This is the one with the switched heaters :Preamplifier Archive - Einstein Audio Components GmbH
Thanks very much, thought I remembered that right, but wasn't sure. Maybe I can find a schematic somewhere.
Not really, makes perfect sense to me. Remember, I come from a computing background, and processing of music tracks, as data, is infinitely more powerful, more capable than fiddling with bits of hardware - once an optimum set of parameters is worked out, in a single alignment run, then processing using those numbers is applied to the music, data, before it hits the analogue side of the audio system. Doing it all beforehand is a convenience, and minimises the chance of interference effects intruding, if the set of components is reasonably stable, not going to be changed soon.
Ultimately, anything could be could be done with computer power to a music track if someone was motivated enough to do it - say, alter it so the replay sounded like any set of components you care to name; just by mixing in the right type of distortion - the Carver thing, only taking it to the next level. An interesting experiment would be to pre-distort so to perfectly balance the system's distortion - the combination would null, and close to zero reproduction distortion would be possible.
Last edited:
i think in the bass distortion reduction by electronic means is posible.
Here is an old Klippel patent :Patent US5694476 - Adaptive filter for correcting the transfer characteristic of ... - Google Patents
Things like that have being done, also various kinds of motional feddback.
When it goes up into the treble things get harder.
Even Backes & Müller, the German active speaker pioneeer does not use feddback any more in midrange and treble drivers.
You must imagine that the more you feed back an acoustical driver the worce is the signal-noise and that costs dynamic range.
They simply could not reduce the hiss in the tweeter low enough to satisfy the an.. retentive that are the bigest buying grooup of " corrected " speakers.
This is very different from feedback in amps where correct NFB improves signal noise
( and everything else for that matter IF the amp is unconditional stable into any load plus does not change the distortion behaviour over frequency and dymamic range. Zero distortion into a dummy loud is easy. Even i can do that ).
Here is an old Klippel patent :Patent US5694476 - Adaptive filter for correcting the transfer characteristic of ... - Google Patents
Things like that have being done, also various kinds of motional feddback.
When it goes up into the treble things get harder.
Even Backes & Müller, the German active speaker pioneeer does not use feddback any more in midrange and treble drivers.
You must imagine that the more you feed back an acoustical driver the worce is the signal-noise and that costs dynamic range.
They simply could not reduce the hiss in the tweeter low enough to satisfy the an.. retentive that are the bigest buying grooup of " corrected " speakers.
This is very different from feedback in amps where correct NFB improves signal noise
( and everything else for that matter IF the amp is unconditional stable into any load plus does not change the distortion behaviour over frequency and dymamic range. Zero distortion into a dummy loud is easy. Even i can do that ).
I think this fits here :We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Sorry, 'audiophiles', only IT will break the sound barrier ? The Register
Not my word though, my philosphy is not the same but i agree that to make progress in reproduction often does not make the designer more wealthy.
Most people are perfectly happy with a cartoon.
Not my word though, my philosphy is not the same but i agree that to make progress in reproduction often does not make the designer more wealthy.
Most people are perfectly happy with a cartoon.
System distortions can be anything, so there is certainly nothing static about the pre-distorting - the one thing that can't be dealt with like this are external, non-predictable, interference events. It would all be done in the time domain, think of it like an extremely extended feedback loop: use a microphone calibrated in areas that matter, play the track, or a snippet; record, analyse, compare to original, version one of pre-distortion applied; play, record, analyse, compare, version two of pre-distortion. Repeat until sufficiently close to original; by this stage there is an accumulation of knowledge about what happens; a new track could be pre-distorted very close to what's needed first time around; every time the process is done the database of understanding builds, the refining of the precise manipulation needed gets better, and an unknown track can be pre-distorted almost exactly right in the first instance.So no system distortions are frequency-dependent then, all can be reduced to static transfer function deviations?
Last edited:
To give you an example here are the measurements of a modern tweeter i use in a commercial product.
It is not even a ribbon but a metal dome.
Distortion is measured somewhat over 90dB in 1Meter.
It is composed mainly from second harmonic that amounts to under -55dB over 3kHz.
that is 0.18%.
Over 10khz it goes a bit up but i doubt that many of us can hear up to 20kHz.
All higher harmonics are so low that they are hard to measure. I would say this tweeter is transparent so why correct it ?
It is not even a ribbon but a metal dome.
Distortion is measured somewhat over 90dB in 1Meter.
It is composed mainly from second harmonic that amounts to under -55dB over 3kHz.
that is 0.18%.
Over 10khz it goes a bit up but i doubt that many of us can hear up to 20kHz.
All higher harmonics are so low that they are hard to measure. I would say this tweeter is transparent so why correct it ?
Attachments
I saw a very useful link in that link.
Look at how different codecs can distort a square-wave.
It's time to start using FRAUNHOFER! Much better than the LAME codec in these pictures.
From wav to mp3 woes (Page 1) - Audio Production - Forums - ChipMusic.org
So no system distortions are frequency-dependent then, all can be reduced to static transfer function deviations?
Yep , Only in Franks world ....
But we don't listen to square waves - real music doesn't have these sorts of waveforms - unless Iggy Pop is mastering it,
Digital would have a hard time for sure .....
But we don't listen to square waves - real music doesn't have these sorts of waveforms - unless Iggy Pop is mastering it,
We don't? I'm pretty sure I was just listening to one now.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Thus, we must all change to FRAUNHOFR.
Lame is polluting the entire audio industry, just like Sigma-Delta, reconstruction filters, linear phase, all op-amp's which are worse than LME49720, AD797, Copper wire, Nickel, Tin, Aluminium in our electronics, EMR shockwaves, RFI, PSI, PS3, PS Vita.
Really really really shitty microphones.
I rest my case in peace.
Nigel, that recording is exceptional and yes, it is not the typical ( thin ? ) DG sound.
Abbado did an awesome Prokofiev Lieutenant Kije`.
There are othere examples.
In a big company like that coincidence strikes more often.
HECK, listen to a Burmester CD player.
The sound is the opposite then chrome plated.
Rich, full and spacious.
It´s Dieter´s hobby.
Abbado did an awesome Prokofiev Lieutenant Kije`.
There are othere examples.
In a big company like that coincidence strikes more often.
HECK, listen to a Burmester CD player.
The sound is the opposite then chrome plated.
Rich, full and spacious.
It´s Dieter´s hobby.
Sounds like you should be giving away listening to recordings ...
.I come from a completely different angle - to me, recordings are at the top of the ladder, the pecking order; I bring a possibly OK system up to the altar of that recording, and see whether the system is worthy of it. Many people come from completely the opposite angle; their systems are magnificent cathedrals, where only a few recordings are fit to venture inside, let alone sit in the front pew,
. A $1,000,000 system has to be good enough to play a $1 recording; not the other way around - that approach, attitude yields very spectacular and satisfying results ...
Last edited:
I have a problem with the very idea of "tuning" the sound to the loudspeaker. In my view, no-one should have to do that, surely it's the speaker which must reproduce anything we throw at it (within reason)?
To me, a very mild correction with tone controls is about the worst I can think of, and even that is imposed by the room, because we can almost never have both speakers ideally places under identical coditions. Please note the word "mild", which means say +/- 2-3 dB worst case. In my case, to my right speaker, as it is placed almost right next to a curtain, and the bass reflex port is at the back.
Physiological correction ("loudness") is a completely different matter. I use it especially at night, when I have to turn the volume down, but fortunately, my Luxman C-03 preamp has a non-aggressive correction, while my Marantz 3250B preamp does even better, it has a potentiometer for loudness so everybody can find their own measure easily.
To me, a very mild correction with tone controls is about the worst I can think of, and even that is imposed by the room, because we can almost never have both speakers ideally places under identical coditions. Please note the word "mild", which means say +/- 2-3 dB worst case. In my case, to my right speaker, as it is placed almost right next to a curtain, and the bass reflex port is at the back.
Physiological correction ("loudness") is a completely different matter. I use it especially at night, when I have to turn the volume down, but fortunately, my Luxman C-03 preamp has a non-aggressive correction, while my Marantz 3250B preamp does even better, it has a potentiometer for loudness so everybody can find their own measure easily.
And I agree the resulting sound should be at the very least believable. But we both know this is not the case very often.
However, most of the difference is, I believe, attributable to the system owners, who far too rarely take the time and trouble to auditon their system components and choose the ones which suit them best.
I have had the good fortune to her several cheap systems which did very well indeed, but I also note these were generally put together by professional musicians, with a few exceptions.
On the other hand, I have seen far too many misused systems. People want small and cheap speakers to do as well as large and expensive ones, and especially want the funny little 17 cm bass/mid to have the weight and gravitas of much bigger drivers, so tha bass contro is turned allthe way up. They have no idea what they are asking the amp and the speaker to do when they crank it up to +12 dB. With the loudness switch turned on. Horror!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.