Not really. Just general system theory. For certain types of systems, the steady-state response and the transient response are enough to commpletely characterize (and predict) all possible behaviors of the system.
Yes, the steady-state part seems boring. But things like "THD" can ONLY apply to a steady-state response. I believe that the transient response (when things are changing) should be much more important to focus on, when trying to design an audio system. But it seems that not many people do that, for audio, except in very broad terms, like "frequency response". Maybe it wasn't easy enough to measure. Or maybe the sales people didn't like it. Or maybe the numbers were always bad and nobody felt like advertising them. Or maybe there just doesn't exist any well-understood way to relate any such test's results to "sound quality". I am starting to research it, as I get time.
Time will tell
Harrison,
it's hard for me to follow your line of thought unless you don't give some explanation for your assertions
Ciao Tom,
words like TIM and TRI TIM comes to my mind. http://community.klipsch.com/forums/storage/3/1107724/01162904.pdf
and
http://jockohomo.net/data/7470.pdf
Stefano
Last edited:
Harrison,
it's hard for me to follow your line of thought unless you don't give some explanation for your assertions
Is math a branch of logic or logic a branch of math. I only considered an assumption in my model, whether other assumptions overide my initial assumption needs proving thus the time part. Formulas are techniques we use to manage and try to understand phenomena. Whether these formulas are complete, consistent and correct is another matter.
Stephano,
Nice reference to that old paper. When in doubt go back to the beginning and the AES journals are full of great information if you look. So many things that have been presented in the past are forgotten, but physics is physics until someone comes up with a better test, theory, or explanation for why something is truly happening. With faster and faster processing we should be able to look closer at the instantaneous functions that are taking place in our audio circuits.
Nice reference to that old paper. When in doubt go back to the beginning and the AES journals are full of great information if you look. So many things that have been presented in the past are forgotten, but physics is physics until someone comes up with a better test, theory, or explanation for why something is truly happening. With faster and faster processing we should be able to look closer at the instantaneous functions that are taking place in our audio circuits.
Stephen,
are you saying that there is something handy (i.e not Schroedinger or QED techniques or numerical simulations) around, different from old Kirchhoff's laws, Ohm's, Maxwell's, Lenz's and so on?
I must be really old fashioned since I wasn't aware that these new technique were in contrast with "old" models...
are you saying that there is something handy (i.e not Schroedinger or QED techniques or numerical simulations) around, different from old Kirchhoff's laws, Ohm's, Maxwell's, Lenz's and so on?
I must be really old fashioned since I wasn't aware that these new technique were in contrast with "old" models...
Isn't the sentence "High Frequency Response Compromised" a bit general?
Or better, am I right if I take this as your assumption and not as the thesis?
Thanks for explaining, perhaps my English doesn't help me enough...
Stephano,
On the contrary, I think that perhaps sometimes we forget about some of the previous research and need to return back to the beginning and refresh our thinking. But at the same time that does not mean that any newer testing functions can not still be developed or that we have found everything we are looking for. Otherwise why do scientist still question Einstein's conclusions? To prove them right or wrong, they are constantly doing one or the other. Science does not and should not stand still.
On the contrary, I think that perhaps sometimes we forget about some of the previous research and need to return back to the beginning and refresh our thinking. But at the same time that does not mean that any newer testing functions can not still be developed or that we have found everything we are looking for. Otherwise why do scientist still question Einstein's conclusions? To prove them right or wrong, they are constantly doing one or the other. Science does not and should not stand still.
Agreed,
but to sum up my feeling I'd say "give me something to try to understand, and - if the thing interest me
and hoping to be able to follow it - I'll try to figure it!" (and I don't mean to sound arrogant)
Last edited:
Stephano,
I didn't take your response as arrogant, not at all. I have nothing to direct you at at this particular time. What I am alluding to is that there seems to be some aspects of the audio electronics chain that still seems to be outside of our purview. How else to explain the different responses to changes in opamps or other devices that we measure as having basically identical electrical characteristics. I am not going to say that people do not hear changes, there is to much anecdotal evidence that this is happening. So how we measure that and quantify it is something that seems to be open for some new test, or perhaps just a refinement of what we are already doing. What I was originally trying to get at is that with ever faster computer processing perhaps we could refine the level of the testing we are doing, ever faster oscilloscopes that are not necessarily wider bandwidth, but finer resolution. I am not an electrical engineer, so I only speak in concept here, not absolutes.
I didn't take your response as arrogant, not at all. I have nothing to direct you at at this particular time. What I am alluding to is that there seems to be some aspects of the audio electronics chain that still seems to be outside of our purview. How else to explain the different responses to changes in opamps or other devices that we measure as having basically identical electrical characteristics. I am not going to say that people do not hear changes, there is to much anecdotal evidence that this is happening. So how we measure that and quantify it is something that seems to be open for some new test, or perhaps just a refinement of what we are already doing. What I was originally trying to get at is that with ever faster computer processing perhaps we could refine the level of the testing we are doing, ever faster oscilloscopes that are not necessarily wider bandwidth, but finer resolution. I am not an electrical engineer, so I only speak in concept here, not absolutes.
Stephen,
I understand and agree with your attitude, and you must bear with me, I mixed two subjects in a single post.
It's way harder for me (and something suggests me that perhaps I'm not alone) to understand Harrison's approach, because - for example - his latest proposition isn't reported as consequent from something, nor - bynow - explained. It's just stated as the truth and is also contrary to common circuit theory (as DF96 wrote) as seems to me is used by serious industry manufacturer (e.g. vishay, for example), in University, everywhere and I couldn't read anything from Harrison about it. And I'd be interested in!
So, Stephen, I feel we are "in tune" (hope this is fine English)
Ciao,
Stefano
I understand and agree with your attitude, and you must bear with me, I mixed two subjects in a single post.
It's way harder for me (and something suggests me that perhaps I'm not alone) to understand Harrison's approach, because - for example - his latest proposition isn't reported as consequent from something, nor - bynow - explained. It's just stated as the truth and is also contrary to common circuit theory (as DF96 wrote) as seems to me is used by serious industry manufacturer (e.g. vishay, for example), in University, everywhere and I couldn't read anything from Harrison about it. And I'd be interested in!
So, Stephen, I feel we are "in tune" (hope this is fine English)
Ciao,
Stefano
Last edited:
I do sometimes post material that is not yet in text books . Compiling these ideas into a book or a research paper takes time while the technology needs to be deployed and used in the field sooner. I did say that the amps under scrutiny in the solid state thread could win a patent or two and are light years ahead. The book is soon coming first get me the data
. Compiling these ideas into a book or a research paper takes time while the technology needs to be deployed and used in the field sooner. I did say that the amps under scrutiny in the solid state thread could win a patent or two and are light years ahead. The book is soon coming first get me the data - Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.