That's all a bit silly - I started with the empirical, 30 years ago, and keep looking for the theoretical to fully explain it. If you want to play the ostrich, like some, and insist that something can't possibly happen then no progress can be made - I don't lose sleep over it, I'm the one who enjoys satisfying sound from cheap, nothing gear, and shakes his head at the sometimes dreadful mess emerging from 'proper' systems.
Things happen, very positive things, from intelligent tweaking - easily audible, the difference between convincing, and 'hifi' sound, and I definitely prefer the former. The conventional, normal ways don't work, I've listened to enough of the unpleasantness resulting from sloppy setups to last many lifetimes ...
Edit: One thing that does baffle me ... the minute number of people who actually want to get the best out of the ordinary recordings they have: it's either the jewellery crowd, or the grease monkey crowd, and very little else ...
Last edited:
No, it was me. It will take into account the cable balance characteristics and Zo of the source etc. It's really the best way --- do a system alignment.
Same for doing THD tests, freq response, noise, cross-talk etc -- check the complete systems from end-to-end.... not just one piece at a time. This is because it is what you are hearing -- the complete system playing music.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
First, the "distortion" from DC offset seems to resemble differential gain and differential phase. Both standard measurements for analog video amps, of which there are a number with exceptional performance.
Second, I read the Hirata paper (thanks, Jan) and I'm really curious if bandwidth limitations were ever considered. A lot of the energy in the waveform comes from very fast risetimes. It would seem that generating the waveform should be pretty simple with a few CMOS gates. Then the question of a low pass filter looms. A test signal that has components that will never be in an audio recording (check the bandpass of recording microphones) may highlight frequency related issues that are really non-issues. Or if they are indeed the cause of sonic issues perhaps our understanding of the sources of ultrasonic components is inadequate.
Does anyone other than John have experience with the Hirata test?
Frank,
What you don't realize is that I am working in the area of the greatest distortion, speakers. I really do think that this is the real last area where significant reductions in distortion are to be had. I have been working in this area for a long time and can tell you that I do look for the small things and details that others overlook. This has included work in areas that others would discount as not following the norm, doing what has always been done before. But at the same time I can tell you that I do have a very real idea of what it is I am attempting to do. I see some others, not many that have taken a few of the same paths I have but not many of them. Working in materials R&D for more years than I want to admit at this point I know I have learned a few things that others don't know about, these developments came not from audio but from materials applications and new product developments. I am very active in some other areas even though some of what I have done are now over 20 years old, but still not well known or understood today. I was a rebel you could say in applications of materials and manufacturing methods. Sy and a few others understand what I am speaking of, there are times when I just can't give away my knowledge, it is the not invented here syndrome that keeps some of what I have done in the dark. I have studied loudspeakers and waveguide design from early Webster to what is done today. I do notice what others are doing but I come to my own conclusions what is possible. I do believe that improvements can be made on the electronics side but don't think it is going to make a significant change at this point, most of the major distortion generators are well known at this point and it is only small improvements that are still to be found. I do think John has the chops to develop great sounding electronics, I just don't know that there is still any great leaps that can be made in that area. There is a big difference in changing electronic distortion from 0.001% distortion factors in electronics and the still high 10% numbers that are still common in speakers. Even the best of the best in speakers can't touch the levels that electronics have reached now for many years, that isn't where the magic is going to come from. So starting with cheap speakers with high distortion and thinking you can tweak this away with the electronics just makes little sense to my eyes. Sort of like taking a Tesla or even a nice Ferrari and still having nothing but bias ply tires to get to the top level, the tires would be where the gold is.
What you don't realize is that I am working in the area of the greatest distortion, speakers. I really do think that this is the real last area where significant reductions in distortion are to be had. I have been working in this area for a long time and can tell you that I do look for the small things and details that others overlook. This has included work in areas that others would discount as not following the norm, doing what has always been done before. But at the same time I can tell you that I do have a very real idea of what it is I am attempting to do. I see some others, not many that have taken a few of the same paths I have but not many of them. Working in materials R&D for more years than I want to admit at this point I know I have learned a few things that others don't know about, these developments came not from audio but from materials applications and new product developments. I am very active in some other areas even though some of what I have done are now over 20 years old, but still not well known or understood today. I was a rebel you could say in applications of materials and manufacturing methods. Sy and a few others understand what I am speaking of, there are times when I just can't give away my knowledge, it is the not invented here syndrome that keeps some of what I have done in the dark. I have studied loudspeakers and waveguide design from early Webster to what is done today. I do notice what others are doing but I come to my own conclusions what is possible. I do believe that improvements can be made on the electronics side but don't think it is going to make a significant change at this point, most of the major distortion generators are well known at this point and it is only small improvements that are still to be found. I do think John has the chops to develop great sounding electronics, I just don't know that there is still any great leaps that can be made in that area. There is a big difference in changing electronic distortion from 0.001% distortion factors in electronics and the still high 10% numbers that are still common in speakers. Even the best of the best in speakers can't touch the levels that electronics have reached now for many years, that isn't where the magic is going to come from. So starting with cheap speakers with high distortion and thinking you can tweak this away with the electronics just makes little sense to my eyes. Sort of like taking a Tesla or even a nice Ferrari and still having nothing but bias ply tires to get to the top level, the tires would be where the gold is.
Put up with what, and who are them?
Ever considered a thoughtful reply, Frank is spouting nothingness comments with no content and you support him, as you do with others that come up with esoteric audiophile based comments such as cable directivity, and you give your little blessings, keep the faithful enthused, so they can believe those nasty people using physics and science to back them selves up are deaf and don't care about moving audio reproduction forward, whereas all the little subjectives getting the cables the right way and burning in there cables are really moving it forwards!
Kindhornman, I fully appreciate what you are doing, the areas where you are doing extensive research - and that you obviously have the knowledge and experience to make good progress there, I have noted many of your highly technical posts in diyAudio. And that's all excellent stuff ...
However ... unfortunately, disconcertingly, for many hovering around here, I did achieve 'magic' with very ordinary speakers, a long time ago - I didn't set out to do so, it just happened to turn out that way, to fall into place. Now, that sound was probably not pristinely pure in the way many would want it; with a superbly recorded, extremely simple, single instrument piece you would pick deficiencies in the tonal rendition - in fact, fairly recently I experienced that with a familar recording on someone else's gear, a pure, single instrument tone had more attractive 'body', for want of a better term.
But, the vast majority of recordings don't fit into that category, they are relatively 'messy', complex grabs of a musical event, performance - and that's where I find sorted out electronics will shine, in allowing one to hear comfortably and satisfyingly what's going on. Cheap speakers sound cheap, IME, because the bits around them are done cheaply - sort that out, and the improvements can be subjectively dramatic - I have yet to come unstuck and find things worse after making some efforts.
What I chase is the "Wow!" factor, and I have never needed brilliant speakers to do it - distortion figures at 20 paces is never going to resolve the debate, many people would say that what is measured only marginally relates to how to the sound comes across. For example, the recent tweaking of the active PC speakers has lifted their game, not to "Wow!" levels, but it allows them to run at maximum volume on classical, with clear, well defined treble, on triangles say - way better than what I heard a lot of the time at the recent hifi show ...
However ... unfortunately, disconcertingly, for many hovering around here, I did achieve 'magic' with very ordinary speakers, a long time ago - I didn't set out to do so, it just happened to turn out that way, to fall into place. Now, that sound was probably not pristinely pure in the way many would want it; with a superbly recorded, extremely simple, single instrument piece you would pick deficiencies in the tonal rendition - in fact, fairly recently I experienced that with a familar recording on someone else's gear, a pure, single instrument tone had more attractive 'body', for want of a better term.
But, the vast majority of recordings don't fit into that category, they are relatively 'messy', complex grabs of a musical event, performance - and that's where I find sorted out electronics will shine, in allowing one to hear comfortably and satisfyingly what's going on. Cheap speakers sound cheap, IME, because the bits around them are done cheaply - sort that out, and the improvements can be subjectively dramatic - I have yet to come unstuck and find things worse after making some efforts.
What I chase is the "Wow!" factor, and I have never needed brilliant speakers to do it - distortion figures at 20 paces is never going to resolve the debate, many people would say that what is measured only marginally relates to how to the sound comes across. For example, the recent tweaking of the active PC speakers has lifted their game, not to "Wow!" levels, but it allows them to run at maximum volume on classical, with clear, well defined treble, on triangles say - way better than what I heard a lot of the time at the recent hifi show ...
You don't understand. JC supports ANYBODY who is against rational comments from rational people, independent of whatever BS they spout.
Conversely, JC is against ANYBODY who disagrees with him, independent of whatever thoughtful, factual or worthwhile comments they present.
So predictable, really.
Jan
If you care to look a little more carefully, marce, I'm quoting the term that Kindhornman used, in the post I was replying to ...
I notice you use the word 'magic' Frank, that explains it...
I will say one thing, I'm pleased that some people here are a long, long way away from the aeronautics industry - it would be a mighty scary thing going on a flight, otherwise ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.