Terry Demol said:
Well, that's the thing with subjectivity.
Subjectivity has people reporting that even placing photographs of themselves in their freezers improve the sound of their system. And that the improvements are greater when there's food in the freezer along with the photographs than when there's no food. And better still when the food is treated with Peter Belt's Creme Electret.
So how do we know when the subjective differences are in fact due to objective differneces? What are we to make of subjective experience beyond our own?
You have those who rave over single-ended near zero feedback amps like the Cary that's mentioned in the Cheevers thesis someone cited. Yet you have those who rave over amps like the Halcro which is nothing but negative feedback. Sometimes these are the same people.
Look at the praise Harvey Rosenberg laid on the 47 Lab Gaincard, which is based on a power opamp with gobs of feedback. Or Art Dudley's experience with the Final Labs Music 6 power amplifier, which is also based on a power opamp (Art's usual power amps are a Fi 2A3 and an Audio Note Kit One).
For years Stereophile has been including a rather comprehensive (for a high-end audio publication) suite of measurements along with their reviews. However I have yet to see even any sort of casual correlation between objective performance and subjective experience.
I think we should all go with whatever works for us for whatever reason.
What troubles me is when people try and pass off their subjective experiences as some sort of universal truth, becoming not just advocates but propagandists.
se
It is not a matter of protection.
Some people just aren't interested in hearing stuff that runs counter to their mind set.
And some of us do not have patience for that.
If anyone here thinks that zero-feedback does not have readily identifiable sound........even with tons of op-amps in the chain ahead of it..............then go build one and tell me I am wrong.
I'm not.
Jocko
Some people just aren't interested in hearing stuff that runs counter to their mind set.
And some of us do not have patience for that.
If anyone here thinks that zero-feedback does not have readily identifiable sound........even with tons of op-amps in the chain ahead of it..............then go build one and tell me I am wrong.
I'm not.
Jocko
Charles Hansen said:
What is the proof that there is less "*actual* resolution"?
What are you defining as "resolution"?
You mean you prefer to just preach to those who unquestioningly swallow whatever you say and make yourself out as some sort of victim because someone dared to question some of your claims?
se
I still have tons of doubts
First, I don't understand how the presence or absence of feedback could produce all those mysterious artifacts on the waveforms only perciveable through the ear but not through measurements or even nulling tests [substracting compensated output from input]
Second, I don't understand how this magical difference between 'short-loop feedback' and 'long-loop feedback' could also cause mysterious non-measurable but audible waveform alterations. Is it a real functional difference or it's just a cosmetic difference?
Third, if a signal is not measurable, I don't understand how could it be recorded into a disc [How do we represent unmeasurable signals in the digital domain?]
Fourth, could a non-measurable voltage cause a non-measurable current to flow through the voice coil of a loudspeaker in order to produce a non-measurable force over a diapraghn to create a non-measurable pressure gradient capable of reaching your ears and stimulating your cells in a non-measurable way?
[By 'non-measurable' I mean the case when measurement equipment says the magnitude is zero or negligible]
Fifth, how we could talk about 'no feedback' when bipolar transistors have internal feedback mechanisms like : Miller capacitance from collector to base, current gain that decreases as Vce decreases or Ic increases, and Vbe that increases as Ic or Ib increase? [every gain device has his own internal feedback mechanisms]
My theory is that only measurable acoustic signals exist, and thus, non-measurable differences perceived as 'acoustic' are not due to acoustic signal changes but due to differences in the whole enviromental perception [ie: Everything sounds to me less bright and with less resolution when I'm tired or I'm having a bad day, and imaging perception changes when I turn off the lights]
First, I don't understand how the presence or absence of feedback could produce all those mysterious artifacts on the waveforms only perciveable through the ear but not through measurements or even nulling tests [substracting compensated output from input]
Second, I don't understand how this magical difference between 'short-loop feedback' and 'long-loop feedback' could also cause mysterious non-measurable but audible waveform alterations. Is it a real functional difference or it's just a cosmetic difference?
Third, if a signal is not measurable, I don't understand how could it be recorded into a disc [How do we represent unmeasurable signals in the digital domain?]
Fourth, could a non-measurable voltage cause a non-measurable current to flow through the voice coil of a loudspeaker in order to produce a non-measurable force over a diapraghn to create a non-measurable pressure gradient capable of reaching your ears and stimulating your cells in a non-measurable way?
[By 'non-measurable' I mean the case when measurement equipment says the magnitude is zero or negligible]
Fifth, how we could talk about 'no feedback' when bipolar transistors have internal feedback mechanisms like : Miller capacitance from collector to base, current gain that decreases as Vce decreases or Ic increases, and Vbe that increases as Ic or Ib increase? [every gain device has his own internal feedback mechanisms]
My theory is that only measurable acoustic signals exist, and thus, non-measurable differences perceived as 'acoustic' are not due to acoustic signal changes but due to differences in the whole enviromental perception [ie: Everything sounds to me less bright and with less resolution when I'm tired or I'm having a bad day, and imaging perception changes when I turn off the lights]
Hello John-
Thanks for the explanation. I'm proud to admit that I don't have a TV, so I don't really know what that show is about. I'm embarrased to admit that it took me this long to realize that "BCNU" means "be seeing you"...
Armed with your information about the TV show I was able to determine that yes, that car is a Lotus Super 7. Nice ride!
Thanks,
Charles Hansen
Thanks for the explanation. I'm proud to admit that I don't have a TV, so I don't really know what that show is about. I'm embarrased to admit that it took me this long to realize that "BCNU" means "be seeing you"...
Armed with your information about the TV show I was able to determine that yes, that car is a Lotus Super 7. Nice ride!
Thanks,
Charles Hansen
I have watched this thread move off onto semantics; the heady issues related to the definition of negative feedback, etc. Much of this mess, I will admit, is the fault of overzealous marketing departments.
However, when someone of manifold, deep experience such as Steven, Pavel, Charles or Terry comes along and offers their two bob's worth, must they be always obliged to prove that their opinion is legitimate, that they have sufficient experience, and are worthy to post comments? One can normally tell within a couple of sentences if someone knows what he is talking about, or has something useful to say. We do not need referees!
Steve, you have hijacked yet again another thread by dissolving it into semantics and proof of authority. Why do you do this, and earn the universal contempt of almost anyone with anything worthwhile to say? You've done it to countless worthy individuals, and caused me and others to list you on 'ignore'. I don't mind admitting I'd throttle you if you came my way, even today. I see a thread going along nicely, your name jumps into the fray, and suddenly everyone is bothered, particularly the person on whose word we are all hanging......
I find myself wondering about your early background......
Cheers,
Hugh
However, when someone of manifold, deep experience such as Steven, Pavel, Charles or Terry comes along and offers their two bob's worth, must they be always obliged to prove that their opinion is legitimate, that they have sufficient experience, and are worthy to post comments? One can normally tell within a couple of sentences if someone knows what he is talking about, or has something useful to say. We do not need referees!
Steve, you have hijacked yet again another thread by dissolving it into semantics and proof of authority. Why do you do this, and earn the universal contempt of almost anyone with anything worthwhile to say? You've done it to countless worthy individuals, and caused me and others to list you on 'ignore'. I don't mind admitting I'd throttle you if you came my way, even today. I see a thread going along nicely, your name jumps into the fray, and suddenly everyone is bothered, particularly the person on whose word we are all hanging......
I find myself wondering about your early background......
Cheers,
Hugh
AKSA said:
You say that as if semantics is of little or no importance to this thread.
What's the topic of this thread?
Is there anybody built a non feedback amplifier??
How can that question be answered in any meaningful way unless there is some agreement as to what constitutes feedback? How does the ambiguity of multiple notions as to what constitutes feedback serve the original poster?
Excuse me? Charles never stated that the Sziklai has more negative feedback than the Darlington as an opinion. He stated it as fact and then got all bent out of shape because I questioned his claim.
I don't know what you mean by "referees" but if you mean those who don't unquestioningly swallow the claims some people make simply because they have "credentials" I disagree.
Take the cable distortion measurements thread for example.
Charles pretty much dismissed the measurements made by Bruno Putzeys.
What was his argument?
He stated with absolute certainty that the Audio Precision System One was not capable of doing the same type of distortion measurement that John Curl was making using his Sound Technologies distortion analyzer and his HP spectrum analyzer and he was pretty certain that the Audio Precision System Two Cascade was not cable of it either. Ergo, Bruno's measurements could not be compared to Curl's.
Well, Charles said that he's owned (and one would assume used) an Audio Precision System One for over 10 years. So obviously he would know what he's talking about when he says that it can't make such a measurement, yes?
I've never owned or used any Audio Precision system but it took me just 20 minutes or so perusing the System One's owner's manual to discover that it could indeed make the same type of distortion measurement that John was.
I'm not saying I'm a genius and Charles is an idiot. Simply that Charles, despite his experience and "credentials" is human the same as all of us. And that no one should ever be intimidated by "credentials" to the point that they never question or otherwise challenge claims made by certain people.
If the claims I questioned did not constitute "threadjacking" then I fail to see how my questioning them are.
In my opinion, "worthy individuals" don't throw childish temper tantrums because someone may question some of their claims or disagree with them.
Worthy individuals don't expect their claims to be swallowed without question.
Worthy individuals welcome questioning and challenging and are more than happy to substantiate their claims.
Worthy indivuduals welcome dialogue and even argument because they know that these are filters by which we get closer to the truth.
This is because worthy individuals aren't so full of themselves that they can't conceive that they could ever possibly say anything which is incorrect and don't seek out nothing but unquestioning sycophants to impress.
You'd throttle me if I came your way and you wonder about MY early background?
I rest my case.
se
AKSA said:
I disagree with you on this, Hugh. We are here to better our knowledge about audio and learn from each other. Everyone is equal, including those with more experience. This is not the animal farm where some of us are more equal than others.
Charles may have a lot of experience in audio. But that doesn't mean that he could be foundamentally wrong in his line of work (we have seen that in the lm317 soft start thread, haven't we?).
If he holds the truth, he should not be afraid to share with us and defend his position. So far, he has not been able to demonstrate that, in my view.
That is not to say that Charles is a lesser person. It is that his view did not hold up in a debate.
No, we don't need referees, but we do need truth.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.