What you've listed are the products of other people's science. Just because you use them in the design of a product doesn't mean you've performed an act of science - you haven't - you've engineered something. There are plenty of technicians in research laboratories - same thing.
And just what do you call my triode questions? That is basic science. Come up with a hypothesis, test it and see what conclusions you can arrive at.
Lots of folks can speculate at the answers, try to model them, but the results will surprise many and explain a lot of others' observations of part of the issues.
I did say I was starting a list. Very happy for others to continue it!ThorstenL said:
Good engineering involves both the application of science already developed, and some use of a scientific way of thinking e.g. when debugging a new design. You investigate hypotheses, make experiments, apply existing knowledge. When an amp has too much hum you don't try to fix it by performing a ritual dance or sacrificing a virgin. Well, I don't and I assume most on here don't either.pedroskova said:
Developing a new amplifier might not add to the store of human knowledge of science, but that does not mean that there is no science in audio.
A question about triodes?
...don't know what your hypothesis is. My take when you posted the circuit was that you had designed it to prove a point. I may be wrong. Maybe you're on to something that nobody's ever contemplated.
...looks to me like distortion cancellation will take place to some extent, with the caveat that the coupling capacitors might screw things up ... or fix them ... don't know.
A question about triodes?
...don't know what your hypothesis is. My take when you posted the circuit was that you had designed it to prove a point. I may be wrong. Maybe you're on to something that nobody's ever contemplated.
...looks to me like distortion cancellation will take place to some extent, with the caveat that the coupling capacitors might screw things up ... or fix them ... don't know.
No a question about distortion, triodes are used in one of the examples, others to follow.
I am using the example to demonstrate how distortion is affected by feedback, the lack of answers demonstrates the "knowledge" of what actually happens is lacking.
Distortion cancellation is not even an issue! The issue is how does feedback affect the distortion reduction and how does it change according to conditions and what are those conditions.
But if this is old work then I look forward to your answers.
Oh, toss the big wet voodoo blanket over any argument that may differ from yours? I find it ironic that my initial statements now have me labeled as a card-carrying subjectivist.
BTW, I'm very good at creating hum, and when it occurs, the only thing I sacrifice is my liver.
Yes, and now we're back to the term, "engineering practices".
It seems to me that all the effective discussions here are performing science. Listening to your music system with an ear toward improvement, criticism, or correlation towards your initial goal is science.
I further believe that many of the better (better may not be appropriate, maybe interested is) research laboratory technicians are performing an act of science.
-Antonio
Forget about it, it will never happen in any open forum.
IMHO the "Blowtorch thread" has turned into a comedy.
Not funny, but more a tragedy.
S
I don't understand what this 'quibbling' is about, regarding 'science' and 'engineering'.
They BLEND into each other, and there is no engineer that does not have some background in 'science' and there are few experiments in science that do not require 'engineering'.
In the 'pecking order' of life, usually theoretical physicists are at the 'top'. Usually 'hands off', just math and 'higher contemplation' coming up with ideas that seem absurd, until proven to be so, in the laboratory.
Then, you have the 'applied physicists' usually working to prove a concept or to make a measurement.
Finally, you have the 'engineers' who try to design the equipment that will help prove the concept, OR something practical that everyone might enjoy. Engineers differ from 'technicians' mostly because of math and physics background. The engineers have much more. Therefore technicians use simple formulas, like Ohms Law. Engineers use more complicated formulas, usually derived from physicists, and simplified, like Johnson noise, and En derived from second stage shot noise, and put into a simple formula. The 'heart' of these computations is not usually derived by 'engineers' they are just given the formulas to work with.
They BLEND into each other, and there is no engineer that does not have some background in 'science' and there are few experiments in science that do not require 'engineering'.
In the 'pecking order' of life, usually theoretical physicists are at the 'top'. Usually 'hands off', just math and 'higher contemplation' coming up with ideas that seem absurd, until proven to be so, in the laboratory.
Then, you have the 'applied physicists' usually working to prove a concept or to make a measurement.
Finally, you have the 'engineers' who try to design the equipment that will help prove the concept, OR something practical that everyone might enjoy. Engineers differ from 'technicians' mostly because of math and physics background. The engineers have much more. Therefore technicians use simple formulas, like Ohms Law. Engineers use more complicated formulas, usually derived from physicists, and simplified, like Johnson noise, and En derived from second stage shot noise, and put into a simple formula. The 'heart' of these computations is not usually derived by 'engineers' they are just given the formulas to work with.
Yes, I shouldn't have used such a blanket statement. I count a number of technicians as good friends - some being more competent than their bosses. They have just chosen to work for a paycheck while their bosses scramble for funding.
I'd like to agree with you, but scientific practices in audio design holds until you are told that an otherwise well designed - and performing, at least from the standard set of measurements point of view - circuit can be 'subjectively' improved by changing capacitors, or using silver wires, or enclosing it in a wooden cabinet, or employing those magical audio-grade fuses... If there is no correlation between standard measurable performance indexes (THD, IMD, bandwitdth and so on) and audio quality, and you still can't setup a method to quantify the 'soundstage reproduction capability', or the 'instrument localization capability' in order to * objectively * correlate them with your hypotheses (eg circuit topology, or feedback factor, or what else), well, you have simply to recognize that scientific method is * at present * unapplicable to hi-end audio design.
Ciao,
L.
Yes, exactly. That is why I was so surprised by the claim that there is no science in audio. I'm blended myself: I have published papers on quantum gravity, RF power amplifiers and materials science instrumentation. Depending on the context, I sometimes claim to be an engineer, sometimes a physicist and sometimes an amateur. Others on here blend other fields.john curl said:
What you did was that you designed a bad amplifier stage.
You'd probably be better off should you design a triode amplifier stage with very low inherent distortion, that will eliminate the need to use any feedback at all.
And how would you reduce the distortion in a triode stage without feedback?
some suggest "inherently linear" triodes get that way from internal negative feedback
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tube...te-resistance-internal-negative-feedback.html
pentode's shield grid intecepts/blocks the feedback influence of the anode V and are better aproximations to "no feedback" amplifying devices than triodes
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tube...te-resistance-internal-negative-feedback.html
pentode's shield grid intecepts/blocks the feedback influence of the anode V and are better aproximations to "no feedback" amplifying devices than triodes
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.