Use of terms in audio fidelity discussions - Page 3 - 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 3rd June 2014, 10:52 AM   #21
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by planet10
Only at the grossest levels does THD correlate with perceived quality.
Let's assume there is some subjective experience which you can vary with a control knob from 0 to 10. 0 is 'nothing happens, no modification'; 10 is 'a lot happens'. Ask a thousand people to have the experience, while adjusting the knob to their preferred position. We are likely to find some clustering: some may prefer 0, some 1 or 2, others elsewhere. Some may like 3 or 4, but very few opt for bigger numbers than that.

Can we conclude that there is a very weak correlation between knob position and experience, so that knob position doesn't actually tell us much about the experience? Or should we conclude that people have different preferences, and the knob position is making a very real difference?

Now consider those who prefer 1 or 2. What if they declared forcefully that the reason they prefer this setting is because lower positions introduce a different unpleasant aspect to the experience? Even when shown that this is impossible, they persist in their belief that in order to achieve 0 (or thereabouts) it becomes necessary to spoil things in some unspecified and immeasurable way?

What if the knob adjusted spoons of sugar in a cup of coffee? Nobody seriously argues that absence of sugar somehow introduces alternative unpleasant tastes into coffee; they accept that sugar may mask tastes which are authentically coffee but some find unpleasant.

What if the knob adjusted THD on signal peaks? (and the distortion was mainly low-order)

For sugar we accept that all the knob does is vary sugar (and nothing else) to suit individual taste. Why do some find it so hard to accept the same concept for audio distortion? They declare that THD is poorly correlated with sound quality, when what they are really saying is that they prefer some THD.

Of course we could extend the experiment and ask people to estimate, unsighted, how much sugar has been added. Someone who claimed to have an excellent palate yet could only estimate sugar in coffee after counting the spoons would not be taken seriously; likewise those who refused to take part, saying that test stress affected their ability to taste sugar.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2014, 11:42 AM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Hello i think i have found a way ...
I was listening to a very very good recording from this label ..

About Blue Coast Records | Blue Coast Records
i cannot say it is the ultimate sound for quality ... but OMG !
Then in the technical notes i read

Quote:
.. Marenco chose 2” analog tape with Dolby SR as the multi-track format after comparisons with digital were made. Analog tape still cannot be surpassed for sonic response....
Well, i would study in depth the circuits schematics in that tape recorder, if only i knew which brand/model is.
Even through Utube the sound is moving ...

Looking For A Home - Blue Coast Collection - YouTube

I wonder if there is a site that sells service manuals ... I know that also lay-out and parts selection matter, but they could be a good start for sure.
Thanks and regards, gino
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2014, 12:11 PM   #23
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
A part of the answer is that distortion, in audio, is a very complex behaviour, and a THD measurement grossly oversimplifies what could be going on, in a particular system. I had a fascinating time in my early years of exploring what the phenomenon of "convincing sound" was all about, when I used a very average boogie rock recording to assess other systems - to a man, they made a mess of the recording, confusing the sound elements sufficiently so that a typical response, by the other party, was "Why are you bothering listening to this 'bad' recording". If I answered, "Well, it's showing me how much distortion your system is adding to the playback - I've heard this being played without all that added confusion and messiness being in the sound" - then their reply would probably be "No, you're wrong - this system has very low measurable THD, your recording is poor, you need to listen to a good recording to hear how exceptional my system is!".

This difference in viewpoint is still very much part of the audio scene - and the debates continue ...
__________________
Frank the truth is, I just like a bit of ASMR ...

Last edited by fas42; 3rd June 2014 at 12:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2014, 01:30 PM   #24
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Analogue tape cannot be surpassed for wow and flutter, noise, peak lopping and dropouts. And significant amounts of third-order distortion? Did I mention print-through? I guess a clever DSP person could simulate most of that digitally.

THD does simplify, granted, but nobody with any understanding would say anything different. Why do those who believe (wrongly) that THD tells us nothing keep (wrongly) accusing those who believe that THD tells us something of believing that THD tells us everything? Almost all mention of THD on this forum is initiated by those who choose to ignore it; haven't they ever wondered why the rest of us rarely mention it except in response to them?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2014, 03:51 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
Analogue tape cannot be surpassed for wow and flutter, noise, peak lopping and dropouts. And significant amounts of third-order distortion? Did I mention print-through? I guess a clever DSP person could simulate most of that digitally...
Hi what i meant is that i found a recording exceptionally transparent, clean, dimensional and so on made with a tape recorder automatically this implies that that recorder has very transparent electronics.
From this my interest to get/see schematics for instance of the preamp stages and so on ... to get hints.
But i do not know which recorder has been used ...
I believe also another thing ... that main damages can be done when the signal is low in level and strenght, like in a phono preamp for instance.
Then in a line stage and last in a power amp.
Given that i use only digital sources i think that the line preamp can make or break the sound more than the power amp.
I have found many decent power amps, less line preamps ... much less.
Maybe it is a matter of attenuator quality ? it could be.
Thanks and regards, gino
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2014, 04:16 PM   #26
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Studying a tape recorder preamp circuit may give you insight into low-level low-noise design with the complications of equalisation too. Useful for RIAA phono preamps. Less useful for line stages.

Some line stages damage the sound simply because they are unnecessary, so they require a mixture of amplification and attenuation - always a good way to insert extra noise. Others do it because they were designed (deliberately or accidentally) to be mild FX boxes. A line stage is about the easiest part of the audio chain to design as it has about the easiest job: mid-level signals, so not much to worry about with noise or distortion. Given that, it may be surprising how often it is got wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2014, 01:33 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
Studying a tape recorder preamp circuit may give you insight into low-level low-noise design with the complications of equalisation too. Useful for RIAA phono preamps.
Less useful for line stages.
Some line stages damage the sound simply because they are unnecessary, so they require a mixture of amplification and attenuation - always a good way to insert extra noise. Others do it because they were designed (deliberately or accidentally) to be mild FX boxes. A line stage is about the easiest part of the audio chain to design as it has about the easiest job: mid-level signals, so not much to worry about with noise or distortion.
Given that, it may be surprising how often it is got wrong
Thanks again and yes ... this is exactly my feeling.
So in the end it is not easy to do it right.
You want an evidence ? just have a look ad the Blowtorch 3D.
If the task were easy line preamps would not provoke all this interest
Thanks again and best regards, gino
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2014, 02:49 PM   #28
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
If the task were easy line preamps would not provoke all this interest
I am unsure if you are being ironic here.

As a general rule, the issues which certain people get all excited about are the simpler issues (which they still get wrong). I assume this is because they have no comprehension at all of the more difficult issues. So people get excited about cables and line stages when they should be getting excited about phono preamps and power amplifiers and loudspeakers. I guess swapping one bad line stage for another is somehow more 'audiophile' than tweaking a tone control knob.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2014, 04:41 PM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stavanger (NORWAY)
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DF96 View Post
I am unsure if you are being ironic here.
Hi, ironic ? I am serious. The Blowtorch 3d is going to be a guinness 3d
I think that the subject is extremely interesting, as it really is.
And it is about a line preamp (maybe also phono ?)

Quote:
As a general rule, the issues which certain people get all excited about are the simpler issues (which they still get wrong). I assume this is because they have no comprehension at all of the more difficult issues. So people get excited about cables and line stages when they should be getting excited about phono preamps and power amplifiers and loudspeakers.
I guess swapping one bad line stage for another is somehow more 'audiophile' than tweaking a tone control knob
I can tell you that with a friend we tried his CJ against my old Bryston in his chain.
The resulting sound was extremely different ... almost night and day.
I am more than sure that a Blowtorch would have made the same system fly.
For me the line preamp is like a corner stone.
Than speakers impact power amp selection of course ... especially difficult ones.
But the preamp for me is THE PIECE.
Now if i could find a poor guy Blowtorch (i know it is not possible anyway)
I should try using better pots for start.
Thanks and regards, gino

P.S. non LP here ... i am too lazy for them ... only files ripped from cds (that i own of course )
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2014, 07:05 PM   #30
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginetto61
The resulting sound was extremely different ... almost night and day.
I'm sure you will forgive me if I give such claims the credence they deserve. To achieve a true "night and day" difference requires that at least one of the systems is faulty, incompetent or has a somewhat uneven frequency response.
  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
Audio, High Fidelity, Stereo Review magazines audiostar Everything Else 1 1st February 2014 04:30 AM
Experimental Poetry Act Looking For Busking Setup The Ghost Servant PA Systems 2 1st April 2012 06:00 AM
Best 100-W high fidelity audio NPN Transistor ? Krokotam_ Solid State 74 22nd July 2010 01:16 AM
What FB for fidelity audio in a bass refex box Ground Zero Car Audio 20 24th April 2010 07:34 PM
California Audio Labs vs Musical Fidelity Charles Wasserf Digital Source 0 27th February 2009 07:06 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:31 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