Surely if anyone makes a categorical statement, without qualification, that, to take a neutral example, A equals C without making any limiting statements as to when A = C actually applies, then he or she must be held to that and in fact, if it can be illustrated that cases exist where A <> C the statement must be considered disproved.
If you don't like it, be more precise in your statements.
Surely this is merely the minimum to expect from those claiming to espouse and to apply the "scientific methode"?
Ciao T
First, my approach to Audio Design is "Anything Goes". Like a certain Mr. Deng once said, “it does not matter what color a cat is as long as it hunts mice”.
To me there is room for "a hundred flowers [to] bloom; [to] let a hundred schools of thought contend."
I do however take issue with two tendencies among some of the schools of thought, namely:
For one, those that wish to hold others to standards of evidence they never hold themselves to.
For two, those that peddle patent untruth, absolute hogwash claiming it to be science and their simple say so.
I do not interpret. I take the statements as written. If you did not mean what you typed, then next time don't type it.
As for taken out of context...
Surely if anyone makes a categorical statement, without qualification, that, to take a neutral example, A equals C without making any limiting statements as to when A = C actually applies, then he or she must be held to that and in fact, if it can be illustrated that cases exist where A <> C the statement must be considered disproved.
If you don't like it, be more precise in your statements.
Surely this is merely the minimum to expect from those claiming to espouse and to apply the "scientific methode"?
Ciao T
Hmm I have read his posts thoroughly. Using the SY approach....Where did he say that exactly? Are you putting words into his mouth? On the contrary, what I read in his posts is that he was pleading for an open mind, which I do not encounter here much often.
Unfortunately the nature of written text is that it is all to easy to interpret it differently to what the writer intended.
It is actually extremely difficult to write something that cannot be mis-interpreted, that is unfortunately one of the reasons why we have lawyers and "legal-speak"
Tony.
Last edited:
Hi,
I do not much care for Guru's. However, I am more willing to consider the opinion of someone who has a lot of experience than that of one that has non.
Of course not. It is established by proof.
In absence of proof we can either wait for proof, or consider to investigate.
However if I hear the same thing from a lot of people with long and broad experience I am more inclined to investigate, than I am inclined to not investigate, based on the pounding of outdated textbooks and repetition of mantras that are long proven wrong, by those that engage in mindless no-saying.
So to me the source does matter insofar as may make me less or more inclined to investigate. Equally, just because something is attacked by these textbook pounders does not automatically make it interesting...
Sure, actually I am more inclined to consider this position true than many.
But I would not build a wordview or life philosophy on it, or indeed on it's opposite.
Ciao T
I do not much care for Guru's. However, I am more willing to consider the opinion of someone who has a lot of experience than that of one that has non.
Of course not. It is established by proof.
In absence of proof we can either wait for proof, or consider to investigate.
However if I hear the same thing from a lot of people with long and broad experience I am more inclined to investigate, than I am inclined to not investigate, based on the pounding of outdated textbooks and repetition of mantras that are long proven wrong, by those that engage in mindless no-saying.
So to me the source does matter insofar as may make me less or more inclined to investigate. Equally, just because something is attacked by these textbook pounders does not automatically make it interesting...
Sure, actually I am more inclined to consider this position true than many.
But I would not build a wordview or life philosophy on it, or indeed on it's opposite.
Ciao T
I wish he 'd display some of that then when passing comments about other people's designs.
Hi,
Appy-polly-logie if my suggestions as to how your design could be objectively and subjectively be improved where offending. But only something perfect is not capable of being improved.
As I said then and several times, as long as you like the results, that is all that matters.
Ciao T
Appy-polly-logie if my suggestions as to how your design could be objectively and subjectively be improved where offending. But only something perfect is not capable of being improved.
As I said then and several times, as long as you like the results, that is all that matters.
Ciao T
I cant' find any science in audio; only engineering. There's a difference between the two that all too often gets blurred. This is probably because many engineers like to think of themselves as scientists when, in fact, they're not - they're engineers. So, when the term "scientific principles" gets bandied about, one should translate it as "engineering principles".
The only science that has been repeatedly discussed in this thread is psychology; a very, very soft science, and one that I don't put much stock in.
The only science that has been repeatedly discussed in this thread is psychology; a very, very soft science, and one that I don't put much stock in.
Even the non-engineers on this here forum appear to fancy the mad scientist routine.
(ahh, next week i'll be having a listen to a $90k loudspeaker golden oldy that looks like a sea shell, with 4 dozen opamps in the active XO's. And not even the GD best of the bunch, if only i could be open minded)
(ahh, next week i'll be having a listen to a $90k loudspeaker golden oldy that looks like a sea shell, with 4 dozen opamps in the active XO's. And not even the GD best of the bunch, if only i could be open minded)
Subjective improvement is rather uh.. subjective, isn't it?
One person's idea of subjective improvement isn't necessarily everyone else's idea of subjective improvement. Unless of course one is so full of themselves they believe that it should be.
Define "perfect."
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.