The problem with "know-how". - Page 5 - 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 23rd June 2013, 08:35 AM   #41
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
I was going to ask Douglas Self about the use of his blameless amps as a buffer . Sort of ties in with what you say . I suspect inverting buffer will work ? Might it tell us something useful ?

I notice that op amps that work well as buffers don't seem to me to be great at gains of lets say 2 to 10 . Above that they are great . At gain of 50 rather good . All by ear . Seems logical that they might be optimized for unity gain and that has consequences . At gain of 1 they seem not to have a sound .
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 09:29 AM   #42
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel pearson View Post
I notice that op amps that work well as buffers don't seem to me to be great at gains of lets say 2 to 10 . Above that they are great . At gain of 50 rather good . All by ear . Seems logical that they might be optimized for unity gain and that has consequences . At gain of 1 they seem not to have a sound .
I am not aware of any technique to 'optimize them for gain of 1', whatever that means. I do know that some opamps are decompensated for gains above unity, to increase the available loop gain and hence the available feedback at higher gains.

jan
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 12:55 PM   #43
diyAudio Member
 
thoglette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan.didden View Post
I believe that people like Bruno Putzeys and Bob Codell have shown that with contemporary amplifiers this is no longer the case
Thanks for two new names on the hunt for people moving forward. Found lots of new things to read.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 01:12 PM   #44
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Moskow
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel pearson View Post
I was going to ask Douglas Self about the use of his blameless amps as a buffer . Sort of ties in with what you say . I suspect inverting buffer will work ? Might it tell us something useful ?

I notice that op amps that work well as buffers don't seem to me to be great at gains of lets say 2 to 10 . Above that they are great . At gain of 50 rather good . All by ear . Seems logical that they might be optimized for unity gain and that has consequences . At gain of 1 they seem not to have a sound .
Too it is correct. Didn't think with what it is connected?

To Jan, studying separate amplifiers, all always forget that a starting point of counting can be only temporary ratios in a signal yet not passing through the amplifier. Each link makes a certain contribution to change of temporary parameters and it doesn't pass completely.
Cordell and Self, too get to this trap, taking for a reference point the size of distortions. What price reaches decrease in distortions? Accuracy of performance of separate operations isn't connected with a signal transmission without distortions.
Baxandall too couldn't find direct link.

Last edited by Sergey A; 23rd June 2013 at 01:20 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 01:50 PM   #45
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergey A View Post
Too it is correct. Didn't think with what it is connected?

To Jan, studying separate amplifiers, all always forget that a starting point of counting can be only temporary ratios in a signal yet not passing through the amplifier. Each link makes a certain contribution to change of temporary parameters and it doesn't pass completely.
Cordell and Self, too get to this trap, taking for a reference point the size of distortions. What price reaches decrease in distortions? Accuracy of performance of separate operations isn't connected with a signal transmission without distortions.
Baxandall too couldn't find direct link.
Hi Sergey,

Not sure I understand what your point is. Do you suggest that we should leave the non-linearities in the hope that they sound better? Thta's a valid reasoning - it has been shown again and again that people not necessarily prefer the cleanest 'wire with gain' amp.

Or do you suggest that making the amplifier more linear does somehow make it sound worse by definition? I have a problem imagining less accurate reproduction yet better sound? (Objectively speaking of course - subjective performance has nothing to do with technical performance unless supported by controlled testing results).

jan
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 02:13 PM   #46
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Moskow
Hello Jan, I think extent of influence of zones of synchronization of a signal and the amplifier is very poorly studied. For example - the moon doesn't come off the earth though force of an attraction of the sun is much more.
Therefore if zones of mutual synchronization of a signal and the amplifier are strongly carried in temporary space, there are distortions which we define in the known way. Their reduction at the expense of the speed of increase has restrictions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 02:17 PM   #47
gootee is offline gootee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Indiana
Blog Entries: 1
So far, I have never accepted the possibility that a goal for an audio reproduction system design should be anything other than the most-accurate reproduction, whether people preferred that sound or not. Maybe I will have to force myself to think about that again.

But even if it were true that people preferred something other than the most-accurate reproduction, and I wanted to provide what they prefer, my engineering approach might be to make the system as accurate as possible and then add mechanisms to introduce the "preferred" behaviors, whether it was upstream, downstream, or within the amplifier itself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 02:26 PM   #48
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Moskow
Earlier I too entirely relied on classical works. And my opinion didn't change, simply there were some factors which these works don't consider in initial parcels.
It leads to wrong general conclusions.

Last edited by Sergey A; 23rd June 2013 at 02:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 05:17 PM   #49
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by gootee View Post
But even if it were true that people preferred something other than the most-accurate reproduction...
You don't get out much, eh? I'm not talking audiophiles, I'm talking general public. The majority don't want accurate, the want good, cool, awesome, rockin!! They just want to enjoy it.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2013, 07:11 PM   #50
gootee is offline gootee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Indiana
Blog Entries: 1
Maybe I was restricting my thoughts to audiophile types. I am not in the music-reproduction business. So I have the luxury of usually caring only about what I, myself, think about a system. But I can say that several of my and my son's hi-fi-nave friends who have listened to my system have enthusiastically volunteered the fact that they liked it more than anything else they had ever heard. Some of them never want to leave my listening seat. Of the very small sample, roughly one-third to one-half of them have had that reaction. Maybe some were just being overly polite. So, that agrees with your "majority don't want accuracy" but leaves a significant portion who probably do want it.

I still believe that the "good, cool, awesome, rockin", and all of the other possible types of baked-in goodness that please and thrill people, can and should come from the source, not the rest of the system. If nothing else, accurate reproduction by the rest of the system makes it more able to provide whatever it is that's preferred. i.e. "accurate" would be optimally versatile.
  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
The ubiquitous 1/2"...um....3/4"...er 1" ?? polycarbonate "dome" tweeter River757 Multi-Way 16 8th July 2013 12:45 AM
3-way with big (10") woofer and monitor (6.5"+1") on top like "Tarkus" proxii Multi-Way 16 30th October 2012 12:43 PM
What makes an amplifier "bright", "warm", or "neutral"? JohnS Solid State 51 13th December 2009 06:42 PM
"lift off " or "Houston we have a problem" tenderland Tubes / Valves 16 1st May 2005 05:08 PM
Need help with IC Based Amplifier "pop" problem (Integrated Component) Monolith Solid State 7 13th March 2003 03:01 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 AM.


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