You keep harping on this "billions and billions of parts" schtick as if that will cause me to ignore the reality of my experience. As a former military hybrid incoming inspection test engineer, I've experienced firsthand wafer level process control, as evident by the pattern of ink dots on wafers.
A good high volume fab line can trivially exceed wafer probe testing by orders of magnitude. However, to blindly assert that every fab line on the planet for every semiconductor process doesn't test and sort is utter nonsense.
Absolute concurrence. Most field failures are assembly related. I spent 5 years autopsy'ng assembly caused semiconductor failures. Rarely was a chip bad prior to diebond or wirebond. The three exceptions I had were:
1. An esd problem, very difficult to find under a polarized metal scope.
2. An earthquake. I had the manu track a mask defect back to a production lot undergoing exposure when a tremor hit, there were "ghosts" on the chip which duplicated part of the chip pattern.
3. A pattern of failures in an NPN device as a consequence of a primary mask defect. It caused failure of every fourth device on a wafer, the failure was current crowding thermal runaway by early effect in the exact same spot on the exact same emitter finger. It failed only during high current collector voltage slew during active operation. It was a consequence of the Impact II test system's method of datalogging BVceo(sus). It caused a melt spot visible under the emitter finger metallization.
As I stated, yield stats are dependent on the silicon processing required as well as how close to the edge of the envelope the manu has to be to sell product. Digital, low level analog, high power/high voltage silicon all have ups and downs.
jn
Richard ,
Are you talking 3D sound or 3 ch ..?
My experience todate is Stereo beats all other's hands down, even for movies. Realistic sound reproduction requires a large well treated Listening space and again large speakers with enuff surface area.
Anything else is just hi-fi......
I understand your point Wayne, ol' buddy, but putting movies in the same sentence with true to life sound seems like an oxymoron to me. Hollywood was never in the business of lifelike sound, rather it's in the business of special effects. My point is that no matter how I listen to movie sound, via speakers or via headphones, it usually seems overblown to me, especially in case pyrotechnics, when explosions are turned up via graphic eqs to make them sound still bigger and scarier.
Much as I love movies, always have, and collect them, I would never invest in a "movie setup", as I find it usually goes against just about everything I stand for.
A.Wayne,
I didn't say the devices are of conventional design, but no matter the speaker you choose if it can't produce a decent sound field and frequency response at a reasonable level it doesn't matter how well you do the electronics. Everyone has their preferences in devices and designs, some will only use horns, others dipole or omni, but if you can't meet the basic criteria what is the point of the arguments?
I could see having a distributed sound system with multiple cabinets if there were any actual recordings of discrete instruments spread around a venue, but until there is enough of that type of source material 3d sound is a moot discussion. For movies the discussion changes.
I didn't say the devices are of conventional design, but no matter the speaker you choose if it can't produce a decent sound field and frequency response at a reasonable level it doesn't matter how well you do the electronics. Everyone has their preferences in devices and designs, some will only use horns, others dipole or omni, but if you can't meet the basic criteria what is the point of the arguments?
I could see having a distributed sound system with multiple cabinets if there were any actual recordings of discrete instruments spread around a venue, but until there is enough of that type of source material 3d sound is a moot discussion. For movies the discussion changes.
I might agree with you, Richard, but may do so only after EVERYBODY has experienced a decent deno of active speakers. Not all are equally good, or even just good on their own, but those decently done may stun to stupor on sheer sound quality.
The ones Philips had launched as their Motional Feedback series were ground breaking material in their time, and were further improved when Philips' subsidiary Grundig took them over.
On the pro front, I used German made Klein & HUmmel active boxes for TV sound editing. Excellent stuff in their day, made around 1990 or so; i'd give a lot to hear their current offerings.
Still in Germany, Kirksaetter also had some to die for models. Not cheap at all, but in view worth every penny.
All of which means I disagree that multichannel is the way to go. In principle, I prefer to take any given technology to its useful end, even if that is defined by economics (prices) rather than technology. I will wager that at least 90% of music lovers do not realise the full potential of a good stereo system, so going multichannel will probably only potentiate that effect, even if it makes good money for the industry.
dvv,
I couldn't agree more about cheap multichannel sound systems. There is no gain in going that route if the entire chain including the speakers are mediocre. I would much rather have an excellent two channel system than a crummy multichannel surround system. To have true holographic sound the entire chain would have to work together, the image resolution would be lost on an incoherent system. And lest we leave out the room itself and all the problems that come along with that can of worms.
I couldn't agree more about cheap multichannel sound systems. There is no gain in going that route if the entire chain including the speakers are mediocre. I would much rather have an excellent two channel system than a crummy multichannel surround system. To have true holographic sound the entire chain would have to work together, the image resolution would be lost on an incoherent system. And lest we leave out the room itself and all the problems that come along with that can of worms.
Agree and academic Hornman, then there's the market and the need to turn a profit, what you going to tell those with 22watt SET's, or class-D , or want it to fit in the corner of the room the wife allows and want the speaker only in black, nah wait , now everyone wants maple, no wait Cherry , your inventory ? black from the last fickle wave ...
Designing a winner is much easier than having a winner ....
Stereo
Yes, and most of the "stereo" or "sound stage" effect in reproduced sound is just that, an effect, bearing little relation to what can be heard from live acoustical music.
Unfortunately, mono reproduction is often more literately accurate in this respect. Some of the problem is certainly due to the inherent theoretical limitations is two channel sound, but also some is due to mic choice and placement, the production process, and acoustical cross feed in the speakers.
Remember trying a board placed in front of your nose to block either speaker from direct incidence on the opposite ear? Like headphones, but better, not being inside your head.
Yes, and most of the "stereo" or "sound stage" effect in reproduced sound is just that, an effect, bearing little relation to what can be heard from live acoustical music.
Unfortunately, mono reproduction is often more literately accurate in this respect. Some of the problem is certainly due to the inherent theoretical limitations is two channel sound, but also some is due to mic choice and placement, the production process, and acoustical cross feed in the speakers.
Remember trying a board placed in front of your nose to block either speaker from direct incidence on the opposite ear? Like headphones, but better, not being inside your head.
A,Wayne,
Self powered. Including USB input, RCA and BlueTooth. Active crossovers and bi-amp. These are not planned to be cheap though I am working on a smaller version with lower power and other things to make it simpler. The enclosure is not wood, it will be molded rigid high density polyurethane foam, same properties as wood but I can makes shapes that are unreasonable with wood. I can do multiple finishes, no wood grain though. These will be very wife friendly, believe me I have women looking at the prototypes to get their reaction and it has been very positive and guy friendly. They are not cheap plastic and won't look like anything you have seen before. Of course they will sound better with proper placement but if you wife makes you put them in the corner they will still sound great.
Pavel,
I'm close with a tuning of 35hz on the bottom but not going to get the entire contrabass, just not going to get down to 20hz for those pipe organ aficionados.
Self powered. Including USB input, RCA and BlueTooth. Active crossovers and bi-amp. These are not planned to be cheap though I am working on a smaller version with lower power and other things to make it simpler. The enclosure is not wood, it will be molded rigid high density polyurethane foam, same properties as wood but I can makes shapes that are unreasonable with wood. I can do multiple finishes, no wood grain though. These will be very wife friendly, believe me I have women looking at the prototypes to get their reaction and it has been very positive and guy friendly. They are not cheap plastic and won't look like anything you have seen before. Of course they will sound better with proper placement but if you wife makes you put them in the corner they will still sound great.
Pavel,
I'm close with a tuning of 35hz on the bottom but not going to get the entire contrabass, just not going to get down to 20hz for those pipe organ aficionados.
Hi,
Among a few others. (I am even pleasantly surprised people actually still remember the old Furtwangler issues)
Personally I often found the early Decca stereo recordings using a simple Blumlein mic set up to be quite realistic.
In those days a recording was a piece of art not a mere product.
Ciao,
Among a few others. (I am even pleasantly surprised people actually still remember the old Furtwangler issues)
Personally I often found the early Decca stereo recordings using a simple Blumlein mic set up to be quite realistic.
In those days a recording was a piece of art not a mere product.
Ciao,
George,
Adding a couple of processors, LED display and locator functions doesn't make PR99 a different transport. Those are just gimmicks, absolutely irrelevant to the sound quality. (They might even pollute analog power supply either directly or by radiation).
Audio electronics? I said "slightly different". Omit "slightly" from my original sentence, if you're nit-picking.
Start with the PR99MkI - it's very similar to B77.
MkII and MkIII used redesigned PB amp, but it still has the same first gain stage.
That amp introduced HF EQ adjustment, but added three (!!!) opamps - 2 x RC4559 and 1 x TL072 (later changed to LF353) in place of 3 transistor gain block that was discussed here earlier (Neve).
CAL/UNCAL switching on MkIII by 4053 logic IC? Ouch!
Adding input and output transformers might not be the best solution for sonics either.
Look at the "added" balanced out amp that drives output transformer - it's LM301 + two transistors in configuration that JC ranted about many decades ago.
I still stand by my opinion - PR99's are masquerated consumer machines with added gimmicks, nothing else.
IMO, the best solution would be to put together some Franken-Revox by using cards from all models and by throwing a lot of unnecessary electronics out.
I don't follow you. Care to elaborate?Now if you talk about reliability and longevity of R2R (even tubed), I wonder why you don’t point toward Japan !
That's painting with a broad brush. Which stability are you talking about? All halfway decent transports produce nice W&F figures in tests..
What exactly should I check?
Best,
Last edited:
As it gets lost on a conventional stereo system for exactly the same reasons. Now, picture the pains we have to go through with just 2 channels, and ask yourself:
1. Do I really want more of that?
2. Will my bank loan me the megabucks I know I'm going to need to get it right?
3. Exactly what am I doing it for, when there's so little worthwhile software around, and that isn't cheap either?
For the life of me, the one and only rationale I can find for multichannel are in fact the movies. Stereo is quite a bit a solitary hobby, there you are, a cuppa coffe in one hand and an illegal Cuban cigar in the other hand, and there's nobody around you! Wife and kid(s) have all gone, anybody's guess whether it was the music or the cugar.
Watching movies is a company hobby, there may well be others around you, at least the wife, and, if there's enough sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, perhaps the kids are there as well. Mom-in-law will frown anyway at these new fangled expensive toys.
Other than that, the way I see it, I'd MUCH rather have a very good stereo system than a hyped up multichannel whizz bang system. Trust me, on sound alone, I can tell if Clint fired a Peacemaker or a Magnum.
It's this uncertainty which causes so much problems for people like John. If one is to do justice to his Blowtorch (or anything else, for that matter), one must already have a very solid base to try it out with. Anything less than that and most people will blame the newbe simply because they will not admit that their system is not up to the job. Vanity and all that.
Just as John had to use some system to try it out himself. Him, I'll trust any time to own a really great sounding system, even if he slapped it together in his garage last Saturday, as I would trust Pavel's judgement, simply because it's obvious to me that we hear things in a very similar way. In Pavel's case, I'd say we realistically hear things as much the same as it's reasonable to expect two unrelated people to do so. I have two friends just like that locally, and every time I listened to them, I had no regrets ever after.
What many don't realize is that listening is a natural process, but hearing is something of an art. Both in terms of music and sound (pun intended) advice.
This is why I so insist on neutrality, I want to experience MY impressions of the music, not what somebody thought I should hear. Not easy, I know, but worth the time and trouble if you love listening and hearing music enough.
It's more that poor stereo is inferior. Most speakers are incapable of creating a properly focused image due to lack of proper driver blending, so they can't possibly do stereo well. Compare something with good focus like the KEF LS50 to most typical speakers. You can often hear the various drivers separately.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.