You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate you have the guts to admit it. Unfortunately, many professionals in the so-called high end audio industry want to have the engineering cake and eat it too.
Indeed, we are on a totally different journeys: you are looking for commercial success, by winning (or creating) a market niche for your product(s). From this perspective, we are certainly not competing, I have no plans to beat you or any other audio industry professional at anything else but technology/engineering. BTW, not hearing that 1nV/rtHz noise at full volume is certainly in a serious contradiction with your extraordinary claims about (e.g.) cables and magnetic resistors audibility.
Anyway, I see you and your swiss/german colleagues are not happy to receive and discuss any technical feedback about the low noise designs saga you are blogging here, so I will refrain from any further comments. Good luck and I hope you'll achieve the desired commercial success!
P.S. One last comment. The Lyra Titan has 5.5 ohm DC impedance. Unfortunately, the current noise adds up on both the resistive (5.5ohm) and the reactive impedance @10KHz, which is certainly more than 6 ohm. It would certainly help your commercial design philosophy to recall that some well regarded (and certainly not cheap) MC cartridges have inductances in the mH range, having therefore 100ohm (or more) impedance @10KHz.
Last edited:
I have no swiss colleagues if you talk about Vacuum State. I know Allen only from shows and we have talked here more on the web that i have talked to him in person. I know all the equotians and the Titan i that i use use has inductance in the sub uHenry range. I do not care much about measurements but listen a lot. You say you do not trust yours ears but i trust mine. So i am much superiour it that sence and still whould not give up service to you. This answer only tells me that you are not convinced that your circuits sound good and try to avoid any more difentiated scrutinity. If you really think that exceptional measurements tell you anything about the sound then you are on the wrong track in my experience. The human ear is no microphone and no distortion analyser. It was developed for survival and is a differentiation device with 40dB of steepening in the first 15uSec. it steepens the wave shape in the first 15usecs to be shure where the danger comes from. i can get you in contact with the University of Würzburg that reseached that field for 40 years. I really feel sad that you do not contribute any more because i like a lot what you say. Anyway, i think you really feel sorry about us stupid fools that listen to noise. I studied with Malcolm Hawsford and he told me that humans can hear -30dB into the noise. I think there is one thing that we german researchers really understand, that is psycho acoustics. We are NOT maschines.
P.S. : your designs are more universal then mine thats for shure and after that mesage you send to me i will show you how to do low noise my way. i will proove i can do it.
P.P.S. : where did i say that this thread is about low noise ? well i posted over 500 posts so it may have escaped me
P.S. : your designs are more universal then mine thats for shure and after that mesage you send to me i will show you how to do low noise my way. i will proove i can do it.
P.P.S. : where did i say that this thread is about low noise ? well i posted over 500 posts so it may have escaped me
Joachim, let's stop this here, ok? To my experience trying to debate with a hardcore subjectivist is like teaching a horse to sing, it frustrates the teacher and it annoys the horse. There's already enough subjective/objective **** on this site.
P.S. BTW, I'm not trying to avoid anything and you don't have to "show" me anything. Keep your potential customers happy, that's what really matters. Meantime, I'll continue to exercise my hobby. I measure my success only by the statistics on my web site and God knows, I'm about to expand/upgrade my hosting service.
Last edited:
In germany we speak about a body inteligence and a mind inteligence in itellectual quarters now. from that perspective the horse is more inteligent then the teacher. A bad teacher makes the pupils feel bad. To put it another way : a superiour teacher that is really interested to bring the mesage over because he whould like to make things better is never disappointed about his pupils because without his adjucation they are seriously flawed by definition.
We must not stop thinking that the designed devices are to enjoy them subjectively.
Also it is true that to do a good devices we must depart from the technical bases, for all this we must not lose the perspective of the set.
This does not want to say that the devices should have high rates of noises or distortions, the serious ideal thing that neither noise nor distortion had and were sounding well. Though it does not happen in the majority of the times.
It's better not to lose the time in silly discussions, to advance the way is to share and to debate why happen the things & so will arrive the conclusions.
Peace & Happy New Year 2.010
Merlin El Mago
Also it is true that to do a good devices we must depart from the technical bases, for all this we must not lose the perspective of the set.
This does not want to say that the devices should have high rates of noises or distortions, the serious ideal thing that neither noise nor distortion had and were sounding well. Though it does not happen in the majority of the times.
It's better not to lose the time in silly discussions, to advance the way is to share and to debate why happen the things & so will arrive the conclusions.
Peace & Happy New Year 2.010
Merlin El Mago
I am sorry that i heated the discussion up a bit too much yesterday. Maybe i expected a different response to my post and was disappointed.
Anyway, i have made the experience that great measurements not always translate into good sound. What i also not understand is why subjectivism is unscientific and inferiour. I think Buddha
talked about that all human beings have a subjective experience with the world.
I am more concerned that my circuits sound good and because we can not measure soundquality yet i listen to them and then try to optimise them with all i learned over the years. I measure a lot too and whould think that for example a phonostage that has acuracy to only +-1dB does damage to the signal. I think distortion of the whole chain should be under 0.1% preferably low order and bandwidth should be high. Noise should not be audible at the listening chair. Any measurements better then that do not garantie better sound. I do commercial phonostages that measure very well because that is importand to get a favourable test report. They sound great too so i do not like to say here that good measurements are the enemy of good sound, but working without listening tests is not sufficient to characterise a product.
Anyway, i have made the experience that great measurements not always translate into good sound. What i also not understand is why subjectivism is unscientific and inferiour. I think Buddha
talked about that all human beings have a subjective experience with the world.
I am more concerned that my circuits sound good and because we can not measure soundquality yet i listen to them and then try to optimise them with all i learned over the years. I measure a lot too and whould think that for example a phonostage that has acuracy to only +-1dB does damage to the signal. I think distortion of the whole chain should be under 0.1% preferably low order and bandwidth should be high. Noise should not be audible at the listening chair. Any measurements better then that do not garantie better sound. I do commercial phonostages that measure very well because that is importand to get a favourable test report. They sound great too so i do not like to say here that good measurements are the enemy of good sound, but working without listening tests is not sufficient to characterise a product.
It seems to me that there are two extremes of attitude / intention in audio design. These extremes appear to be on one hand held people with a primary interest in making purely theoretical advances which are then 'proven' by mathematics and measurement. The opposite extreme is represented by those for whom the unashamed emotionality of music is of prime importance, their justification being to improveme the listening experience. There is a world of difference between technical satisfaction and emotional satisfaction. [I know that there are circumstances to which these thoughts do not need to apply. But here the topic is moving coil cartridge first stage signal processing and such devices are solely for music replay.]
A 'technical' approach to design, without any prolonged and experienced subjective testing, is quite capable of producing honest well designed and ‘technically’ state of art amplifiers etc. Yet such equipment - not always, but far too frequently - when heard by a listener who is capable of being emotionally charged/involved by music will cause him to shrug his shoulders and say "...so what….it may be near enough perfect, but it does not involve me emotionally in the music as deeply as does my kitchen radio from 40 years ago!"
On the other hand there are still in use systems which were designed around the 1950s /1960s - using items such as Garrard turntables, Ortofon SPU cartridges, Leak amps, Lowther or Quad speakers and similar outdated low ‘specification’ equipment which even today continues to provide emotional involvement, despite the fact that they are often very far from technically good and measure very poorly indeed compared to mass produced very cheap items of today.
As I see it the real objective of successful audio design is to create equipment which convey to the listener the fullest experience of a live performance, but that the emotional response to the sound produced will – for anyone who is stirred by music – be the deciding factor when a purchase is made. If enjoyment of music is not the prime purpose of spending the money then the buyers emotions are more related to other life forces such as bragging, show of wealth etc etc.
As time passes newer methodology emerges and newer versions of old components are developed [as shown by Joachim with his example above]. However the search for the lowest overall distortion and noise levels in design, admirable though such pursuits may be, really have little to do with the experience of music. [Sitting in the Royal Festival Hall next to a person who is shuffling around and breathing noisily may annoy, but the emotion of the music being played will for most people remain. To be in the stalls alone during a rehearsal - as I have been - is superb of course, but equally unrealistic and a tad too sterile.
The ideal is naturally to design the equipment with the spirit of emotionally satisfying music replay using, as far as possible the best of contemporary technical practice. If battle is mounted by either camp, then the result can only be similar to that 10,000++ thread on cables!!! We all have various reasons for taking our approach as consumers or as designers, as leave it alone or as tweakers, but designers must never loose sight of the reality of the emotional nature of music.
EDIT:
I have just read Joachim's post immediately above: The last sentence is so very true!
A 'technical' approach to design, without any prolonged and experienced subjective testing, is quite capable of producing honest well designed and ‘technically’ state of art amplifiers etc. Yet such equipment - not always, but far too frequently - when heard by a listener who is capable of being emotionally charged/involved by music will cause him to shrug his shoulders and say "...so what….it may be near enough perfect, but it does not involve me emotionally in the music as deeply as does my kitchen radio from 40 years ago!"
On the other hand there are still in use systems which were designed around the 1950s /1960s - using items such as Garrard turntables, Ortofon SPU cartridges, Leak amps, Lowther or Quad speakers and similar outdated low ‘specification’ equipment which even today continues to provide emotional involvement, despite the fact that they are often very far from technically good and measure very poorly indeed compared to mass produced very cheap items of today.
As I see it the real objective of successful audio design is to create equipment which convey to the listener the fullest experience of a live performance, but that the emotional response to the sound produced will – for anyone who is stirred by music – be the deciding factor when a purchase is made. If enjoyment of music is not the prime purpose of spending the money then the buyers emotions are more related to other life forces such as bragging, show of wealth etc etc.
As time passes newer methodology emerges and newer versions of old components are developed [as shown by Joachim with his example above]. However the search for the lowest overall distortion and noise levels in design, admirable though such pursuits may be, really have little to do with the experience of music. [Sitting in the Royal Festival Hall next to a person who is shuffling around and breathing noisily may annoy, but the emotion of the music being played will for most people remain. To be in the stalls alone during a rehearsal - as I have been - is superb of course, but equally unrealistic and a tad too sterile.
The ideal is naturally to design the equipment with the spirit of emotionally satisfying music replay using, as far as possible the best of contemporary technical practice. If battle is mounted by either camp, then the result can only be similar to that 10,000++ thread on cables!!! We all have various reasons for taking our approach as consumers or as designers, as leave it alone or as tweakers, but designers must never loose sight of the reality of the emotional nature of music.
EDIT:
I have just read Joachim's post immediately above: The last sentence is so very true!
Last edited:
syn08,
I agree with almost everything you say here. [And I was not attempting to rile you with my previous posting.] My position is quite clear - to me that is!
.
Accepting that the two extremes of view as I have mentioned above exist, I believe that the most valid answer lies somewhere in the middle. This approach demands a good understanding not only of the technical science involved but of the music itself; which in turn demands critical listening. I agree that there is multi thousand $ equipment out there which is downright rubbish in terms of being able to replay music recordings appropriately. I was in a certain house many years ago and that house had more than ten systems which included every "big name" in the Audio business at that time. There were hundreds of meters of famous brands of cables at 10,000 a set. Some systems were excellent at reproducing one or two of the many facets of music....there were two rather good systems in overall terms, but the rest was simply reliant on high budget PR and advertising campaigns for their high cost and the reviewer acceptability which gave buyers the courage to pay such monstrous sums of money! Yes, they had fine cosmetics too and looked the biz
The central criticism was that there was little cohesion in terms of tone timing or image. Its not fair to name names but if you think of say seventeen major buck makers their stuff was there. Most of that stuff measured well and did not come from the snake charming people.
I simply believe that the answer will be found closer to the mid-approach than to either extreme. I also happen to believe that - and don't dare let SY hear thisD) - that those who truly are moved by music may very often have far from perfect ears, yet can have the discernment which I covered in my last post. To meet the criteria of replaying music in an emotionally involving way should, as you have suggested, involve technical integrity rather than 'doctoring' sound by devious means so as to give an impression of being what it is not. [The most striking experience I have had in this direction was when a designer made a SE 300b amp on the floor and by circuit changes and value and component type changes covered virtually every type of sonic effect which could be wrung out of that set of transformers and output tube. It is so long ago that I cannot recount in detail but I do remember that beguiling as many combinations were there was as few as two versions, which were worthwhile.]
Measurement and knowledgeable critical listening must all be involved in design development.
I agree with almost everything you say here. [And I was not attempting to rile you with my previous posting.] My position is quite clear - to me that is!
.Accepting that the two extremes of view as I have mentioned above exist, I believe that the most valid answer lies somewhere in the middle. This approach demands a good understanding not only of the technical science involved but of the music itself; which in turn demands critical listening. I agree that there is multi thousand $ equipment out there which is downright rubbish in terms of being able to replay music recordings appropriately. I was in a certain house many years ago and that house had more than ten systems which included every "big name" in the Audio business at that time. There were hundreds of meters of famous brands of cables at 10,000 a set. Some systems were excellent at reproducing one or two of the many facets of music....there were two rather good systems in overall terms, but the rest was simply reliant on high budget PR and advertising campaigns for their high cost and the reviewer acceptability which gave buyers the courage to pay such monstrous sums of money! Yes, they had fine cosmetics too and looked the biz
The central criticism was that there was little cohesion in terms of tone timing or image. Its not fair to name names but if you think of say seventeen major buck makers their stuff was there. Most of that stuff measured well and did not come from the snake charming people.
I simply believe that the answer will be found closer to the mid-approach than to either extreme. I also happen to believe that - and don't dare let SY hear this
D) - that those who truly are moved by music may very often have far from perfect ears, yet can have the discernment which I covered in my last post. To meet the criteria of replaying music in an emotionally involving way should, as you have suggested, involve technical integrity rather than 'doctoring' sound by devious means so as to give an impression of being what it is not. [The most striking experience I have had in this direction was when a designer made a SE 300b amp on the floor and by circuit changes and value and component type changes covered virtually every type of sonic effect which could be wrung out of that set of transformers and output tube. It is so long ago that I cannot recount in detail but I do remember that beguiling as many combinations were there was as few as two versions, which were worthwhile.]Measurement and knowledgeable critical listening must all be involved in design development.
No, my post was deleted by a moderator. As usual, this is not the place to freely (and decently) express opinions.
Let's see, Joachim claims to build a device intended to be part of a music reproduction chain, which ultimately is used by someone to listen to music with. He seems to try to achieve something that to him qualifies as good sound. At least that's how I understand his message so far.
Now from syn08's latest comments, he seems to judge the success of his circuits by the popularity of his website. He says he does not trust his or anyone's ability to pass judgment by listening alone. He only trusts measurements and web server statistics. If these are his goals, he has more than succeeded indeed. He builds circuits applying 4-th year undergrad EE theory and he builds them to his specs, which do not include listening feedback, because he is not a subjectivist. He likes labels like that right? He also likes to classify people as "you're friend of so and so." I for one applaud syn08 because he's doing a good job at what he wants to do. He is successful.
But Joachim is successful too, at something else though.
Brianco seems to indicate that syn08 makes theoretical advances in this field. IMHO he is very able to do textbook engineering, but do not mistake yourself in thinking that there is any theoretical advance there. There isn't. Not that I can see any, anyway.
I'd like to draw an imperfect parallel with photography and painting, because there is a similarity to building audio devices. There is a technical aspect, and there is an artistic aspect. In fact many people may not think of painting this way, but it is too. Good photographers and painters were/are also very accomplished technically. But just good techniques does not result in good art. It's still the old adage, "philosophum non facit barba" or a beard does not make one a philosopher.
Just my 2c
P.S. Sadly I'm probably still on syn08's ignore list. In case the opposite is true, syn08, I would like to mention that you still owe me an apology; still I forgave all your insults and don't have any hard feelings.
P.P.S Joachim, I am still reading with interest your journey and am looking forward to a final-ish version. Is that a realistic expectation?
Now from syn08's latest comments, he seems to judge the success of his circuits by the popularity of his website. He says he does not trust his or anyone's ability to pass judgment by listening alone. He only trusts measurements and web server statistics. If these are his goals, he has more than succeeded indeed. He builds circuits applying 4-th year undergrad EE theory and he builds them to his specs, which do not include listening feedback, because he is not a subjectivist. He likes labels like that right? He also likes to classify people as "you're friend of so and so." I for one applaud syn08 because he's doing a good job at what he wants to do. He is successful.
But Joachim is successful too, at something else though.
Brianco seems to indicate that syn08 makes theoretical advances in this field. IMHO he is very able to do textbook engineering, but do not mistake yourself in thinking that there is any theoretical advance there. There isn't. Not that I can see any, anyway.
I'd like to draw an imperfect parallel with photography and painting, because there is a similarity to building audio devices. There is a technical aspect, and there is an artistic aspect. In fact many people may not think of painting this way, but it is too. Good photographers and painters were/are also very accomplished technically. But just good techniques does not result in good art. It's still the old adage, "philosophum non facit barba" or a beard does not make one a philosopher.
Just my 2c
P.S. Sadly I'm probably still on syn08's ignore list. In case the opposite is true, syn08, I would like to mention that you still owe me an apology; still I forgave all your insults and don't have any hard feelings.
P.P.S Joachim, I am still reading with interest your journey and am looking forward to a final-ish version. Is that a realistic expectation?
Last edited:
Funny, isn't it? Well, at least Brianco took it seriously and elaborated a decent and thoughtful reply.
I'm back to my Edison drum
Really Joachim, this is interesting, what speakers are you using and what means "high volume" to you? At 100W/channel and 97dB speakers I can hear 1nV/rtHz from 5 meters. I can hear 0.6nV/rtHz ear on grille and 0.4nV/rtHz is my audibility limit.
1nV/rtHz is 140nV in the audio band. Considering a total gain of 28V/0.5mV, the noise voltage at the speaker terminals is 7.8mV. How in hell is this not audible, even in low sensitivity speakers? Don't you really hear the hiss before the needle touches the vinyl?
@ ikoflexer
I did NOT intend to stir up this topic.
syn08 may sometimes write with an apparent lack of regard for the feelings of some more tender souls...that may be unfortunate but I am sure is not his usual intent - we have all been around for too long to let it get to us! From a technical viewpoint he has a lot to add and I do believe that some of the criticism above is unfounded; he simply said that activity through his website indicates a satisfactory degree of interest in his designs.
The forum I am certain is not intended to be some gladiators ring in which the main contestants appear in a fight to the death whilst cheered and spurred on by their fans!!! It IS a forum for information exchange. And never forget that we do have many exceptionally talented members who contribute freely, thereby expanding our knowledge, educating our views whilst some even give us for gratis exceptionally good designs. I do not need to name names.
Another great value is that we can exchange ideas freely across the globe and also develop together designs and variations. But don't forget that there are times when someone has to be quite firm so as to avoid obvious mistakes or deviations. [ It is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee without leadership]. We can also buy and sell and take advantage of group buys. I am amazed at how smoothly such exchange between quite large numbers of people with a common interest can run, especially so when there is a large percentage of contributors for whom English is not their native language. It would be a great pity if personally felt "insults" were to take too great a degree of importance. To hold a viewpoint is fine, but should there be serious acrimony then it should be handled between those involved by the privacy of PMs or email.
Now lets get on with the thread - it is one of the best on the forum.
I did NOT intend to stir up this topic.
syn08 may sometimes write with an apparent lack of regard for the feelings of some more tender souls...that may be unfortunate but I am sure is not his usual intent - we have all been around for too long to let it get to us! From a technical viewpoint he has a lot to add and I do believe that some of the criticism above is unfounded; he simply said that activity through his website indicates a satisfactory degree of interest in his designs.
The forum I am certain is not intended to be some gladiators ring in which the main contestants appear in a fight to the death whilst cheered and spurred on by their fans!!!
It IS a forum for information exchange. And never forget that we do have many exceptionally talented members who contribute freely, thereby expanding our knowledge, educating our views whilst some even give us for gratis exceptionally good designs. I do not need to name names. Another great value is that we can exchange ideas freely across the globe and also develop together designs and variations. But don't forget that there are times when someone has to be quite firm so as to avoid obvious mistakes or deviations. [ It is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee without leadership]. We can also buy and sell and take advantage of group buys. I am amazed at how smoothly such exchange between quite large numbers of people with a common interest can run, especially so when there is a large percentage of contributors for whom English is not their native language. It would be a great pity if personally felt "insults" were to take too great a degree of importance. To hold a viewpoint is fine, but should there be serious acrimony then it should be handled between those involved by the privacy of PMs or email.
Now lets get on with the thread - it is one of the best on the forum.
Last edited: