Sound Quality Vs. Measurements - Page 365 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17th March 2012, 08:12 PM   #3641
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
Hi,



While "all analogue" LP's do exist, you would be surprised how many actually went through a 14 Bit/48Khz digital delay (IIRC - it may have been 16 Bit) during cutting to automatic control of groove spacing...

Ciao T
From which year on this was used ? 80´ ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 08:14 PM   #3642
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
It's in Fremer's Analog Corner, February 2012. I just read it twice through and saw no mention of any evil opamps
128 bits, looks like they are trying to quantify the position and momentum of each vinyl molecule as it passes the stylus. Don't they know they can't do that?

Wadax looks like an exercise in over-the-topness.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 08:14 PM   #3643
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorstenL View Post
Hi,



Let me make as simple and clear as I can.

The issue is that, at the baffle step frequency what really happens is not a drop in LF output, but a change in directivity from 2PI to 4PI. There is no attenuation of the driver output. However, if you use a anechoic measurement (or the now common pseudo anechoic measurements) you will measure attenuated bass, because you are explicitly exclude the room influence.

If you then apply "theoretical" Baffle Step Correction your speaker will have a 6dB LF boost in the power and in room response. Real studio monitors generally lack this, as it would give a result that was not "true".

As modern speakers (DIY or commercial) all have similar baffle width (almost no-one makes speakers that make acoustic sense anymore) you may find that the common BSC frequencies and level of boost match well with the corner frequency and level of boost for bass boost needed for around 70...75dB SPL listening.

This whole BSC thing is just one more illustration of how dogmatic and moronic Audio has become and how little people in audio nowadays bother to consider real evidence (regardless which "camp" they belong to).

Ciao T
We are saying the same thing but coming at it from 180 degrees.
I don't blindly apply the theory for BSC. It will as you cleary point out, sound like doo-doo. I start there, build the prototype and sit in my room measuring at 1M playing with the parts until I get it resolved. The theory (web spreadsheets) only give the answer for nearfield on an analyzer. Not in the room. Voicing is always finalized by listening.

Most "modern" speakers are made to all look alike and have widths based on nominal 6" drivers, so they tend to have similar points where they shift 2pi-4pi. Mine are not always nominal. We are always guessing, as we almost never know the room. I wind up with about half of the cut of nominal calculated values but pretty close to the frequency.

Someday I am going to try a flush line array and see what a pure 2-pi behaves like. In theory, you can get rid of a lot of refraction issues too.

A tone control could be used to do the same thing IF you could adjust its F3. ( OK, a very few folks were smart enough to do this) You can't, so BSC is not the same as a tone control. The mass market does not care because they use their push-button eq garbage generators and most high end no longer even has tone controls, so it is up to the speaker builder to do his best.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 08:37 PM   #3644
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Playing with Spice, dangerous as not real, OK.
Modeled three ccs into the IPS of the Hafler 120. One simple diode biased, one a current mirror, one the feedback version. The 120 has a resistor in the tail so I already had something to measure the current through.

I found the transient response to a square wave input to be the best with the diode biased version. But, it's behavior varied wildly with frequency. The CM behaved not as well with the transients, and even uglier with frequency. The two transistor feedback version seemed to be far better at both. The SPICE model for a ccs plotted perfectly to the transients and to AC analysis.

Then I looked at the FFT for a 20K sine wave at rated power. Distortion was about 6db worse for the feedback pair version. I was not expecting that. I was expecting slightly lower second harmonic. If it did nothing, I would not have been surprised as the rest of the amp is "perfect". Not quite sure what to take away.

I also tried just separating the IPS and VAS ccs's. It seemed to improve the transient response, but nothing showed up on the FFT as different. Changing to a green LED and increasing the emitter resistor also made the simulation prettier, but again, nothing on the FFT.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 08:49 PM   #3645
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
128 bits, looks like they are trying to quantify the position and momentum of each vinyl molecule as it passes the stylus. Don't they know they can't do that?

Wadax looks like an exercise in over-the-topness.
Reminds me of the gravitational-wave researchers, who developed "quantum back-action-avoidance" strategies to get better energy resolution at the expense of poorer time resolution, "cheating" the uncertainty principle.

What astonishes me: who/what billionaire funded this? Who has that sort of money to burn? Custom ICs? 480-pin ones (or BGA more likely)? Measurements of cutter heads for phase response??

Very hard to imagine that the chips are custom.

Note that they somehow divine what the overload requirements will be and set the gain to as high as possible while avoiding overload. Say what? Does it have a precognitive dirt clod module? Although I suppose if you are spending 32.5k US you probably have a pretty decent record-cleaning system.

Last edited by bcarso; 17th March 2012 at 08:51 PM. Reason: sp
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 08:50 PM   #3646
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Playing with Spice, dangerous as not real, OK.
Modeled three ccs into the IPS of the Hafler 120. One simple diode biased, one a current mirror, one the feedback version. The 120 has a resistor in the tail so I already had something to measure the current through.

I found the transient response to a square wave input to be the best with the diode biased version. But, it's behavior varied wildly with frequency. The CM behaved not as well with the transients, and even uglier with frequency. The two transistor feedback version seemed to be far better at both. The SPICE model for a ccs plotted perfectly to the transients and to AC analysis.

Then I looked at the FFT for a 20K sine wave at rated power. Distortion was about 6db worse for the feedback pair version. I was not expecting that. I was expecting slightly lower second harmonic. If it did nothing, I would not have been surprised as the rest of the amp is "perfect". Not quite sure what to take away.

I also tried just separating the IPS and VAS ccs's. It seemed to improve the transient response, but nothing showed up on the FFT as different. Changing to a green LED and increasing the emitter resistor also made the simulation prettier, but again, nothing on the FFT.
Try a big bypass cap across the diodes/LED and see what happens. Be sure to let the system settle before the distortion measurement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 09:04 PM   #3647
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
Very hard to imagine that the chips are custom.
Giant FPGA's they have become almost unbelievable in their sophistication (and cost). I've seen some for 10G backplane apps at $2000 a pop (that price did include some IP).

You are right, who would mount such a technological assault on playing LP's while those in the know still seek round stilii.
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."

Last edited by scott wurcer; 17th March 2012 at 09:09 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 09:14 PM   #3648
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
We are saying the same thing but coming at it from 180 degrees. I don't blindly apply the theory for BSC. It will as you cleary point out, sound like doo-doo.
I did not say it will sound like doo-doo. I said it will have a 6dB bass boost in the power response if the anechoic response is made flat at LF.

And I pointed out that the "Baffle Step Correction" makes sense for systems that are routinely (and only) played at SPL's that are lower than those common in recording/mastering environments.

In fact, I'm great fan and proponent of correctly applied physiolgical equalisation (aka Loudness). Well, as a German I should, many of the "GöbelsGob" Propaganda Radio's made in Germany in the 30's and 40's had loudness (and anything following later), the faders used for gain-riding during recording had it (calibrated of course) and the studio monitoring level controls had it.

I have only one requirement for a "loudness" equalisation and that is an off-switch, which is not present if it is designed into the speakers frequency response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
A tone control could be used to do the same thing IF you could adjust its F3. ( OK, a very few folks were smart enough to do this) You can't, so BSC is not the same as a tone control.
Note, I was not referring to tone controls.

You can do BSC using a simple passive network looped into the tape loop (if your pre has such) and you also can construct a physiologically equalised -15dB pad there to correct for appx. 70dB SPL.

But a proper loudness that correctly changes as you adjust the volume is better. BTW, this does imply the presence of "gain" controls and metering circuits to equalise out differences in source levels as well as amplifier/speaker relative gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
The mass market does not care because they use their push-button eq garbage generators and most high end no longer even has tone controls, so it is up to the speaker builder to do his best.
I guess that "best" would be to construct a control centre with the necessary functions and leave the tome and loudness controls there and defeatable, possibly add a few semi-parametric cut only LF EQ's to EQ room modes as well.

Actually modern all digital AV receivers have all this, but sadly often the usability and sound quality is usually beastly.

Ciao T

Last edited by ThorstenL; 17th March 2012 at 09:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 09:21 PM   #3649
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
I found the transient response to a square wave input to be the best with the diode biased version. But, it's behavior varied wildly with frequency. The CM behaved not as well with the transients, and even uglier with frequency. The two transistor feedback version seemed to be far better at both.
As Brad suggested for your Sim (and I earlier for real Amp's) add a big cap across the diodes.

Next replace one of the diodes with a 6.8V Zenner or LM329 and adjust the emitter resistor (keep the big cap) and see what happens.

Finally connect a BF244C (or other low Gm, high pinchoff voltage Fet) as cascode for the BJT...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
Then I looked at the FFT for a 20K sine wave at rated power. Distortion was about 6db worse for the feedback pair version. I was not expecting that.
The input stage is where signal and feedback signal mix. If there is ANY nonlinearity in the tail, you will know about it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
I also tried just separating the IPS and VAS ccs's. It seemed to improve the transient response, but nothing showed up on the FFT as different. Changing to a green LED and increasing the emitter resistor also made the simulation prettier, but again, nothing on the FFT.
FFT is a steady state analysis... Others can be made.

You may wish to evaluate open-loop linearity with a sawtooth wave...

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2012, 09:23 PM   #3650
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by gk7 View Post
From which year on this was used ? 80´ ?
Available widely since 1978, available to some large customers (e.g. major labels) before that.

Note, some specialist cutting houses did not use the delay and the cutting guys I knew in east germany NEVER used it (they observed that records cut this way sounded like duh-duh), but listened carefully several times to the whole recording and then controlled levels and groove spacing manually.

But you about right, since the 80's most LP's pressed by majors should have had the "digital" warning label prominently displayed.

BTW, the digital delays are not the only horror story in LP cutting and LP replication. To be brutal, the concept of "fidelity" the way at least some here seem to consider it simply does not apply to LP. They are clearly way below "LoFi". Yet they can sound excellent. Is there a hidden lesson here?

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quality Control differences = variations in sound quality? KT Class D 3 4th June 2014 01:02 AM
Sound Card for Measurements Marik Solid State 2 2nd January 2012 09:59 PM
Sound Card Recommendations (For Audio Measurements) dchisholm Equipment & Tools 5 16th July 2011 10:40 AM
How to protect sound card during amp measurements? okapi Everything Else 13 2nd September 2008 04:06 PM
Sound cards - test and measurements jackinnj Everything Else 2 5th July 2003 04:02 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2