Keep up the good work Tom, Fas, Terry et al. I do have my eye on this thread, its just that I was otherwise preoccupied. Do drop by and see what am up to. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/group-buys/217240-symef-2nd-generation-pcb-group-thing.html .
Hi Tsiros,
Does not have to be bi-anything - in fact mono is the best test signal, you are listening for changes or differences in timbre or characteristics in the music as well as resolution i.e. separation between instruments/voices.
Stereo makes a mediocre recording seem acceptable binaural even more so because of the fact that it confuses your brain. Remember you are not listening to music effects and tricks used or created by an audio engineer you are listening very critically for changes in character of the source. The best source for this purpose are in using 78 rpm and 45 rpm mono recordings of real instruments and voices. Do not say but what about the scratches and noise - no chance, they should be clearly distinguishably from the music.
Last edited:
Nico Ras
You are so off the mark it is disheartening.
First of all, binaural recording predates stereo recording and it is not an audio engineering trick or effect as you say (something tells me you didn't even know what exactly it is, before now) It carries information appropriate for listening with headphones. It does not confuse the brain any more than, say, a high quality recording. Since when is "higher detail" called "confusion for the brain" ?
You claim that 78/45rpm (with horrible SNR/dynamic range, frequency range) is more revealing of timbres and characteristics in music than a 24bit 96KHz sample? This isn't even worthy of discussion and borders on sarcasm.
You are so off the mark it is disheartening.
First of all, binaural recording predates stereo recording and it is not an audio engineering trick or effect as you say (something tells me you didn't even know what exactly it is, before now) It carries information appropriate for listening with headphones. It does not confuse the brain any more than, say, a high quality recording. Since when is "higher detail" called "confusion for the brain" ?
You claim that 78/45rpm (with horrible SNR/dynamic range, frequency range) is more revealing of timbres and characteristics in music than a 24bit 96KHz sample? This isn't even worthy of discussion and borders on sarcasm.
Sorry I am spot on Tsiros, that is not what I am interested in. You have obviously no idea what I am trying to achieve. A piano tuner with one ear will tune a piano spot on. Timbre and resolution between two notes has nothing to do with time delay or apparent depth between sounds reaching each ear. So think about it again before you make a stupid comment. Read the whole thread not the last post.
This has nothing to do with CD vs records. Unfortunately digital can never be real no matter how much you try to convince yourself, but this is another argument all together. I am at the moment listening to reservoir caps and interested in the inter-modulation products and artifacts that the reservoir caps may introduce. Not in sound stage, width, breath, positioning or whatever you like to listen too.
I suppose when you measure harmonics you need two spectrum analyzers, one for each eye?
This has nothing to do with CD vs records. Unfortunately digital can never be real no matter how much you try to convince yourself, but this is another argument all together. I am at the moment listening to reservoir caps and interested in the inter-modulation products and artifacts that the reservoir caps may introduce. Not in sound stage, width, breath, positioning or whatever you like to listen too.
I suppose when you measure harmonics you need two spectrum analyzers, one for each eye?
Last edited:
I have never seen such a vulgar display of nonsequitirs and absurdity for quite a long time.
We are not tuning pianos here. So what a piano tuner can do is irrelevant. Piano tuning is not a dark art. Want a difficult to tune instrument? Try an electric guitar with a floyd rose trem.
Vinyls are demonstratably poorer than CD. It is a different thing "vinyl vs CD" (which are industry standards) and a different thing "digital vs analog" (which are not standards, merely ways to store data). It is not a debate of "analog vs digital". If an analog recording(and subsequent reading of said analog storage medium) was perfect, then it would be superior to any digital... however vinyl is a far cry from perfect analog. Cd is closer to the original recording and that's not what my ears say, it's what measurements say. Claiming vinyl is better is akin to saying you can hear things that are not there. Furthermore, "digital", by and of itself means nothing, since "digital" is merely a method of representing a signal. It says nothing about specifications. 4bit 8KHz is as digital as 24bit 192KHz and i'll shave my testicles with a rusty spoon if someone measures vinyl that is better than 24bit 192KHz through a DAC that is 1% the price of the most expensive turntable+cartridge+deemphasis/preamp that is sold today.
We are not tuning pianos here. So what a piano tuner can do is irrelevant. Piano tuning is not a dark art. Want a difficult to tune instrument? Try an electric guitar with a floyd rose trem.
Vinyls are demonstratably poorer than CD. It is a different thing "vinyl vs CD" (which are industry standards) and a different thing "digital vs analog" (which are not standards, merely ways to store data). It is not a debate of "analog vs digital". If an analog recording(and subsequent reading of said analog storage medium) was perfect, then it would be superior to any digital... however vinyl is a far cry from perfect analog. Cd is closer to the original recording and that's not what my ears say, it's what measurements say. Claiming vinyl is better is akin to saying you can hear things that are not there. Furthermore, "digital", by and of itself means nothing, since "digital" is merely a method of representing a signal. It says nothing about specifications. 4bit 8KHz is as digital as 24bit 192KHz and i'll shave my testicles with a rusty spoon if someone measures vinyl that is better than 24bit 192KHz through a DAC that is 1% the price of the most expensive turntable+cartridge+deemphasis/preamp that is sold today.
Kindhorman, it is about correlating tonal difference caused by modulation of the power rail (supported by different value caps) caused by the input stimulus.
I am fortunate to have pure tonal perception, there is no magic and many people have this ability, the opposite is being tone deaf and in between are those who may or may not discriminate between a cat purring and a dog barking.
So the idea is to try and arrive at some correlation between my esteemed friends Tom, Fred and all (I hope I may call them friends) simulation with actual listening and finally measurement.
It was not to promote any type of medium or recording principle it was specifically to hear tonal differences between various values of reservoir caps on headphones that was in my opinion well recorded source material of natural instruments arriving at both eardrums simultaneously without any confusing or distracting effects.
In fact tsiros have given me the idea to record both my Hofner and Gibson directly (no mic) onto tape using a pretty reasonable Studer Revox reel-to-reel at an infinitely high data rate while listening for tonal changes with increasing reservoir cap values. The next step is to compare in and output using simple channel A-B on a scope to see what artifacts have been added.
If tsiros feels that he may observe tonal character using other methods then so be it and if his methods makes sense I will gladly accommodate these to establish the correlation.
I am fortunate to have pure tonal perception, there is no magic and many people have this ability, the opposite is being tone deaf and in between are those who may or may not discriminate between a cat purring and a dog barking.
So the idea is to try and arrive at some correlation between my esteemed friends Tom, Fred and all (I hope I may call them friends) simulation with actual listening and finally measurement.
It was not to promote any type of medium or recording principle it was specifically to hear tonal differences between various values of reservoir caps on headphones that was in my opinion well recorded source material of natural instruments arriving at both eardrums simultaneously without any confusing or distracting effects.
In fact tsiros have given me the idea to record both my Hofner and Gibson directly (no mic) onto tape using a pretty reasonable Studer Revox reel-to-reel at an infinitely high data rate while listening for tonal changes with increasing reservoir cap values. The next step is to compare in and output using simple channel A-B on a scope to see what artifacts have been added.
If tsiros feels that he may observe tonal character using other methods then so be it and if his methods makes sense I will gladly accommodate these to establish the correlation.
Last edited:
in that case you are not comparing the effect of capacitors on music reproduction, but on music production.
100 % True
Hi Nico,
I agree with You 100% !
I have quite a while back (2003) a chance to be present at a musical session at one of my most gourmet's musical master and classical music lover. The source was the LP play back chain: TT Versa dynamic - vacuum plater + Air-bearing Tangent. arm fitted with a special custom made "MONO" Benz-Micro Silver cartridge (silver cross coil wires, boron cantilever + micro-ridge Diamond stylus - 15uV Op) There was also a first two gain transistors mounted directly at the back of the cart. in a little prolonged and carefully damped shield. At first look it looks like a cart is a bit longer as it should be. It is all then wired with a 5 silver cores braided in to the very near custom made U-Linear balanced Tube Phono stage incl. passive interstage RIAA made of special LC circuit where all the "C" were the Air C trimmers. This balanced mono HV phono OP stage has the two Ops via the bal. stepped vol. contr. directly connected to a two Acuphase M-8000 Mono Amps feed a pair of bi-wired Apogee Scintilla speakers.
We listened a custom recorded mono Piano recording made from cca 3m away from piano with a group of 16 DPA 130V Mics recorded from one single point (MONO - not stereo) to a 16 ch tubed Studer 2inch tape recorder at 76ips. This was then transfered directly from same machine to a Neumann cutter at 78 rpm direct to a 200g Vinyl discs (4).
This was the most realistic sound I ever have a chance to hear from any source, and yes it was MONO.
-The semitones recognition was so fantastic realistically and colorful that I never hear it at any "live" concert - I think that only the conductors in front of orchestra have the same privilege listening of something alike.
I was never heard anything alike even in Live Piano concerts in Wiener concert house on any concert I was in the last 20 yrs.
Even at the concert I seat mostly in the middle of a 9 row - the best position for the best interpretation and also very good for the sound and from this distance if I close the eyes what i hear - it is "MONO".
There isn't any imaginable digital sourced playback chain to be even mentioned against that what I heard from that 78rpm Vinyl playback at that gourmet's session back then and I doubt, it would ever be any digital PB source capable to even come close to the knee of this top analog one.
From my current experience the only new and orig. digital 256x DSD recordings can maybe come to the knee of this analog one but only if it would be done the same way and only in mono as was done this best analogue I heard. all the rest whatever PCM stuff even (32/192KHz) comparing to this analogue one is like a very pale 96 kbps MP3 sound.
Cheers,
Andreas
Hi Nico,
I agree with You 100% !
I have quite a while back (2003) a chance to be present at a musical session at one of my most gourmet's musical master and classical music lover. The source was the LP play back chain: TT Versa dynamic - vacuum plater + Air-bearing Tangent. arm fitted with a special custom made "MONO" Benz-Micro Silver cartridge (silver cross coil wires, boron cantilever + micro-ridge Diamond stylus - 15uV Op) There was also a first two gain transistors mounted directly at the back of the cart. in a little prolonged and carefully damped shield. At first look it looks like a cart is a bit longer as it should be. It is all then wired with a 5 silver cores braided in to the very near custom made U-Linear balanced Tube Phono stage incl. passive interstage RIAA made of special LC circuit where all the "C" were the Air C trimmers. This balanced mono HV phono OP stage has the two Ops via the bal. stepped vol. contr. directly connected to a two Acuphase M-8000 Mono Amps feed a pair of bi-wired Apogee Scintilla speakers.
We listened a custom recorded mono Piano recording made from cca 3m away from piano with a group of 16 DPA 130V Mics recorded from one single point (MONO - not stereo) to a 16 ch tubed Studer 2inch tape recorder at 76ips. This was then transfered directly from same machine to a Neumann cutter at 78 rpm direct to a 200g Vinyl discs (4).
This was the most realistic sound I ever have a chance to hear from any source, and yes it was MONO.
-The semitones recognition was so fantastic realistically and colorful that I never hear it at any "live" concert - I think that only the conductors in front of orchestra have the same privilege listening of something alike.
I was never heard anything alike even in Live Piano concerts in Wiener concert house on any concert I was in the last 20 yrs.
Even at the concert I seat mostly in the middle of a 9 row - the best position for the best interpretation and also very good for the sound and from this distance if I close the eyes what i hear - it is "MONO".
There isn't any imaginable digital sourced playback chain to be even mentioned against that what I heard from that 78rpm Vinyl playback at that gourmet's session back then and I doubt, it would ever be any digital PB source capable to even come close to the knee of this top analog one.
From my current experience the only new and orig. digital 256x DSD recordings can maybe come to the knee of this analog one but only if it would be done the same way and only in mono as was done this best analogue I heard. all the rest whatever PCM stuff even (32/192KHz) comparing to this analogue one is like a very pale 96 kbps MP3 sound.
Cheers,
Andreas
In my opinion it is reproduced by playing the recording through this simple headphone amplifier with different value reservoir caps. This is the core requirement of the thread, what is the minimum reservoir capacitance necessary to produce an acceptable "hi-fi sound".
the music hasn't been recorded. what you are listening is the original instrument sound (and not even that; read below). not a recording of it.
the chain guitar-cable-recording device doesn't produce any sound. it is not a recording of a musical instrument. It is not even the complete musical instrument, not until it reaches a speaker. Until it produces actual sound, it is not complete. It is an electric signal (that of the guitar's pickups) stored in an analog medium. Until it goes into a guitar amplifier and cabinet it is not the sound of the electric guitar.
the chain guitar-cable-recording device doesn't produce any sound. it is not a recording of a musical instrument. It is not even the complete musical instrument, not until it reaches a speaker. Until it produces actual sound, it is not complete. It is an electric signal (that of the guitar's pickups) stored in an analog medium. Until it goes into a guitar amplifier and cabinet it is not the sound of the electric guitar.
When I tried that using digital source I got this answer: A particularly suitable regulator. It prevented worsening the harmonic corruption of digital replay. However, if without the regulator's filtering, the varieties possible with same value, different model (different ESR) capacitors were not especially separable from different nearby capacitance values.
What absolute bull!!! Everything that makes music does not necessarily have to plug into an amplifier. I guess an organ does not make a sound unless played in a church.
Last edited:
OK, here is some algebra and comparison with gootee's simulation results. Given the simple assumptions, I would not expect agreement to better than a factor of two in C values.
Assuming a constant current load, the reservoir cap will have a straight line discharge. Assuming the full 10ms is used for the discharge then the voltage drop is 0.01 I/C. You actually get a bit less than this because the discharging cap meets the rising voltage at the start of the next charging period. Assuming that it hasn't discharged too far then an approximation for cosine can be used (cos(x)=1-0.5x^2) and the result is:
Vdrop = 0.01 I/C [ 1 + Xc/(pi Rdc) - sqrt( 2Xc/(pi Rdc) ) ]
where
Rdc = Vpk/I
Xc = 1/( 2pi f C ), f is mains frequency
gootee had a 36Vrms secondary = 50.9Vpk, but nearly 2V could be lost in the rectifier so assume Vpk = 49V.
Now case 1 is 300W peak sq wave into 4R. This is 8.66A peak. We need to add the resistance of the output stage - at least 0.22R emitter resistor plus a bit so say 0.3R. 8.66A on 4.3R is 37.2V. Allow 2V overhead in the output stage (Vbe drops etc.) so we need a minimum rail voltage of 39V. We need say 5% extra current for the driver stage so assume 9.09A. Using the above formula I find that 7300uF will do, giving a Vavg of 44V. Not the same as gootee's results, but not too far off.
Case 2 is 400W peak into 4R. This is 10A peak, so 4.3R needs 43V, plus 2V overhead means 45V rail minimum. Assume 5% driver, so 10.5A current draw. Then I get 23000uF, and Vavg of 47V. Again similar to the simulation. As the minimum voltage is so much closer to the peak (PSU unloaded) voltage we need a much bigger cap.
Note that I assume no audio magic, just a ripple calculation. I assume that the secondary resistance is low enough to be ignored, otherwise the algebra gets more complicated (still working on that!).
Assuming a constant current load, the reservoir cap will have a straight line discharge. Assuming the full 10ms is used for the discharge then the voltage drop is 0.01 I/C. You actually get a bit less than this because the discharging cap meets the rising voltage at the start of the next charging period. Assuming that it hasn't discharged too far then an approximation for cosine can be used (cos(x)=1-0.5x^2) and the result is:
Vdrop = 0.01 I/C [ 1 + Xc/(pi Rdc) - sqrt( 2Xc/(pi Rdc) ) ]
where
Rdc = Vpk/I
Xc = 1/( 2pi f C ), f is mains frequency
gootee had a 36Vrms secondary = 50.9Vpk, but nearly 2V could be lost in the rectifier so assume Vpk = 49V.
Now case 1 is 300W peak sq wave into 4R. This is 8.66A peak. We need to add the resistance of the output stage - at least 0.22R emitter resistor plus a bit so say 0.3R. 8.66A on 4.3R is 37.2V. Allow 2V overhead in the output stage (Vbe drops etc.) so we need a minimum rail voltage of 39V. We need say 5% extra current for the driver stage so assume 9.09A. Using the above formula I find that 7300uF will do, giving a Vavg of 44V. Not the same as gootee's results, but not too far off.
Case 2 is 400W peak into 4R. This is 10A peak, so 4.3R needs 43V, plus 2V overhead means 45V rail minimum. Assume 5% driver, so 10.5A current draw. Then I get 23000uF, and Vavg of 47V. Again similar to the simulation. As the minimum voltage is so much closer to the peak (PSU unloaded) voltage we need a much bigger cap.
Note that I assume no audio magic, just a ripple calculation. I assume that the secondary resistance is low enough to be ignored, otherwise the algebra gets more complicated (still working on that!).
there is a difference between a trombone and an electric guitar.
the former does not have an amplifier and cabinet as parts of the chain to be played
the latter does.
listening to an electric guitar straight from its jack -without into a guitar amplifier and a speaker cabinet- is like listening to an acoustic guitar without a body: you merely hear a metal string vibrating: that is not the guitar.
ya dig?
This still seems to bother you somehow. I never mention that those are electric guitars. You just assumed that everyone who has a guitar is into heavy metal, punk or garage rock. I am into non of those I am sorry. I like acoustic jazz.
My friend I prefer real natural instruments without distortion, fuzz boxes, waa waa and the like.
The fact that I have an active guitar does not make it an electric guitar it makes it an acoustic guitar with a special Shure PG27 fitted. This is a microphone that monitors the micro acoustics of the whole instrument not a typical pick-up bar.
Why bend your brain over this so much, is it important that I must listen to CDs recorded in a special way. Is there any preferred music that you feel I should rater listen to and at what level would be to your liking.
Just lump it guy, if it is that important to you do it your way and draw your own conclusions I am already deep into my experiments drawing notes and making conclusions and I am not going to use any electric guitars even if you insist. I can use my wife's cello to check out at what note the power supply crashes.
Last edited:
how do you plan to record them without a mic? You said you will record them without a mic.
I did not assume anything about having a guitar. Jazzists playing with an electric guitar use amplifiers and cabinets, too.
Irrelevant what you prefer. I prefer the violin, but this is irrelevant, too. On that subject, you think the violin doesn't have distortion? It is a very harmonic rich instrument and its waveform is quite close to a slightly overdriven guitar. Oh right, the electric guitar, most important musical instrument of the 20th century, is not a "real natural instrument". Right.
You're the one who said that you will record your gibson without a mic.
My brain isn't strained one bit. I don't care what you listen to or how. I said: 1)The perfect recordings for listening with headphones are binaural recordings. If you still have doubts, read up on it. 2) The electric signal coming out of an electric guitar is not the sound of the instrument. It has to go into an amplifier and a speaker cabinet. The amp/cab combination are as part of the instrument "electric guitar" as is the body of hollow-body instruments. You might want to hear the electric guitar's strings move about, but in the 12 years of playing electric guitar and in the 20+ years of listening, i have never once seen someone record the electric guitar by sticking a mic in front of the strings.(edit: or even the electric signal directly). It is always with an amp+cab (or amp/cab simulator/emulator). You're the one who said you will record the guitar without a mic and for the life of me i can not think of a way to record a guitar without a mic, unless it is an electric guitar and you take the output from the jack on the guitar.
no, i do not "lump it", i do not accept orders such that and i do not like your tone at all. I made two claims, and two claims only. I rephrased them above. Tell me which is wrong and how. confront those claims, not me.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.