Done this, yes I hear a difference when a line stage is added between the CD player and the amp. I can hear a difference between some (not all) of the line stages that I was testing. I have decided that the 01A based line stage that I tested was a good thing even though there was a piece of sand directly between the 01A and the amp. More experimentation will occur, but not soon.
Incidentally I (with definitely less than good hearing) can hear the difference between a 45 and a trioded 6V6 in the SAME circuit at power levels far below clipping, with some music. I can not quantify those differences with common measurements. The 3H,4H,5H,7H levels are all far down and in decreasing order. Dynamic range and max power are similar.
No, but there is a compelling curiosity, and it is not a simple static thing that can be measured with an FFT analyzer either. I doubt that I will ever figure it out, but when someone does, the marketing departments all over the world will be telling engineers to "can" it in a silicon chip so that it can be sold at walmart. Aural Exciter, Sonic Hologram.........Did they bump the vacuum tube into extinction?
Aural Exciter, Sonic Hologram.........Did they bump the vacuum tube into extinction?>>>
There I was feeling grumpy that my tiny-distortion measuring DHTs were in fact only enhancing the music, and you come along reassuring me that I'm an entrepreneur at the surfing edge of science. I do love it when you talk dirty like this!
andy
There I was feeling grumpy that my tiny-distortion measuring DHTs were in fact only enhancing the music, and you come along reassuring me that I'm an entrepreneur at the surfing edge of science. I do love it when you talk dirty like this!
andy
On the surface, this thread would appear to be the polar opposite of the John Curl "Blowtorch preamp" thread over in the Solid State forum. However, the same thought occurs to me when reading these (and other) threads - namely, what other components are in the signal chain? What's the source? What are the loudspeakers? Has loudspeaker placement been determined according to someone else's Laura Ashley sensibilities? Does all of this handwaving make any difference if someone is listening to their ideal preamp in a system that uses the vintage Yamaha or JBL studio "monitors" that they bought right out of college in the '70's?
In the Blowtorch thread, people are bandying about the noise figures of jfets, opamps, resistors, etc., measured in ppm and nanovolts per something-or-other... and I'm reading this thread (civil war) while listening to my system over the din of my house's HVAC unit and the millivolts per something-or-other of my tinnitus.
No offense intended, but I don't believe a single subjective opinion offered up by anyone on this forum. I come here for the objective back and forth of people much smarter than myself. After that, I build and make my own opinions.
So, in conclusion, I probably shoudn't have wasted the bandwidth - it's a circular argument.
In the Blowtorch thread, people are bandying about the noise figures of jfets, opamps, resistors, etc., measured in ppm and nanovolts per something-or-other... and I'm reading this thread (civil war) while listening to my system over the din of my house's HVAC unit and the millivolts per something-or-other of my tinnitus.
No offense intended, but I don't believe a single subjective opinion offered up by anyone on this forum. I come here for the objective back and forth of people much smarter than myself. After that, I build and make my own opinions.
So, in conclusion, I probably shoudn't have wasted the bandwidth - it's a circular argument.
pedroskova said:
The sheer irony of your post is almost overwhelming.
Andy offered up his experience, and was very candid in pointing out that he had not much to back it up with regards to theory or measurement. Your post essentially condemns that, but also offers no real backup either other than your personal philosophy; hence the irony. I consider myself a skeptic as well, but as SY pointed out already, don't belittle the value of the observations of a prolific and knowledgable DIYer.
leadbelly said:
The sheer irony of your post is almost overwhelming.
As I said, it's a circular argument. The reason I take subjective arguments with a grain of salt is because of all of the mistakes that I've made, and all of the dead ends that I've experienced. I have no doubt about that Andy's experiences are legitimate, but not knowing his system, it would be naive of me to take his opinions as the gospel.
I went through numerous preamp designs over two years and never was totally satisfied with any one design...they all had their good points. And then, I started designing a loudspeaker...and the small differences that I had sweat over in the preamps became miniscule by comparison.
For all I know, Andy listens to full range loudspeakers, and a directly heated triode delivers just the right amount of 2nd and 3rd harmonics to fill in for a thin sounding speaker...how am I to know?
With a different loudspeaker, source, whatever, he may have posted on how superior the 12b4a is.
Again, I didn't aim my initial response at Andy. It was more philosophical in nature.
I'm pleased to provide information about my system. I have listened to DHTs through quite a few systems, since I'm a member of the London Audiocircle and we have a number of home meetings where members evaluate equipment. I have two systems - one is a SE 300b amp with 10Y drivers going into a fullrange speaker with an alu cone, similar to Jordan JX92S. The other is a my Apogee Caliper Signatures - and if you know these you will know that they are about the lowest distortion speakers you can buy. These are in a smallish room, soft furnishings. These are driven by a PPP amp which has ECC40 into parallel 6S4.
I've listened to DHT preamps versus IDHT through other systems, for instance another SE 300b amp (2a3 drivers) into Jordan JX92A speakers. This comparison was 6SN7 and 6N1P preamps versus 10Y, 01A and 26 preamps. We had about 5 listeners for that 3 hour session and we were all agreed in preferring the 10Y. Likewise I've had listeners come to my system and say the same thing.
The music used was acoustic - classical, folk and jazz. No metallica.
I haven't yet found anyone who preferred an IDHT preamp to a DHT preamp in the last 2 years of comparative listening. As said, that's me and four or five other critical listeners, who were by profession 2 engineers, architect, teacher and psychologist. In other words, people who habitually work objecticely to critical tolerances.
Of course such critical listening is "subjective" since it relies on the ears of the critical listeners, but it's a mistake to think that this means listening while drunk or on drugs or preferring equipment given to us by girlfriends on fishing trips to the Costa del Sol.
andy
I've listened to DHT preamps versus IDHT through other systems, for instance another SE 300b amp (2a3 drivers) into Jordan JX92A speakers. This comparison was 6SN7 and 6N1P preamps versus 10Y, 01A and 26 preamps. We had about 5 listeners for that 3 hour session and we were all agreed in preferring the 10Y. Likewise I've had listeners come to my system and say the same thing.
The music used was acoustic - classical, folk and jazz. No metallica.
I haven't yet found anyone who preferred an IDHT preamp to a DHT preamp in the last 2 years of comparative listening. As said, that's me and four or five other critical listeners, who were by profession 2 engineers, architect, teacher and psychologist. In other words, people who habitually work objecticely to critical tolerances.
Of course such critical listening is "subjective" since it relies on the ears of the critical listeners, but it's a mistake to think that this means listening while drunk or on drugs or preferring equipment given to us by girlfriends on fishing trips to the Costa del Sol.
andy
I agree there's something going on with DHTs that doesn't seem to happen with IDHTs, and it's not showing up in the harmonic analysis.
The only reasonable guesses I've come across is the electron cloud (space charge) behaves differently, and the emission density per square mm is much higher for filament-emitting vacuum tubes than tubes that emit from a much larger and perhaps cooler cathode.
The local field gradient from a thin wire electron emitter is going to be different than a flat plate. A flat-plate cathode will bounce the occasional electron from the electron cloud, while these stray electrons will miss the small-diameter wires and continue to circulate within the cloud. So at the electron level, yes, there are differences between the two types.
At first blush, it would look like the flat plate would have better-defined emission geometry, but electron-bouncing might be significant. Since the majority of electrons don't go straight for the grid but end up circulating around in the electron cloud, maybe the cloud has a different shape, or has a different field gradient within it. The space-charge cloud does not have a smooth surface, but is somewhat bumpy - and if it gets close enough to any point on the grid, contact-potential effects ensue, and small amounts of grid-current start to flow. Contact-potential effects, although small in absolute terms, typically exhibit very high-order nonlinearities and are sensitive to processing residues and residual gasses within the tube.
There are subtle thermal effects as well. If the grid gets hot enough (from proximity to the cathode or overheated plate), it will start to emit electrons, thanks to residues of emission-enhancers that end up as manufacturing residues on the grid. This is why high-powered tubes have gold-plated grids, so the emission-enhancing residues don't adhere to the surface and cause problems when the internals of the tube start to get too hot. So the difference between DHTs and IDHTs could come down to something as arcane as unwanted grid emission due to heating effects and leftover processing residues.
You want to get even fancier, there are transient cooling effects when the cathode suddenly emits a large amount of electrons. Fine wire emitters are not going to have the same transient thermal characteristics as a large flat plate with indirect infrared heating from a decoupled heater.
Distortion measurements show the bulk phenomenon summed over time, but don't show fine-grained physics within the tube. Is this kind of subtle stuff audible, even if not readily measurable? Good question.
The only reasonable guesses I've come across is the electron cloud (space charge) behaves differently, and the emission density per square mm is much higher for filament-emitting vacuum tubes than tubes that emit from a much larger and perhaps cooler cathode.
The local field gradient from a thin wire electron emitter is going to be different than a flat plate. A flat-plate cathode will bounce the occasional electron from the electron cloud, while these stray electrons will miss the small-diameter wires and continue to circulate within the cloud. So at the electron level, yes, there are differences between the two types.
At first blush, it would look like the flat plate would have better-defined emission geometry, but electron-bouncing might be significant. Since the majority of electrons don't go straight for the grid but end up circulating around in the electron cloud, maybe the cloud has a different shape, or has a different field gradient within it. The space-charge cloud does not have a smooth surface, but is somewhat bumpy - and if it gets close enough to any point on the grid, contact-potential effects ensue, and small amounts of grid-current start to flow. Contact-potential effects, although small in absolute terms, typically exhibit very high-order nonlinearities and are sensitive to processing residues and residual gasses within the tube.
There are subtle thermal effects as well. If the grid gets hot enough (from proximity to the cathode or overheated plate), it will start to emit electrons, thanks to residues of emission-enhancers that end up as manufacturing residues on the grid. This is why high-powered tubes have gold-plated grids, so the emission-enhancing residues don't adhere to the surface and cause problems when the internals of the tube start to get too hot. So the difference between DHTs and IDHTs could come down to something as arcane as unwanted grid emission due to heating effects and leftover processing residues.
You want to get even fancier, there are transient cooling effects when the cathode suddenly emits a large amount of electrons. Fine wire emitters are not going to have the same transient thermal characteristics as a large flat plate with indirect infrared heating from a decoupled heater.
Distortion measurements show the bulk phenomenon summed over time, but don't show fine-grained physics within the tube. Is this kind of subtle stuff audible, even if not readily measurable? Good question.
I haven't yet found anyone who preferred an IDHT preamp to a DHT preamp in the last 2 years of comparative listening. As said, that's me and four or five other critical listeners, who were by profession 2 engineers, architect, teacher and psychologist. In other words, people who habitually work objecticely to critical tolerances.>>>
Selection bias. And a non sequitur. Two for one!
Written in a hurry before going out early this morning. I'll rewrite:
"Of the groups of listeners from the London Audiocircle, including myself, who auditioned DHT and IDHT preamps side by side, none preferred the IDHT preamps in those tests when AB comparisons were made directly". I'd add that these were sighted tests. I leave in the fact that the listeners were as stated above.
But I'd go further and say this:
If I had to chose between two systems without hearing them:
Choice A was chosen from five alternatives by five engineers on the grounds that it did best in measurement tests. The systems were not auditioned.
Choice B was chosen from five alternatives by five orchestral musicians with unimpaired hearing on the grounds that it sounded closest to real life orchestral music. The systems were not measured.
Then, after a fairly short deliberation I would choose Choice B. As a psychologist I work with attributions, and the theory would suggest to me that if as a listener I wanted to hear sounds reproduced that were closest to their real life origins, I would choose on the basis of sound judged by a panel whose daily business was sound. Since my purpose would not be measurement but listening I would give most weight to sound. If my purpose was instrumentation and measurement I would choose the opposite, but it isn't.
I'm not in any way against measurement, and like all of us I'm constantly calculating voltages and currents, and I've read Morgan Jones from cover to cover so often it's falling apart, but the problem with threads such as this is that they can, without due care and attention, lapse into "either/or" binaries. I don't have to go on at length about "either valves or solid state" or "either vinyl or CD" or "either measurement or listening" - surely we come to a forum like this to avoid even thinking in those terms. But when I'm pushed up against a wall by posters saying that listening tests are useless and the only valid conclusions come from measurements, then I will state as above that given the choice of comparative measurements or comparative listening tests carried out with the same care and attention as the measurements are, then I'd probably go with the comparative listening, even with all its well known attendant problems.
But I don't want to make such a choice and I don't really want to be dragged down the objective/subjective road yet again. We need better listening tests - that's obvious - but we also need better measurements. What we really need is both.
So to state the subject of the thread once again - is it worth using anything other than DHTs for preamps? Of course it is for several reasons - convenience, curiosity, choice based on measurement and theory, small size, reliability etc etc. Is it even worth having a preamp - good question. But what I'm trying to get at is "do DHTs sound better as a class, and if they do then are they the preferred choice for a first stage in a system". That's an open question. I'm as interested as anybody else in finding out what's going on inside these little marvels to make them sound the way they do.
andy
Selection bias. And a non sequitur. Two for one!
Written in a hurry before going out early this morning. I'll rewrite:
"Of the groups of listeners from the London Audiocircle, including myself, who auditioned DHT and IDHT preamps side by side, none preferred the IDHT preamps in those tests when AB comparisons were made directly". I'd add that these were sighted tests. I leave in the fact that the listeners were as stated above.
But I'd go further and say this:
If I had to chose between two systems without hearing them:
Choice A was chosen from five alternatives by five engineers on the grounds that it did best in measurement tests. The systems were not auditioned.
Choice B was chosen from five alternatives by five orchestral musicians with unimpaired hearing on the grounds that it sounded closest to real life orchestral music. The systems were not measured.
Then, after a fairly short deliberation I would choose Choice B. As a psychologist I work with attributions, and the theory would suggest to me that if as a listener I wanted to hear sounds reproduced that were closest to their real life origins, I would choose on the basis of sound judged by a panel whose daily business was sound. Since my purpose would not be measurement but listening I would give most weight to sound. If my purpose was instrumentation and measurement I would choose the opposite, but it isn't.
I'm not in any way against measurement, and like all of us I'm constantly calculating voltages and currents, and I've read Morgan Jones from cover to cover so often it's falling apart, but the problem with threads such as this is that they can, without due care and attention, lapse into "either/or" binaries. I don't have to go on at length about "either valves or solid state" or "either vinyl or CD" or "either measurement or listening" - surely we come to a forum like this to avoid even thinking in those terms. But when I'm pushed up against a wall by posters saying that listening tests are useless and the only valid conclusions come from measurements, then I will state as above that given the choice of comparative measurements or comparative listening tests carried out with the same care and attention as the measurements are, then I'd probably go with the comparative listening, even with all its well known attendant problems.
But I don't want to make such a choice and I don't really want to be dragged down the objective/subjective road yet again. We need better listening tests - that's obvious - but we also need better measurements. What we really need is both.
So to state the subject of the thread once again - is it worth using anything other than DHTs for preamps? Of course it is for several reasons - convenience, curiosity, choice based on measurement and theory, small size, reliability etc etc. Is it even worth having a preamp - good question. But what I'm trying to get at is "do DHTs sound better as a class, and if they do then are they the preferred choice for a first stage in a system". That's an open question. I'm as interested as anybody else in finding out what's going on inside these little marvels to make them sound the way they do.
andy
You left out my main point- fidelity of the output to the input. In your sighted (and presumably not level-matched) tests, you didn't do that important comparison. You might be comparing effects boxes.
FWIW, this is something I do with any linestage. In the case of my current one (Heretical), there was an audible difference- lower noise. Otherwise, nope. I can't ask anything more from a preamp, but you have to accept (as I do) that different people have different design goals, and that DHTs may not satisfy the design goals of everyone.
Just a word of thanks to Lynn Olsen for joining this thread and contributing some very interesting material that I'm still trying to digest (need to go back to some textbooks and look up things).
Lynn has been a guiding light for me, and his designs opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking. Thanks to his work quite a few of us made some giant leaps forward, and I'd just like to show some solid appreciation of that.
andy
Lynn has been a guiding light for me, and his designs opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking. Thanks to his work quite a few of us made some giant leaps forward, and I'd just like to show some solid appreciation of that.
andy
you have to accept (as I do) that different people have different design goals, and that DHTs may not satisfy the design goals of everyone.>>>
SY - that goes without saying in my book. I did state a few times that my design goal was faithfulness of instrumental timbre. I have two close friends who entirely disagree with me already - one tweaks his whole system for soundstage, the other for measurements. I use nothing but DHTs for preamps, they use nothing but IDHTs. There again I have two other close friends who use nothing but DHTs - I caught the bug from them in the first place. It's contagious to a certain extent.
We've built quite a few projects and things together - as the song goes "you must remember this, a resistor is still a resistor, a capacitor is still a capacitor as time goes by...."
andy
SY - that goes without saying in my book. I did state a few times that my design goal was faithfulness of instrumental timbre. I have two close friends who entirely disagree with me already - one tweaks his whole system for soundstage, the other for measurements. I use nothing but DHTs for preamps, they use nothing but IDHTs. There again I have two other close friends who use nothing but DHTs - I caught the bug from them in the first place. It's contagious to a certain extent.
We've built quite a few projects and things together - as the song goes "you must remember this, a resistor is still a resistor, a capacitor is still a capacitor as time goes by...."
andy
SY said:
Assuming perfect black boxes on the input and output of the DUT. If the amplifier has a second harmonic component greater than the upstream components the 'less perfect' preamp will result in less measurable total distortion reaching the speaker terminals. We've disagreed on this in the past but on the basis of raw transfer functions I don't see why the same second order cancellation mechanism wouldn't hold true between electronics and speakers. By that measure objectively 'perfect' electronics connected to typical dynamic speakers will put more distortion into the room than electronics with a significant second harmonic component. On that view as speakers get better with improved technology, or the market move to electrostatics
, the amount of distortion tolerable from electronics would be expected to drop but not reach 0.0001% until speakers reach 0.0001%.
Well, if you want a box that cancels speaker distortion, build a box that cancels speaker distortion. Don't call it an "accurate" preamplifier. You'll have to measure how the speaker distortion changes with level, frequency, spectral content, and temperature, then feed that information back real-time to the electronics, otherwise the cure is worse than the disease. Digital would be the best way to implement that, I think. It may be a futile quest since distortion could well vary from spot to spot in the room...
That's a possibly valid approach for an effects box and I don't argue that people shouldn't build effects boxes, I'm just trying to point out that a valid design goal that would not necessarily include DHTs would be to make the output of the preamp be audibly indistinguishable for the input. That has nothing to do with "musical accuracy," it has to do with electronic accuracy. Many people (including me) prefer to eliminate distortion at the source, build or buy low distortion transducers, and have the electronics contribute as little as possible. It's not the only valid design path, but it IS a valid design path.
My own opinion, and totally without any backup data whatsoever, is that Andy likes the sweetening that the filament resonance brings to the table. And that's OK- it's his preamp!
That's a possibly valid approach for an effects box and I don't argue that people shouldn't build effects boxes, I'm just trying to point out that a valid design goal that would not necessarily include DHTs would be to make the output of the preamp be audibly indistinguishable for the input. That has nothing to do with "musical accuracy," it has to do with electronic accuracy. Many people (including me) prefer to eliminate distortion at the source, build or buy low distortion transducers, and have the electronics contribute as little as possible. It's not the only valid design path, but it IS a valid design path.
My own opinion, and totally without any backup data whatsoever, is that Andy likes the sweetening that the filament resonance brings to the table. And that's OK- it's his preamp!
Flame wars and ego clashes: it's not like I didn't see that one coming just from the title. Who the hell cares?
Andy has obviously found a solution that works for him. Would it work for everyone? If we can find that ultimate design, that "one size fits all", then we can publish it and close down these forums. There'd be no point in discussing anything further.
Andy listens to this orchestral stuff; I prefer Techno, Electronica, Punk and Heavy Metal. I believe I found a solution (well, a couple actually) that work for me. Will his DHT solution work for this? None too likely. Would he and his friends prefer listening to their orchestral music through designs like the "Vixen" and "Le Renard"? May be, but that's questionable. What would Ozzy sound like through one of Andy's preamps? Probably insipid and lifeless. What would his preferred music sound like through my designs? Probably lacking in "timbre".
Sure, you can test, and that's a good thing. In the end, however, we listen to what we design and build to entertain ourselves, not FFT soft and o'scopes. So, to answer Andy's question: "Is it worth using anything other than DHTs for preamps?", the answer is: "Yes". It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish so far as your listening pleasure is concerned.
Andy has obviously found a solution that works for him. Would it work for everyone? If we can find that ultimate design, that "one size fits all", then we can publish it and close down these forums. There'd be no point in discussing anything further.
Andy listens to this orchestral stuff; I prefer Techno, Electronica, Punk and Heavy Metal. I believe I found a solution (well, a couple actually) that work for me. Will his DHT solution work for this? None too likely. Would he and his friends prefer listening to their orchestral music through designs like the "Vixen" and "Le Renard"? May be, but that's questionable. What would Ozzy sound like through one of Andy's preamps? Probably insipid and lifeless. What would his preferred music sound like through my designs? Probably lacking in "timbre".
Sure, you can test, and that's a good thing. In the end, however, we listen to what we design and build to entertain ourselves, not FFT soft and o'scopes. So, to answer Andy's question: "Is it worth using anything other than DHTs for preamps?", the answer is: "Yes". It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish so far as your listening pleasure is concerned.
Andy likes the sweetness of DHTs>> SY
I have to be careful with words here - I personally don't hear that DHTs are adding to the sound. I think they ARE the sound - I find IDHTs, on the other hand, a bit dull. To go back to our Kodachrome through Leica or Zeiss glass, it's realistic, and the ASA25 stuff was the lowest distortion film available as well technically. It may be a touch hyper-realistic but it is so in a way that appears to add nothing in the way of warmth, colour shift, saturation or the like. It has a crystalline clean, pure quality. I'm trying to choose words with care here - I know it's hard describing sounds in words.
From Miles: Andy listens to this orchestral stuff; I prefer Techno, Electronica, Punk and Heavy Metal. I believe I found a solution (well, a couple actually) that work for me. Will his DHT solution work for this? None too likely. Would he and his friends prefer listening to their orchestral music through designs like the "Vixen" and "Le Renard"? May be, but that's questionable. What would Ozzy sound like through one of Andy's preamps? Probably insipid and lifeless. What would his preferred music sound like through my designs? Probably lacking in "timbre".>>
Miles - you're absolutely right there. My system is heavily optimised for chamber and orchestral music. Bass is very clear but not punchy in a way that hits your stomach. Midrange is delicate rather than robust, treble is even more delicate - speakers are all ribbon. So you don't get slam and it doesn't "move air". As for the question of whether DHTs sound good with Heavy Metal - don't know. I can say that of all the preamps I've made the one with the biggest boogie factor was the 1626. Man, that was so funky you'd put on Jimmy Smith and it would just hit you in your dancing feet - you'd get up and boogie across the room! I'm a bass player and I always wanted to put those babies in my stage amp. One day!
andy
I have to be careful with words here - I personally don't hear that DHTs are adding to the sound. I think they ARE the sound - I find IDHTs, on the other hand, a bit dull. To go back to our Kodachrome through Leica or Zeiss glass, it's realistic, and the ASA25 stuff was the lowest distortion film available as well technically. It may be a touch hyper-realistic but it is so in a way that appears to add nothing in the way of warmth, colour shift, saturation or the like. It has a crystalline clean, pure quality. I'm trying to choose words with care here - I know it's hard describing sounds in words.
From Miles: Andy listens to this orchestral stuff; I prefer Techno, Electronica, Punk and Heavy Metal. I believe I found a solution (well, a couple actually) that work for me. Will his DHT solution work for this? None too likely. Would he and his friends prefer listening to their orchestral music through designs like the "Vixen" and "Le Renard"? May be, but that's questionable. What would Ozzy sound like through one of Andy's preamps? Probably insipid and lifeless. What would his preferred music sound like through my designs? Probably lacking in "timbre".>>
Miles - you're absolutely right there. My system is heavily optimised for chamber and orchestral music. Bass is very clear but not punchy in a way that hits your stomach. Midrange is delicate rather than robust, treble is even more delicate - speakers are all ribbon. So you don't get slam and it doesn't "move air". As for the question of whether DHTs sound good with Heavy Metal - don't know. I can say that of all the preamps I've made the one with the biggest boogie factor was the 1626. Man, that was so funky you'd put on Jimmy Smith and it would just hit you in your dancing feet - you'd get up and boogie across the room! I'm a bass player and I always wanted to put those babies in my stage amp. One day!
andy
Well, my short experience. I have a full DHT's thorium-tungsten system and 100dB speakers (onkens+horns). Frankly speaking they plays rock way better than other system I listened to (including heavy current mosfets). I would not step back to IDHT for the time being.
Noise, as SY pointed out, must be out of question anyway.
Gianluca
SY said:
That box cancels speaker distortion by pre-distorting a 'perfect' signal ahead of the drivers. Won't electronics which introduce some measure of that pre-distortion on an imperfect basis stand a chance of acoustic reproduction with less distortion, literally be more objectively accurate (assuming IM stays low, etc.), than straight wire electronics? No statements were made as to which is 'right or wrong', I only raised the potential mechanism. As long as either of us will be around loudspeakers are likely to remain to some extent pathological devices and this will hold true. A device 'winning' a bypass test dropped into an imperfect system can result in measurably, objectively and subjectively inferior end performance. Ad-hoc distortion correction is still correction and moves it out of the 'effects box' category.
Of course all the caveats remain. The perfect degree of electronic distortion for one speaker could fall face first on the next. Without careful design the degree of inter-device distortion cancellation will vary with level, perhaps never reaching full measure at minimum or maximum levels or notching somewhere between but it could still be less than zero distortion electronics.
While the above is potentially irrelevant to what Andy hears it's still worth considering the total system in seeking the answer. The local AM station might be injecting 'texture' (kidding!)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.