All I read is, "hi everyone, I want to make it clear that objective numbers are all I care about, the prospect of making sellable products is meaningless to me, I won't participate in an imperfect world of electronics"
As far as the engineering crowd goes, I want to see as much information as possible on measured differences. But it does no good to quibble over not finding measurements at the speakers when it is so audible, when energy can be spent improving and selling products. Products that people like. While I don't believe there is any placebo affect, it is irrelevent even if its 100% placebo, because aparantly anyone with ears and nothing to prove is in on it.
Plenty of gear with high PSRR still sounds better with conditioning.
Just curious, if amplifier X sounds great to start with, but the sound would be much improved by adding an Y power conditioner (note the lack of any metric in this description), what should I do?
- Spend an extra 1000 quid on the Y power conditioner and enjoy the superior sound, or
- Return amplifier X and purchase amplifier Z that always sounds great, with or without any power conditioner.
- Spend an extra 1000 quid on the Y power conditioner and enjoy the superior sound, or
- Return amplifier X and purchase amplifier Z that always sounds great, with or without any power conditioner.
If you believe there is no relationship between PSRR and the presence (or lack, thereof) power conditioner, then this pretty much closes any communication channel.
The longer I continue with design and building of my preamps I am finding that power supply design is EVERYTHING! If you have noise on your supply line then your amplifier is forced to amplify it.
The BIGGIE though, that most designers totally miss the mark on, is the speed of the power supply to deliver current to the gainstage. This is where all those luscious microdynamics happen.
The BIGGIE though, that most designers totally miss the mark on, is the speed of the power supply to deliver current to the gainstage. This is where all those luscious microdynamics happen.
....
Almost no noise makes it to the speakers as it will be measured on the line, at least in gear that is not broken. What it does is abberate the signal itself.
Are you saying the power conditioner was causing amplifier level compression instead of the soundguy needing to add it after the amplifier? That sounds like a regulation issue, doesn't it? (Even if it does sound good for electric guitar.)
Or have Y make amp X A D Z T sound better. Boom. People change gear over time.
Not a waste of time at all. The 7000 hasn't even arrived yet. It is on a truck somewhere between Eagan, MN and here. Patience please, is all I ask. I am curious to know what is going on too.
And I am strongly in favor of blind testing as I have said many times. I only want to see some fairly-easy-to-implement but useful modifications to the test equipment (easy for a programmer, that is). How do we make that happen, by the way? Any ideas?
No. They would describe that as gain or level.
When they say compression they mean the frequency range limiting. The guitar amps weren't spewing white-ish noise and poor power resposne from shitty power factor. So it was not necessary to compress their FR range that otherwise muddies the overall music.
Last edited:
Are you confusing muti-band compression with compression? Compression itself is not a tone control, although it can let more LF through than HF dynamically according to attack events. That is to say, depending on attack characteristics and if it is in a released state then upon playing loud low notes it can let a LF envelope though before volume lowering occurs. Gives a nice rhythmic pumping effect that can sometimes sound good with guitars (and drums, etc.). In fact, some guitar players seek out amplifiers with tube rectifiers and small filter caps so when they play hard the power supply will sag and then have some recovery time which is very similar to what a compressor does. Difference with doing it inside the guitar amp is distortion also changes dynamically with power supply sagging and recovery which can add some nice complexity to the guitar sound.
Yes I get all of that. I'm just telling you what shitty sound man lingo was. I watched him fiddle with the board.
I've come across a number of people that call bandwidth limiting as compression. Maybe there's a school somewhere that teaches them... I don't know.
*Maybe some of them are doing a mix of actual compression and attenuation, and they just don't differentiate? You got me, I was equally confused by the nomenclature.
I've come across a number of people that call bandwidth limiting as compression. Maybe there's a school somewhere that teaches them... I don't know.
*Maybe some of them are doing a mix of actual compression and attenuation, and they just don't differentiate? You got me, I was equally confused by the nomenclature.
Last edited:
You keep describing gross performance aberrations, claims of not being able to easily measure what is going on become less believable. The multi-tone signal at different levels is a powerful tool, I've used it to make problems immediately obvious.
The problem of course is no industry standard use of it, but I can show you commercial amplifiers where anyone would say you have to be deaf not to hear it.
That does sound more like the increased mains impedance was actually causing problems as described.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.