Mine, too. You start with a demonstrated audible difference, then see what causes it. For boxes of gain, that's pretty straightforward. For transducers and signal processing, it isn't.
I was not aiming at perfect symmetry. Like most physicists, I am fascinated by broken symmetries.abraxalito said:
If it comes from the amplifier and affects the sound then it does so via the voltage at the output terminals? A corollary of this is that if it sounds different then it must measure different, although we might not yet know what measurement to do. On the other hand, it is not a corollary to say that if it sounds the same then it must measure the same as there may be things we can measure which we can't hear.
Last edited:
Which I very much doubt ThorstenL would disagree with. I know I don't. So I can't yet see how it could have been the one SY was using to beat up T with.
Someone will, though. Maybe not directly, but by saying things which assume the opposite of what I said. Still, at least here we can have a debate. On some forums the consensus would probably be that my statement is obviously false, as crystal cones and wooden blocks obviously have a vastly bigger effect on sound than tedious trivia such as output voltages and impedances.
No, sorry. The only thing that came to mind when you said 4558 was the classic "Screamer" effect pedal. It's supposed to have a tube overdrive sound.
I couldn't figure out why you would use one of those!
You must be using the RC4558 op amp, right?
(note to self: Google first, think later)
You missed it, they are already "out".Come out, whoever and wherever you are
Agreed. So Thorsten's questions about what measurements could be done but normally aren't seems to get close to the heart of the matter. Anybody else got any ideas? (I posted some thoughts a couple of pages ago).
Hi,
Absolutely. Electrodynamic Transducers react to current and current alone (Electrostatic ones on the other hand react to voltage alone).
If the amplifier has sufficiently low output impedance any of the resulting effects may appear unmeasurable, yet when we compare the speakers acoustic output (against an amplifier which is a near perfect current source) the differences are gross.
We do not even hidden variables, this is plain, out in the open and has been for decades.
Past that, back-emf is not the result of an LC resonance tank nor is it the result of a mechanical equivalent of an LC resonance tank. Such analogies fail even the requirements for a first order approximation, at best they may be thought of as "donkey bridges"to make electronic engineers imagine the mechanical system, but that does not make real equivalents, not even poor models.
Yes. So, in this case, if traditional measurements reveal no measurable difference, no measurements are extant to make the difference quantifiable yet it is perceived by the listener, where does that leave us?
To be more provocative
If we find that an item that measures worse in terms of traditional measurements yet is perceived to sound better and we discount the cynical hypothesis of "people like distortion" (as repeat experiments using systems with variable distortion addition mechanisms do NOT support that particular thesis), where does leave us?
On the other hand, it is not a corollary to say that if it sounds different then it must measure different as there may be things we can hear which we can't measure.
Ciao T
Absolutely. Electrodynamic Transducers react to current and current alone (Electrostatic ones on the other hand react to voltage alone).
If the amplifier has sufficiently low output impedance any of the resulting effects may appear unmeasurable, yet when we compare the speakers acoustic output (against an amplifier which is a near perfect current source) the differences are gross.
We do not even hidden variables, this is plain, out in the open and has been for decades.
Past that, back-emf is not the result of an LC resonance tank nor is it the result of a mechanical equivalent of an LC resonance tank. Such analogies fail even the requirements for a first order approximation, at best they may be thought of as "donkey bridges"to make electronic engineers imagine the mechanical system, but that does not make real equivalents, not even poor models.
Yes. So, in this case, if traditional measurements reveal no measurable difference, no measurements are extant to make the difference quantifiable yet it is perceived by the listener, where does that leave us?
To be more provocative
If we find that an item that measures worse in terms of traditional measurements yet is perceived to sound better and we discount the cynical hypothesis of "people like distortion" (as repeat experiments using systems with variable distortion addition mechanisms do NOT support that particular thesis), where does leave us?
On the other hand, it is not a corollary to say that if it sounds different then it must measure different as there may be things we can hear which we can't measure.
Ciao T
I would definitely call the amp that is more immune to mains supply purity "better sounding". And it is easy to measure.
Yeah I liked your ideas. We could do with some way to measure sensitivity to interference on input grounds and on speaker and power leads. Not sure how to quantify those effects but I reckon they're important. Perhaps the CE tests for fast transient immunity would be a start, but they need to be conducted while playing a real signal, preferably music, and the input and outputs diff'd.
@Wavebourn - that wasn't quite what I was getting at
I agree that better immunity leads to better sound all other things being equal.
Last edited:
Which is completely predicted by conventional engineering. So, what's your point?
A good example of people who not only said it, preached it, is the Audio Critic magazine. Typical example is issue 24, pdf page 10, under the title "Paste This In Your Hat!"
and born out fully in the long article starting on pdf page 17.
Also don't miss the test of the low end Pioneer 203 receiver on pdf page 43 that "puts much of the high end equipment to shame"
The Pioneer receiver, list $220, street price $100, was also ABX tested against a $3K Stereophile rated Class A amp, and no one could hear a discernible difference. This issue is a hoot, with the declared "white hats and black hats" of the audio industry thrown in to top it off.
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf
Last edited:
Wave do you have a better copy than MP3 ...?
Sounds more like an spring reverb ......
Most abx testing are done with poorly chosen speakers, you can "rig" any test, to prove your point if you know how ..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.