We all know that
There seems to be a difference between "I know this sounds better" and "that must be more accurate because I like the outcome".
Only subjectivists can mistake those two conclusions as meaning the same.
But it seems that some of the subjectivists claim they are more accurate.
There seems to be a difference between "I know this sounds better" and "that must be more accurate because I like the outcome".
Only subjectivists can mistake those two conclusions as meaning the same.
It has nothing whatever to do with subjectivism. Zero. If one does an input versus output comparison ears-only and finds that the LDR technology provides a closer match, that's good data, and completely subjective. The problem is the claims being made with factors other than the sound involved.
I am not writing "all opinions". Your example is absurd.
You write for yourself and not on behalf of anyone else.
I second this idea, as long as it includes the expressed opinion of the tester as well.
As for myself, "The channel balance became more precise in that the music images became tighter and more focused from what already were tight and focused music images.", from post #1.
This is most likely because there is a small difference in the series resistance in each channel of the attenuator. This could easily be measured. Unfortunately I do not have that particular attenuator at my present location.
The presence of the Third Harmonic does skew things a bit. Prior to this thread I had no idea about any distortion artifacts from the LDR attenuator. Now I know that they are there. Yet I fail to hear any sense of harshness or edginess, the normal signs of 3rd harmonic, in the music. And I certainly did not hear any such thing during the comparison of volume controls. Thus for me, the presence of the 3rd harmonic seems rather benign to non existent.
Yet I understand that for others just the knowing could be catastrophic.
Yet I understand that for others just the knowing could be catastrophic.
An absurd example is a good way to expose muddled thinking.stvnharr said:
I don't claim to be writing on behalf of anyone else; nobody has appointed me. However, there are people who agree with me (those who are right must all agree, as there is only one truth) so it is for them to object if they feel I have misrepresented what they think. I use the word "we" because I would not wish to give the false impression that I am merely giving my own personal opinion - I know I don't have a personal universe to live in.
My understanding is that different people react to small amounts of low order harmonics in different ways. Many prefer a little 2nd, but some prefer a little 3rd. The smaller the distortion the less likely they are to identify it as distortion.
I am pleased that my expectation of 3rd (rather than 2nd) seems to be what is seen. This demonstrates that there is nothing so practical as a good theory. No personal measurement, no personal 'experience', yet by assuming that an LDR is essentially symmetric I can predict that it will generate mainly 3rd order distortion.
An absurd example can be a good way to expose muddled thinking. In this case, it wasn't but it's probably another discussion for another day.
I'd steer clear of the epistemology if I were you, not just because it's off-topic.
The last time you made a similar point on a thread I was following, it turned out that your "understanding" relied on a decades-old paper using a questionable methodology and kit so far removed from present-day equivalents as to make the citation risible. IOW, it was a guess. What are you relying on now?
Nor am I clear what you mean by "prefer". Prefer to the undistorted signal or to another mode of distortion (2nd v 3rd HD in this case)?
Did anyone seriously dispute the point?
What happened was that the OP reported favourably on an LDR-based pre-amp. In rapid response, the THD police leapt into squad cars and, sirens ablaze, muddled whatever valid points they had with self-serving ad hominem crap.
Without disputing your technical point, a corollary of your theory is that THD is, give or take, an adequate index of how a design is perceived. The experience of many in audio is that it isn't, many, including competent engineers, arguing that it ignores the time domain. In tentative support, I cited a paper by Nelson Pass and another by the late Cyril Bateman; both demonstrate with admirable empirical skill that (in the NFB context) it's a poor index. I'd wager that appropriate tests of similar competence would shed light on the LDR debate; that no-one is likely, for various reasons, to conduct them doesn't make THD more meaningful.
There are literally hundreds of reports on dozens of forums attesting to the clarity of sound that can be obtained from LDR circuits. Bizarrely, those who disagree invariably refuse to listen to such devices, claiming it's unnecessary because their "practical" theories are sufficient and that those who report are simply deluded. You couldn't make it up. I don't for a moment doubt they're good engineers (within limits) but they're unarguably, despite pretensions, poor psychologists and lousy scientists.
Well I fully agree with DF96.
When your opinion is that an attenuator pronounces bass then either it is seriously distorting low bass frequencies making them easier to hear or it has a non-flat frequency response (it's an EQ) but imo more likely it's neither of both and you hear what you want to hear. That's just human, but audiophiles don't seem to be able to accept that.
Similarly when you claim that an attenuator results in greater dynamics then this can be at odds with the measured distortion, which if at all has a compressor effect rather than the opposite.
Anyway, I have no idea why you'd want an attenuator that has a sound. It's supposed to attenuate, not be an FX device.
The point about how single THD numbers can sound different is a giant red herring. We're talking either about magnitudes lower distortion or distortion being low enough to be of no concern and no NFB or complex distortion spectra.
As for "dozens of reports", I would hope that no one would accept that. Otherwise you'd also have to accept that magic bracelets and car fuel saving devices and speaker sound improving plastic discs and sound improving magic pebbles (scam products) work and alien abductions are also fact. "There are literally hundreds of reports on dozens of forums".
It's called gullibility.
To anyone convinced by such "argumentation" just replace "LDR circuits" with any of the above... works just as well which shows how absurd it is.
And no, hearing what you want to hear is not necessarily being deluded, it's simply part of being human. That's what smart people have recognized hundreds of years ago and therefore came up with controls and blind experiments. There's also the scientific method, which is a couple of hundred years older still. Maybe you should try that instead of arguing from anecdotes.
Now one may not care for what is true, but then why should anyone care what this person has to say.
When your opinion is that an attenuator pronounces bass then either it is seriously distorting low bass frequencies making them easier to hear or it has a non-flat frequency response (it's an EQ) but imo more likely it's neither of both and you hear what you want to hear. That's just human, but audiophiles don't seem to be able to accept that.
Similarly when you claim that an attenuator results in greater dynamics then this can be at odds with the measured distortion, which if at all has a compressor effect rather than the opposite.
Anyway, I have no idea why you'd want an attenuator that has a sound. It's supposed to attenuate, not be an FX device.
The point about how single THD numbers can sound different is a giant red herring. We're talking either about magnitudes lower distortion or distortion being low enough to be of no concern and no NFB or complex distortion spectra.
As for "dozens of reports", I would hope that no one would accept that. Otherwise you'd also have to accept that magic bracelets and car fuel saving devices and speaker sound improving plastic discs and sound improving magic pebbles (scam products) work and alien abductions are also fact. "There are literally hundreds of reports on dozens of forums".
It's called gullibility.
To anyone convinced by such "argumentation" just replace "LDR circuits" with any of the above... works just as well which shows how absurd it is.
And no, hearing what you want to hear is not necessarily being deluded, it's simply part of being human. That's what smart people have recognized hundreds of years ago and therefore came up with controls and blind experiments. There's also the scientific method, which is a couple of hundred years older still. Maybe you should try that instead of arguing from anecdotes.
Now one may not care for what is true, but then why should anyone care what this person has to say.
Last edited:
Since a conventional line stage is trivially made sonically transparent, then either an LDR stage will sound the same (in which case, it's all about the fun of making something far more complicated than it needs to be) or it will sound different, in which case it's an effects box which cannot be switched off. So whether or not he's "heard" one isn't relevant.
why does he need to have heard one? SY has designed at least one line stage that measurably improves the signal going through it but having good Common mode rejection. But other than that and impedance matching a preamp cannot improve the sound all it can do is make it worse. The degree of worse before its audible can be significant.
Both SY and DF96 have been around long enough to have 'not' heard plenty of transparent line stages. Neither of them are stopping anyone having fun with LDRs if they want to.
The key word in DIY is FUN.
Both SY and DF96 have been around long enough to have 'not' heard plenty of transparent line stages. Neither of them are stopping anyone having fun with LDRs if they want to.
The key word in DIY is FUN.
Seeing my name was bought back in to it a few posts back, I have to respond, and not let it go unnoticed.
You guys are just going around in circles, and making me giddy with this small distortion fixation.
Look at many unmusical preamps or poweramps and yes even opamps, that have large amounts of feedback to get "advertised" distortions down to a wow factors of .0001%
Then look at many musical pre's or amps and yes even I/V stages that have nil/minimal or "local" only feedback that don't give great measured distortion figures, which are hailed to be far better sounding than their .00001% counterparts.
Listen then listen and listen again!!!!!
Cheers George
You guys are just going around in circles, and making me giddy with this small distortion fixation.
Look at many unmusical preamps or poweramps and yes even opamps, that have large amounts of feedback to get "advertised" distortions down to a wow factors of .0001%
Then look at many musical pre's or amps and yes even I/V stages that have nil/minimal or "local" only feedback that don't give great measured distortion figures, which are hailed to be far better sounding than their .00001% counterparts.
Listen then listen and listen again!!!!!
Cheers George
That's pretty funny, especially so in light of your use of an unidentified pronoun and poor grammar.
This thread is the worst kind of audiophile bickering ********. It's no wonder we have such a hard time attracting people to the hobby if you have to either be able to hear the latest snake oil or **** on people who do. Sigh.
I'm curious @DF96, why you keep repeating that ldr are "nonlinear" as though that is some sort poison pill. Yet you haven't put up an image to demonstrate this "nonlinearity" much less explain why it is so bad. (Note I'm only 6 pages in, but I can't bring myself to read the other two pages to find out if you have done so on those two pages).
Pots aren't linear, many of them are (gasp) logarithmic even! They must sound HORRIBLE!!!
Anyway, partisan bickering aside, I'm genuinely curious as to why ldrs might not be so great, when many say they are the bee's knees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm curious @DF96, why you keep repeating that ldr are "nonlinear" as though that is some sort poison pill. Yet you haven't put up an image to demonstrate this "nonlinearity" much less explain why it is so bad. (Note I'm only 6 pages in, but I can't bring myself to read the other two pages to find out if you have done so on those two pages).
Pots aren't linear, many of them are (gasp) logarithmic even! They must sound HORRIBLE!!!
Anyway, partisan bickering aside, I'm genuinely curious as to why ldrs might not be so great, when many say they are the bee's knees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi Scott
We, the collective of manufacturers providing LDR attenuators, all use either
the NSL32SR2, NSL32SR2(s) or the NSL32SR3, most to the best of my
knowledge use the NSL32SR3. I know of none that deviate from a L pad
configuration.
The data for LDR circuits, including the L pad is here: www.cresttech.com.au/pdf/Silonex/levelcontrol.pdf
Cheers / Chris
We, the collective of manufacturers providing LDR attenuators, all use either
the NSL32SR2, NSL32SR2(s) or the NSL32SR3, most to the best of my
knowledge use the NSL32SR3. I know of none that deviate from a L pad
configuration.
The data for LDR circuits, including the L pad is here: www.cresttech.com.au/pdf/Silonex/levelcontrol.pdf
Cheers / Chris