That circuit is not particularly great on PSRR, CMRR, or THD, but it is simple. Maybe I'll run a comparison.
BTW check the 2SK170 DS at 24V Vdg the Ib is specified to be 10's of nA and at 2M input source R this is problematic. If AC coupled it can account for all the offset
Last edited:
The reality is that I'm not particularly concerned with what the artist intended, only my interpretation of it.
The artist may have had in mind some profound or simplistic statement for the world, maybe he was just trying to get the girl, maybe he intended it to help bring about world peace and save the whales.
I don't care.
IOW, I'm agreeing with se. I think.
The artist may have had in mind some profound or simplistic statement for the world, maybe he was just trying to get the girl, maybe he intended it to help bring about world peace and save the whales.
I don't care.
IOW, I'm agreeing with se. I think.
perhaps, but they've been at it for a while:
Amazon.com - 1918 Ad Caroline Lazzari Chicago Opera Singer Edison Phonograph Recording Music - Original Print Ad
Amazon.com - 1918 Ad Caroline Lazzari Chicago Opera Singer Edison Phonograph Recording Music - Original Print Ad
The reality is that I'm not particularly concerned with what the artist intended, only my interpretation of it.
The artist may have had in mind some profound or simplistic statement for the world, maybe he was just trying to get the girl, maybe he intended it to help bring about world peace and save the whales.
I don't care.
IOW, I'm agreeing with se. I think.
While we agree on that issue, it's not quite the same as what I'm talking about.
What I'm saying is did the studio monitors used to make recordings 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago or more sound like modern, high performance loudspeakers of today? Of course not. But the decisions made making those old recordings were made while monitoring through those old speakers. So what's actually encoded onto the physical recording isn't quite representative of what the artist intended. And if such a recording is played back on much more accurate modern loudspeakers, it's not going to sound the same as it did when it was played back in the studio through those old monitors.
Now what does that say for this whole notion about wanting to hear what "the artist intended"? What artist? In what studio? With what equipment and loudspeakers?
See what I'm getting at? It's not whether you and I care about what the artist intended. It's the fact that what's encoded on the recording itself isn't necessarily representative of the artist's intent and the more perfect reproduction of it may in fact lead you farther and farther away from that.
se
It intrigues me that some people think what "the artist intended" is important - bluntly, it means SFA for me ... if I get musical buzz from listening to what the recording does in my listening space that's what counts, everything else is irrelevant - and especially, what any 'artist' wanted ...
Last edited:
That's pretty much how I look at it as well. I listen to music for my own pleasure and enjoyment. Not anyone else's.
se
I do. Those are the same questions that ran through my mind.
In jcx's defense, he did state, "the artists intent - as represented on the recording." Accurate playback of the recording, with any additions minimized, is truly the beginning, middle, and end of 'HI-FI' as far as I see it.
So, for you, then, there's no need for the "Fidelity", in "High Fidelity"; just the "High".
Maybe it's a matter of me misinterpreting what you meant, when you wrote that (i.e. what you, as the artist, intended). But I think you've missed the boat on that one, Frank. I just don't like the sound of it.
Music is an art form. It's actually a complex result of multiple art forms; just think of Composition and Performance as two of the basic ones that are involved. (Just like the recording chain, and the signal chain, there's also an artist chain.)
If you like listening to a piece of music, then, by definition, you do "care" about what the artist (and the whole artist chain) intended.
To disparage "what any 'artist' wanted" while being thrilled by their music just seems completely wrong and nonsensical.
And to imply that we can't know what the artist intended sound-wise, leads us nowhere. All we have is a recording. All we can do is try to do the best with what we have, at the time, where we are. We all realize the limitations. What's the alternative?
Last edited:
I don't think we're too far apart, Tom. As you say, what we have is the recording, which is what got the tick, from the artist, producer, recording company, whoever - we have almost no way of knowing what it sounded like to their ears, at the time of the sign-off, via the electronics and speakers they were listening through. But this is what the thrust of quite a few comments have been on the forum, the need to know precisely, and match, what their ears were registering.
Which is a nonsense ... my comments were a reaction to the 'absurdity' of that - take a live performance of that artist, every person at the venue will hear at least a slightly different version of the resultant sound, and all of those will be intensely different from how the performer experiences it ...
As I see it, the best we can do is to be able to register every last detail captured in the recording, without any aspect of it irritating, and distracting us from the musical content. If I succeed in doing that, I always find that all of the detail makes sense, there are virtually no "I wonder what that jumble of sound was all about, what was the point of it, what were they trying to achieve,
" moments - it all comes together. Which makes me feel that I'm getting to the 'heart' of the recording ...An example of a highly manufactured recording is the first mastering of Led Zep I, on CD. This is almost universally condemned as being badly done, and the times I've heard it on some hifis I can understand that reaction. It sounds a mess, because the systems aren't up to it - but when the replay snaps together the sound becomes gargantuan, it strides like a colossus over the listening space. So, what is the 'correct' cound? What did the producer hear? The big, big sound, or the PA like squashing most systems achieve? And which, would you - the listener - prefer to hear ...
Last edited:
Sure. Thoough I have no idea what this means
Jan
If you have a noise level of 100 dB at 25 hertz from mechanical noises in your listening space you will still be able to hear a tone of 3000 hertz at 0 dB. It will actually be perceived as if it were the same volume!
Now you you look at each tone with a flat frequency response meter you really will see a 100 dB difference.
Now it is quite unlikely you could reproduce 100 dB at 25 hertz with a sound system. But it is not beyond current technology to record the signal.
Having tried this circuit with the appropriate transformers as a mic preamp, it works much better than the Jensen reference circuit using op amps! Now this is based on both listening panels and measurements!
The reference circuit had much worse PSSR. It did have significantly lower distortion, but the higher distortion circuit was perceived as warmer and more desirable. I did shown the distortion due to just the transformer a while back.
Now is it possible to have a better circuit? Of course it is. But for as few parts it takes the circuit is a winner.
Almost no way, except for the recording they made for us, with exactly that in mind!
Rather than "almost no way of knowing", I would say that we typically have an excellent approximation of what they intended for us to hear, since an army of professionals did a lot of work with precisely that in mind.
Of course, the technology and particular systems that were in use at the time, in different eras, do add some potential for deviation between the sound at the mics or inputs, back then, and the sound we reproduce now. But I don't see that as hugely significant. What was actually produced and pressed and what they heard on their monitors were slightly different from each other, too. But they realized that, also, at the time. And there are significant differences in sound quality between speakers and systems, now. So the only thing that makes sense is to try for the most-accurate reproduction of the recordings.
And, a side point, the performance artists are typically professionals who play music for audiences, and/or for making recordings. So they realize, very well, that there is a difference between what's happening at their ears and what's happening at their intended target. They play for the target.
But outside the context of the system used to mix and master the recording, the "intent of the artist" isn't fully represented by the recording itself.
se
Ahh , a Noble is highly overrated after seeing how they give them away and anyone telling me there is no sonic difference between amplifiers are either deaf or dead ..
So you didn't even read the article that was referenced? Let me spoon-feed you some of it:
"Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?
No."
No."
Did you get that part? Now please tell me who said "there is no sonic difference between amplifiers". Read the article, try to understand what Mr. Clark was claiming. It's just a FAQ, it shouldn't take you too long to read it.
When you understand what the claim is, if you still disagree go and collect your ten grand.
PS: sorry to reply so late, I don't get to read this stuff all day like some of you guys.
Last edited:
@gootee ...
Yes, the most "accurate reproduction" is what's required ... but what does that mean? To some, it's zero linear distortion - perfect frequency and phase response - which is quite funny in one sense, because highly regarded headpphones have dramatically different FRs from each other; as loudspeakers they would have been condemned as grossly defective,. For me, it's minimising low level, non-linear high frequency distortion - noise modulation, some call it - because I find this severely degrades the ability to have the notorious "inner detail" cleanly reproduced, and easily heard.
For me, most systems still are inaccurate, because they change tonality with volume. As an exercise, I once used a pair of Sennheiser HD650s as speakers, had them sitting up with the cups pointing out into the room, at max. volume. And, they just sounded like small speakers, at low volume - strange, that!! Switching to the normal amp and speakers, there was the same sound, at that volume, just better! Then, the 'ideal' is for the volume to be able to be ever increased, to deafening levels if wanted, with no apparent degradation - room sized, 'ideal headphones', to go as loud as any sane person would want ...
Yes, the most "accurate reproduction" is what's required ... but what does that mean? To some, it's zero linear distortion - perfect frequency and phase response - which is quite funny in one sense, because highly regarded headpphones have dramatically different FRs from each other; as loudspeakers they would have been condemned as grossly defective,
. For me, it's minimising low level, non-linear high frequency distortion - noise modulation, some call it - because I find this severely degrades the ability to have the notorious "inner detail" cleanly reproduced, and easily heard.For me, most systems still are inaccurate, because they change tonality with volume. As an exercise, I once used a pair of Sennheiser HD650s as speakers, had them sitting up with the cups pointing out into the room, at max. volume. And, they just sounded like small speakers, at low volume - strange, that!! Switching to the normal amp and speakers, there was the same sound, at that volume, just better! Then, the 'ideal' is for the volume to be able to be ever increased, to deafening levels if wanted, with no apparent degradation - room sized, 'ideal headphones', to go as loud as any sane person would want ...
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.