| vynuhl.addict |
I am happy to be back again browsing the threads. While being quite busy with family, work and music I have found the time over the past few weeks to discover some new sbujective insights, atleast to myself that is. As most of you reading know I was determined to build a blameless amplifier ala self that squashed all bad thoughts on this amplifier and its sonic merits and i thought i did it 100% with the previous feedback/compensation mods but being the way i am and never able to sit still for to long it wasnt the best it could be. I had been using 10pf lag comp and 33pf from vas output to negative input, while this gave a really nice sonic character i found over time the bass while very much there was sort of detached from it all and a little loose, flabby so to speak. I have since pinned this down to the high lead compensation value of33pf. I raised the lag compensation to22pf and used 10pf lead instead and this seemed to bring back the attack to notes that was being smoothed over and nice sounding. I have to say I have never modified and made changes that affect sound quality so profoundly as making changes withing the vas stage architecture. qith 10pf lag lowering the lead value gave a very slight hardly noticeable buzzing on strong solo vocals. I have a torture track that i used for all of these subjective changes and its a accapella hardly compressed solo vaocal track by Alanis Morissette, now I cant say that i am her biggest fan but when she belts out she has a voice that will test any existing honking annoyance factor that may exist deep within an audio system. Needless to say so far she sounds in good health with no clothespins on her nose.
Colin |
|
|
| AndrewT |
Hi,
I wonder if the phase margin is a little low, giving rise to a touch of overshoot on transient pulses?
This will sharpen up treble but not show in elevated distortion measurements.
JLH used a similar method and he described a setup procedure that used a second RC compensation route parallel to the first with a pot that he suggested be trimmed to square off the test signal and then replaced with a fixed value. |
|
|
| AKSA |
Colin,
Concur 100%!
Hugh |
|
|
| destroyer X |
You got it!...you found the one!
Congratulations...now you have one of the 'secrets of our universe".
Very good man!
Carlos |
|
|
| vynuhl.addict |
Thanks Hugh, Carlos, I am consistently chasing that being there sonics and am very happy at this point, its very there. Funny enough my better half came home last night and asked me what I did due to the fact it just sounded really good to her, other than that she could care less about it, lol.. Its 10:30 pm here and i havent been able to stop listening to cds since 8pm..Carlos I used your interstation fm trick, your a valuable wealth of hands on info..
Thanks!
Colin |
|
|
| AKSA |
Colin,
The interesting thing is that having pursued this subjectively, by ear so to speak, you have discovered something which would have evaded you if you had studied PSpice and striven to reduce distortion. I think this happens because we are listening to music, not test tones.
This is the underestimated area amp design which no one to my knowledge has satisfactorily explained. It's not magic, as some would have it, it's just not completely understood yet.
Now you have found one weak spot, there are more to be found in the input stage. But they are pretty tricky to find; try googling Gerard Perrot.
Cheers,
Hugh |
|
|
| Dave |
This quote is from http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/
"Memory Distortion was discovered a long time ago by a French man called Gérard Perrot, who has since created his own company called Lavardin, which makes amplifiers and other Audio devices." |
|
|
| Nordic |
| Love the link Dave. |
|
|
| destroyer X |
I am the one, that is honored with his attention.
regards,
Carlos |
|
|
| G.Kleinschmidt |
Having nothing better to do this evening, I will attempt, although probably pointlessly, to inject some sanity into this thread:
Frequency compensation is absolutely critical to an amplifiers performance. You simply cannot make willy-nilly changes to critical frequency compensation components and properly evaluate the complete impact of such changes purely by ear. Amongst other things, your ears and an interpretation of what you hear alone cannot be relied upon to tell you with certainty if your amplifier is continuously oscillating supersonically or not, or if the transient response is marginal or if the global loop compensation is not conditionally stable.
Things such as these can drastically alter the sonic performance of the amplifier either directly or indirectly, and without the appropriate measuring equipment required and a solid theoretical knowledge of how to empirically optimise an amplifiers frequency compensation, you are simply poking around in the dark.
You have reported a drastic change in the sonic performance of your amplifier with which seems, by your description, to be a rather unscientific approach to changing compensation component values.
By virtue of the latter, the possibility of the former (a drastic variation in audio quality) is not even remotely impossible, mysterious or surprising.
The only thing that your subjective experience (assuming that you have reported it here honestly and are not under delusion) suggests is that there is something critically wrong with your amplifiers frequency compensation in one form of alteration or the other.
And nobody here can say with any authority whatsoever exactly what it may be without, at the very least, thoroughly analysing your circuit - and least of all declare that you have stumbled upon a rather magical “secret-of-the(your?)-universe” ratio of lead to lag compensation capacitor values that will miraculously transform the sonic performance of an otherwise adequately compensated and properly designed amplifier.
Cheers,
Glen |
|
|
| AKSA |
Glen,
It's a shame you are so idle this evening - the results have been less than edifying!
Y'know, I've been designing amps with no CRO, no distortion analysers, no oscillators and no meters of any kind for decades. It's difficult work, but I always rely on my very large bio-engineered ear which hangs just above my workbench. It delivers flawless judgements every time, though communicating with it is tricky!
It must be very difficult launching an entirely justified crusade against novices. They are so crass, uneducated and, well, subjective. Hell, they don't even know Ohms' and Kirschoff's laws!!
Have a great week, Glen, and keep those great designs coming! In all those 44 transistors for 12W, how did you possibly leave out the base stoppers?
Hugh |
|
|
| Workhorse |
| quote: | Originally posted by AKSA
Colin,
you have discovered something which would have evaded you if you had studied PSpice and striven to reduce distortion. I think this happens because we are listening to music, not test tones.
Cheers,
Hugh |
I completely agree with you Hugh!
| quote: | Originally posted by AKSA
Glen,
I've been designing amps with no CRO, no distortion analysers, no oscillators and no meters of any kind for decades. Hugh |
Hats Off to Hugh! |
|
|
| consort_ee_um |
| Just as speaker design cannot be done without instruments amplifier design cannot be done without same |
|
|
| AKSA |
Certainly Consort,
I was joking :clown: , don't take me too seriously (that goes for you, too, Glen!!) - of course I have all the usual instruments....
I find the CRO in particular indispensable, and I'm constantly measuring to get the DC and AC conditions right. I assess linearity from triangle waveforms at very high frequency, and carefully examine phase shift with X-Y CRO traces. These aspects are fundamental. There is no magic, but there remain the subjective aspects intrinsic when listening to music. This is how many people assess amps, after all.
Then I move into issues of fine dimensioning, component choice, layout, etc.
Hugh |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
If I understand correctly, we have folks with special gifts ploughing through the night, getting to their perfect designs (screw Self et al) by correcting matters they are not sure of, addressing things not understood because they have not been discovered yet .... Where they do encounter an obstacle now and then by stumbling over it in the dark, it is glibly dismissed by the obvious logic that it is - wel - a stumbling block in their chosen path.
Arrival at Nirvana would seem not to actually be by benefit of superior hearing, but by the substancially greater benefit of superior intuition (which is also naturally not completely understood - must retain a sprinkling of mystery!)
By the way, we are listening to test tones. A whole (usually) harmonius lot of them. It is called music. For better testing we just make sure that things are OK one note at a time, before we let Beethoven throw the whole lot together.
In all this honesty, I must own up to one of my more irritating shortcomings. I hate sarcasm, especially when protected by a barn-back-door of: "Oh, I was only joking!"
Also just for the record, I have been using a cascode Vas plus a little more since 13 years ago - nothing fresh - but for slightly more tangible reasons. I have not quite gone through the quoted articles; hope to find some measurements at the end. Another one of my faults: I am a sceptic. I need to be shown that at least the basics are in order before I can consider the magic. |
|
|
| mikeks |
| quote: | Originally posted by Johan Potgieter
If I understand correctly, we have folks with special gifts ploughing through the night, getting to their perfect designs (screw Self et al) by correcting matters they are not sure of, addressing things not understood because they have not been discovered yet .... Where they do encounter an obstacle now and then by stumbling over it in the dark, it is glibly dismissed by the obvious logic that it is - wel - a stumbling block in their chosen path.
Arrival at Nirvana would seem not to actually be by benefit of superior hearing, but by the substancially greater benefit of superior intuition (which is also naturally not completely understood - must retain a sprinkling of mystery!) |
Thanks for this most excellent description of subjectivism (AKA John Curl et al)
Cheers! :) |
|
|
| vynuhl.addict |
I like some others feel that maybe he might not be into music as much as measurements, however as I dont know him personally I may be wrong. I read his workings as fast as I can find them and many others, I consider myself a sponge for information, I enjoy this hobby without ego or a mission to try to change conventional thinking. I have ploughed through the web in search of material that I can learn from, ploughed these forums, reading threads and each ones take on various issues concerning amplifier design and it would take years to work on them all with my limited knowledge as compared to many others here but fortunately sometimes what I do lack in knowledge it has been gained by careful study of datasheets. As I do not have access to measurement tools beyond a DMM, nor the extra financial abilities to do so at this time my tools are my ears and by economics have to be. I do not laugh at these tools of measurement, I know they are valuable but not free :o). As of lately obviously my big path of self discovery has been with the second stage VAS in which I know I could have used only lead compensation and put a big zero in the high frequencies at output but this I found to sound worse in control than too much lag. I of course found mixed lead and lag to sound better, but to the extent of which ratio to use seemed elusive for a cohesive balance until recently. Maybe I am delusional to think that this makes for better music, but may as well be delusional and have some good music to get lost in at the same time..:)
As always objective explanations are more than welcome.
Thanks All.
Colin |
|
|
| phn |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikeks
Thanks for this most excellent description of subjectivism (AKA John Curl et al)
Cheers! :) |
A reply worthy an objectivist (AKA the Pope et al). |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
Hi Colin,
Firstly, my summation was as general as I could keep it without being personal, although such sentiments unfortunately are caused by responses of individuals. It was thus not aimed at you specific - you also did not say that you saw it as such, but just to keep the air clear.
Regarding Doug Self, I was using him as collective of all engineers (apology Doug), definitely including myself! (.... but his excellent article "Science vs. subjectivism" sprang to mind.) Your impression and that of others of him might have arisen because his contributions were almost entirely technical - that is what he is. You could say exactly that of myself plus a host of other technical writers, but that cannot mean that we do not also enjoy music. I have also never met him, but I believe he plays an instrument. I know his qualifications include M.Sc Engineering (electronics) and MA (psychology), which certainly do not indicate a limited interest.
Back to subject, I agree entirely with your feelings about compensation. Mixed lag and lead are usually superior to just lag; in fact the prominent C.dom (over b-c of the VAS), can cause serious TIM at h.f. if too big, as it sometimes is to get stability, and from there on round the whole circuit, ending up as design that could be improved. I again refer to a very informative article on this by Dr John Ellis (EW March 2003). He sometimes posts here. Also here (to get back to my previous irritation) no amount of thumb-sucking and intuition will get this exactly right; certainly not listening. Phase and loop gain investigation are mandatory. (It must not only "sound right", it must be right with sufficient margin to accomodate component spreads. How do you listen for that?) Unfortunately this makes life difficult for those without the means - but then such capabilities are becoming more and more available as PC add-ons, for the benefit of all. (Imagine how we toiled 30 years ago, drawing point-by-point graphs, etc! :dodgy: )
Regards. |
|
|
| G.Kleinschmidt |
| quote: | Originally posted by AKSA
Glen,
It's a shame you are so idle this evening - the results have been less than edifying!
Y'know, I've been designing amps with no CRO, no distortion analysers, no oscillators and no meters of any kind for decades. It's difficult work, but I always rely on my very large bio-engineered ear which hangs just above my workbench. It delivers flawless judgements every time, though communicating with it is tricky!
It must be very difficult launching an entirely justified crusade against novices. They are so crass, uneducated and, well, subjective. Hell, they don't even know Ohms' and Kirschoff's laws!!
Have a great week, Glen, and keep those great designs coming! In all those 44 transistors for 12W, how did you possibly leave out the base stoppers?
Hugh |
Hugh, this is just another typical dim and evasive retort from you, which contains nothing of substance and addresses none of the points raised.
Your comments on a “crusade against novices” are patently obtuse. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a novice, and if there is anything at all in my posts of late that has been crusader-like, it is against the likes of self-fancying audio messiahs like you who stupidly encourage novices to fiddle with important aspects of their amplifiers that they lack the expertise and equipment to do properly. This is likely to lead to more grief than joy and is downright irresponsible and objectionable on your part.
As for your comments on my 12W amplifier design, they’re just as dim as the rest of your comments. |
|
|
| vynuhl.addict |
Hi Johan, nice to see you around again.
What really gets me listening is how even on the most complex music the amplifier keeps itself firmly planted in cohesiveness and those little details that often get lost with complex music with many transients and frequencies, in the most dense passages i can still hear those micro details and spacial cues that makes a well recorded live cd sound so good. Its not strident in the highs like most of the comercial SS I have hear in the past, but rather transparent without being spitty.I have been reading the Memory distortion articles and the Lavardin patents, looks like there are a load of inputstage ideas for me to toil with in the near future, thanks for the tip Hugh.
Colin |
|
|
| SY |
| :cop: Glen, you've been warned about personal attacks. Take a two day break from this thread. Further action may follow. |
|
|
| vynuhl.addict |
I am happy being a novice. Glen, I am still waiting for yourself to offer me something useful and constructive rather than the attempted raining on my parade. Hugh,Carlos and a few others have offered me what looks like a few small bits of constructive help but are really far bigger than what they seem, its often those small things that make the biggest difference in life.
Colin |
|
|
| Jonathan Bright |
As a matter of policy I try and be positive and avoid pointing the finger but I do have an objection to Douglas Self's position. I've read most of what he's written over the best part of three decades and in one sense my concerns are that he is not scientific enough for me. (Now, for what its worth I'm in the JLH section of the forrest and have built some of his s.signal amps and own one of his 10watt class A.) But the problem for me, with Self's work, is that although he militantly claims to be an objectivist I feel he allows no scope for further discoveries and insights. I may be wrong but it always seems to be THD with him. This strikes me as unscientific. There seems to be no position for mystery in his work and anyone who doesn't subscribe to his understanding of orthodoxy is not worth taking seriously. I've recently read a broad sweep of Western science since the Rennaisance (I'm sorry I can't spell....no visual memory) and the thing that strikes you is the dead hand of orthodoxy that repeatedly resisted new insights....things that the powers that be said "just couldn't occur" and were later proved to be true. I'd like to think the aggressive objectivist would be gracious enough to leave the door open a little bit for new mechanisms other than THD.
I'm not sure who was the first to raise concerns about listening results verses "hard data" but in JLH's 1969 Class A article they are mentioned. What I like about his approach is that he did know his science and was rigoris in its application but was also opened minded enough to know that we hadn't grasped all that was in this field. If it sounded "good" or "bad" there must be a reason for it. I like hard science and "facts". and I understand myself well enough to know the emotional reasons in my personality that account for this prediliction!!!!! But having said that we ought to be open to having current orthodoxies turned on their head if needed. |
|
|
| Nordic |
It would be lovely if we can rather discusss the thermal issues brought up in that memory article/link.... It certainly gave this beginner a few new insights into the many factors that create a circuit... must hav read all those pages in 20 minutes and it was a pleasure...
Who'd haave thought that the heat retained in a sink would affect the DC operational point etc... |
|
|
| Bonsai |
I noticed something while I was working on my amp over the last few months.
With the original compensation scheme, my amp sounded quite 'bright' - I liked the sound. However, if I put my ear next to the tweeter, I could hear a very faint hiss. I looked with a scope, and noted that the amp was oscillating at about 1MHz.
I tweaked the compensation (VAS Cdom from 22pF to 47pF) and removed the 10pF I had across the feedback resistor. All oscillation gone and no noise from the tweeter.
Clean square wave response.
The amp does sound different and I am willing to bet some people would prefer the original sound and others the 'new sound'. From the engineering perspective, the original compensation values were clearly not correct because the system was not stable.
So, I think compensation has a critical impact on the sound of an amplifier and just wonder how many great 'audiophile amps' have stability quirks (or not as the case may be) that that lead to a particular sound that reviewers happen to like . . . |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
Hi Colin,
(Your #22 - not to clog up the screen unnecessarily). Now I am raining on the parade - well, just a brief drizzle, then back to sun. I am delighted that you find your amplifier satisfactory. I recall my first taste of hi-fi; I was enthralled at what could come out of just one loudspeaker (then). But to get down to reality: I am not one to disturb exhilaration, after all, I am trying to cause exactly that, at least on the electronic side. But I get a mite alarmed at the effect an aura of mystery sometimes breathed into this by some like theatre smoke, might have on beginners. One reads about the "inhaling of the artist" becoming audible, or someone "feintly scratching on his guitar" (did the singer have astma or the guitarist catch his ring on something).
Such have nothing to do with hi-fi - it was there all the time; what I am trying to say is, micro details and spatial cues should be there all the time. Not detracting from your achievement (and that without a scope? - good of you), but there is nothing mysterious about a blameless amplifier. Audio frequency is after all a very small fraction of the frequency band used at present, down by almost dc (our cell-phones glibly work at >1 GHz). Any decent design should be blameless, and even beginners are capable of understanding this, given the right info. There are not too many things here to be still discovered, at least as far as amplifiers are concerned. I expressed my concern about the utterence of matters "that are not yet fully understood" before. There has been such a wealth of research regarding hearing, mainly in order to correct hearing deficiency, that what an amplifier is supposed to do, at least, will yield as many surprises as grade 3 arithmetic. Scientists do not know everything, but we do know that 3 + 5 =8, etc. - not much scope for research there.
That to encourage you, and also referring to my post #19 at the end, mentioning why it is really necessary to be able to look at amplifier response in order to get compensation safe. I sincerely hope you can afford a scope soon; a signal generator you can build yourself. It will be very rewarding not only to get it right, but to see why you got it right! Thanks for sharing this with us. |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jonathan Bright
....things that the powers that be said "just couldn't occur" and were later proved to be true. I'd like to think the aggressive objectivist would be gracious enough to leave the door open a little bit for new mechanisms other than THD. |
....and there I did just that (your first sentence) in my previous post!
But you would have realised that since 1969 matters did improve - particularly the discovery of the effect of high order harmonic distortion, TIM and loudspeaker-amplifier interface distortion. This was not so much discovering new things about hearing, as faults in amplifiers that we did not have/cared about before. Regarding Self I mostly recall his fight with subjectivists and their pseudo-scientific stance. But I agree that a blinkered stance is dangerous, and I would be surprised if he ignored high order h. distortion. Wake-up call for myself then!
Bonsai,
Exactly what some of us meant! Some may not have been bothered by the slight hiss, and carried on with an amplifier having goodness knows what spurious effects in the audio band. (What you found might even have had a larger amplitude; I often found that a scope probe - even X10 - reduced or cancelled an h.f. oscillation.)
If you care to reply, did you measure with the loudspeakers connected or not? |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jonathan Bright
But the problem for me, with Self's work, is that although he militantly claims to be an objectivist I feel he allows no scope for further discoveries and insights. |
Jonathan (great name, that!),
I don't see Self as an objectivist, but more as an anti-subjectivist. Without knowing the man, I would assume that if he heard something that didn't sound good, but measured well the he'd chase this down with as much vigour as he lambasts things that don't change measurements or, to him, the sound.
I don't see that because someone uses the tools of one side, and points fun at the other, that he necessarily joins a side. A personal example is that, although I am not a terrorist, I do not agree with the policies of GWB. there is always at least a third 'side'.
But, that's my opinion, and I'm welcome to it... :)! |
|
|
| phn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
Jonathan (great name, that!),
I don't see Self as an objectivist, but more as an anti-subjectivist. Without knowing the man, I would assume that if he heard something that didn't sound good, but measured well the he'd chase this down with as much vigour as he lambasts things that don't change measurements or, to him, the sound.
I don't see that because someone uses the tools of one side, and points fun at the other, that he necessarily joins a side. A personal example is that, although I am not a terrorist, I do not agree with the policies of GWB. there is always at least a third 'side'.
But, that's my opinion, and I'm welcome to it... :)! |
Does that mean that Self says "Subjectively I like this wine. Objectively I don't"? If he does, which side wins?
As said earlier, you objectivists hang out with a scary crowd, including the likes of the Pope (of Christianity and Positivism) and Pol Pot.
Of course, GWB's statement was a logical fallacy. But he rallied the fanatics, which I assume was his goal. |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
Sorry Guys - I cannot resist this one...
MODERATORS WILLING!
Since there are several Aussies on this thread: Cricket! May the best team win on Wednesday!
Regards. |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
| quote: | Originally posted by phn
Does that mean that Self says "Subjectively I like this wine. Objectively I don't"? If he does, which side wins? |
No, subjectively he would say "I like this wine". Objectively he would say: " ... but there was only 747 cc in the bottle. I was done in!"
| quote: | | ...... and Pol Pot. |
Phn, I presume you did not mean that as an abbreviation for me ....? |
|
|
| phn |
I used Pol Pot, an objectivist, to show how silly this "mean subjectivists" vs. "mean objectivists" debate is. Nobody posting in this thread has to competence to debate those things.
I'm not blameless. I have called myself a subjectivist, though I shouldn't. |
|
|
| SY |
| An Objectivist is someone with an inordinate attachment to Ayn Rand. Let's define our false dichotomies better, guys. |
|
|
| phn |
| That's sort of true. On the other hand, Rand's objectivism comes as close to religion as Comte's positivism. Who said you cannot learn from history? |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by phn
I used Pol Pot, an objectivist, to show how silly this "mean subjectivists" vs. "mean objectivists" debate is. Nobody posting in this thread has to competence to debate those things. |
Was that "the competence to debate those things"?
But Pol Pot was a subjectivist who used the guise of an objectivist to remove any people or group of people who opposed him or any possible group of people who could possibly oppose him. As a true subjectivist, he went too far. Like me... who took ****-stirring too far this time (I self-censored this myself, it's an Aussie expression that wouldn't pass muster).
Seriously, I don't believe that anyone is totally a subjectivist or objectivist. Possibly the meanings are different if you capitalise (ie. Subjectivism/Objectivism), but as Ferris Bueller attributed to John Lennon: "I don't believe in isms, I just believe in me". No-one who claims to be an objectivist has no likes or dislikes. And by the same token, no-one who claims to be a subjectivist disregards all measurements.
But, phn, using the term "you objectivists" as an insult is not adding to any part of this debate. Is it? Why did my posts, that I saw Self as more an "anti-subjectivist", make me an objectivist? After all, it was my opinion, not a measured response :). What gives you the right to put a label on me, just because you wish for the safety of having one for yourself? |
|
|
| phn |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
Was that "the competence to debate those things"? |
The tread is proof enough that there's a lack of competence.
Look up "straw man."
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
But Pol Pot was a subjectivist who used the guise of an objectivist to remove any people or group of people who opposed him or any possible group of people who could possibly oppose him. As a true subjectivist, he went too far. Like me... who took ****-stirring too far this time (I self-censored this myself, it's an Aussie expression that wouldn't pass muster). |
It would be nice if we all could make up our own subjective "truths" like this, wouldn't it?
| quote: | Originally posted by Cloth Ears
Seriously, I don't believe that anyone is totally a subjectivist or objectivist. Possibly the meanings are different if you capitalise (ie. Subjectivism/Objectivism), but as Ferris Bueller attributed to John Lennon: "I don't believe in isms, I just believe in me". No-one who claims to be an objectivist has no likes or dislikes. And by the same token, no-one who claims to be a subjectivist disregards all measurements.
But, phn, using the term "you objectivists" as an insult is not adding to any part of this debate. Is it? Why did my posts, that I saw Self as more an "anti-subjectivist", make me an objectivist? After all, it was my opinion, not a measured response :). What gives you the right to put a label on me, just because you wish for the safety of having one for yourself? |
But using "you subjectivists" as an insult is perfectly fine? How subjective of you.
I really don't care about that clown Self. And, no, nothing you have written makes you an objectivist. |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by Johan Potgieter
Since there are several Aussies on this thread: Cricket! May the best team win on Wednesday! |
But I want us to win... :)! |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by phn
But using "you subjectivists" as an insult is perfectly fine? |
You misunderstand, I am a qualitivist - the very existence of subject and object themselves is deduced by me... :clown:! Reference, please... :)! |
|
|
| Johan Potgieter |
As I often came up as being objective, I think it is high time I define exactly what I mean:
Firstly, it is in the field of electronics only, or in science in as much as it is applicable (why: see later).
Then, objectivism to me is checking by measurements and accepting that, or come up with proof that they are wrong! No emotion; facts!
It is strange that many "subjectivists" in this context so often end up with derogatory personal remarks. That does not constitute proof; it only reveals the speaker's mentality.
Further, hearing does not constitute scientific proof that something IS. It only proves that the person speaking likes it. I lost count of the number of times that opposite opinions were uttered about the same amplifier (to stay with only that piece of equipment). This does not indicate inferiority of the observer, it indicates natural hearing differences between individuals, a fact that has been proven to death by acousto-medical research. (Why does one have to repeat this so often?)
I only object when I am asked to believe that 3 + 5 = 11, as I often am. The fact that a speaker cannot see that that is what he is expecting of me, either reveals total bias on his side, or, with respect, ignorance of the state of the art of audio. Kindly note: Not my opinion of the state of the art, but documented experimental evidence. I often have to tolerate the remark: "that's what you think/say", when I am only the messenger of established electronic science.
When facts (per above definition) is acknowledged (as, strangely, it would appear to be in most other fields), I will and have on many occasions investigated perceived subjective differences with the same energy that I design amplifiers.
I have been around for a while, and can honestly say that I have never encountered an amplifier that, where the right measurements showed that it was in order, was not liked by most people.
This is to me where it ends. Previous posts clearly showed that subjectivist/objectivist arguments regarding other fields mainly lead to disparatory remarks.
And Phn, I object here on open thread (I hope a moderator reads this) about your categorisation of Douglas Self as a clown. I doubt that you have met the man. He is not here to defend himself. I would quote from elsewhere: "(He) has already withstood the test of time (science, in this case). He now tests those that comment about him."
With that I conclude my participation in this thread for the time, until it is back on standard. (Let me save some members the comment: I will not be sorely missed.) |
|
|
| vynuhl.addict |
Currently working on input stage B from the memory distortion site, to replace the input stage on the blameless..
Colin |
|
|
| mikeks |
| quote: | Originally posted by Johan Potgieter
Further, hearing does not constitute scientific proof that something IS. It only proves that the person speaking likes it. I lost count of the number of times that opposite opinions were uttered about the same amplifier (to stay with only that piece of equipment). This does not indicate inferiority of the observer, it indicates natural hearing differences between individuals, a fact that has been proven to death by acousto-medical research. (Why does one have to repeat this so often?) |
Hi Johan,
I see you are in trouble with the alchemists.
I wouldn't bother too much with the perpetually blinkered if I were you, for where ignorance is bliss it would be folly to be wise. :smash: |
|
|
| phn |
Yes, treads like this are counterproductive and will go nowhere. But here's an attempt to explain why I take strong issue with this subjectivism vs. objectivism.
I made an erroneous statement on this forum today, actually yesterday. It was quickly corrected, so no harm was done. It was something well beyond my competence. I guess I originally had gotten my info on the Internet. Somebody posting incorrect information on the Internet! Who could've guessed?
A semi-literate hack like Self can post whatever rubbish he wants on his site. He knows electronics. He knows engineering. But when he ventures outside of that, like the subject of subjectivism, he knows nothing. That Stereophile prides itself for being a subjectivist magazine changes nothing. The people at Stereophile are idiots. Since when did we start to use idiocy as framework for discourse?
Me being a "subjectivist" has nothing to do with engineering and measurements. I'm a "subjectivist" in that I consider "sound reproduction" a lie. I would prefer to call it "sound reinterpretation," though I have no hopes it will ever stick. What sounds like Muddy Waters' voice coming out of my speakers is not Muddy's voice. It's something that sounds like Muddy's voice, or an abstraction of Muddy's voice.
Then we have people who say things like, "With hi-rez formats like DVD-A and SACD, digital formats have finally surpassed vinyl." Whoa, Molly, hold your ponies! Are those people saying that vinyl has superior specs compared to the CD? Are they referring to the -25-30db channel separation of vinyl?
I like vinyl. But that doesn't mean I don't consider the electronics between the needle and the speakers as important as anyone else. I just think vinyl sounds damn good. I don't know why this flawed format sounds as good as it does. And it's not easily explained the way digital formats are.
I'm getting out on a limb here, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the people we call subjectivists are more likely to be vinyl junkies than the objectivists are. But it has nothing to do with engineering or measurements. A better, though not necessarily sufficient, explanation is that of "sound reproduction" and "sound reinterpretation." There will be no agreeing on that either. But that's an entirely different matter. |
|
|
| Cloth Ears |
| quote: | Originally posted by phn
Yes, treads like this are counterproductive and will go nowhere. But here's an attempt to explain why I take strong issue with this subjectivism vs. objectivism. |
phn, while I may not agree with you on some things, I definitely agree that this bit of the thread is counter-productive. We're all after the same thing. It's just that we will get there by different paths in some cases and by similar paths in other cases.
After all, if Colin is happy with the changes he made (and it sounds like it) who are we to argue how he got there?
 |
|
|
| AKSA |
Folks,
Why argue here? Some like vinyl, some like tubes, some like SS, the beat goes on..... there's no accounting for taste, that's the reason the market is so diverse.
Johan,
You wrote:
| quote: | | If I understand correctly, we have folks with special gifts ploughing through the night, getting to their perfect designs (screw Self et al) by correcting matters they are not sure of, addressing things not understood because they have not been discovered yet .... Where they do encounter an obstacle now and then by stumbling over it in the dark, it is glibly dismissed by the obvious logic that it is - wel - a stumbling block in their chosen path. |
This is utterly wrong, and too personal for my liking.
No special gifts, just a highly absorbing interest with much perseverance.
No perfect designs. Never suggested such, if you read my posts. And this is, in fact, sarcasm of the highest order, the very trait you complain of in others.
Self formed a very important part of my education in this field. I use some of his topologies, and particularly like the EF Type II.
Matters I'm not sure of? Rubbish..... when you do AB tests you quickly realise differences, and you must do these tests because auditory memory is very short. You do need a very good reference.
Everyone encounters obstacles in the dark, even engineers my friend, and serendipity plays a big part in all technologies, not just audio.
You lapse into the same faults you accuse others of. I might add that you have not met Self either, nor GK, nor me, nor heard my products, nor I dare say even seen an outline block diagram of the topology.
I have enjoined a discussion here, been attacked by you and GK remorselessly, and find this whole situation typical of a couple of academics arguing. It's as ridiculous as a couple kids fighting in a playground - and what for? What you think of me is in fact not my business, but what you write in public of me is bordering on libel.
If you were the man you purport to be, you would apologise for this rubbish.
Cheers,
Hugh |
|
|
| SY |
phn:
Before calling someone like Self a "hack," it might be well to marshal arguments and evidence. One can disagree with his approach (I use tubes, for example), one can disagree with his conclusions (and many do), but his work is careful, thorough, and educational. Unlike many self-proclaimed gurus (hah, I made a pun!), his work is subject to verification, dispute, and correction, rather than being proclaimed from on high like so many in this field like to do. |
|
|
| SY |
| Hugh, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to argue to-the-man rather than answer the technical arguments. |
|
|
| AKSA |
SY,
I'm disappointed too - principally that the instigating remarks also argued to the man.
Until this point I have been a model subscriber.
In any event, Stuart, the argument is now a semantic one on the differences between objectivist and subjectivist, and I can add nothing that has not been said already, as doubtless neither can most others. Further, this is not an academic conference, where proof and veracity is argued to and fro, this is a public forum where people disclose only what they are comfortable with, and I've done plenty of that over the years.
I believe you realise how this started; I am not the only one here to be upbraided.
Hugh |
|
|
| SY |
| I'm just annoyed by the false dichotomy. Illogic is a poor substitute for thinking, bumper sticker slogans are poor substitutes for substantive argument. |
|
|
| vynuhl.addict |
So many differing camps, well mainly two. As I wonder to myself why my innocent threads always turn into a very strong viewpoints and often personal attacks on those that often arent here to defend themselves, ala self. Maybe some of you should be over here just ejoying some music and a few fine spirits with me out here in Canada to take the edge off :)..Anyways, I have whipped up a new board, similar to the original but with the revised input stage, time to drill some holes..
Colin |
|
|
| mikeks |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Hugh, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to argue to-the-man rather than answer the technical arguments. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
I'm just annoyed by the false dichotomy. Illogic is a poor substitute for thinking, bumper sticker slogans are poor substitutes for substantive argument. |
AMEN!
Where have YOU been all my life? :bawling: |
|
|
| Workhorse |
| quote: | Originally posted by mikeks
Where have YOU been all my life? :bawling: |
I think we have found another Mikeks on this forum....
:D |
|
|
|
