1st principle of "just listen" - you will "hear" difference
a basic of human perception that we have to apply considerable effort to get past
to take engineering action we want to have those differing internal "sound" perceptions begin to align with the sound waves at our ears, to usefully compare the experiences with others in repeatable, transferable terms
there is a long established Science to this - every "just listen" "naïve subjectivist" that refuses to look at the science, presumes to lecture us that have, is insulting the work of professionals with typically a decade of domain specific post secondary education, careers dependent on replicable results in peer reviewed journals
then even those of us without that education but real "hands on" expertise in Signals and Systems, Control theory, from careers in analog EE have to put up with misrepresentation of circuit theory we have verified in decades of practice
we are being very restrained and polite here
a basic of human perception that we have to apply considerable effort to get past
to take engineering action we want to have those differing internal "sound" perceptions begin to align with the sound waves at our ears, to usefully compare the experiences with others in repeatable, transferable terms
there is a long established Science to this - every "just listen" "naïve subjectivist" that refuses to look at the science, presumes to lecture us that have, is insulting the work of professionals with typically a decade of domain specific post secondary education, careers dependent on replicable results in peer reviewed journals
then even those of us without that education but real "hands on" expertise in Signals and Systems, Control theory, from careers in analog EE have to put up with misrepresentation of circuit theory we have verified in decades of practice
we are being very restrained and polite here
Sound is an aesthetic problem.
We do not have a " perfect " input and we do not have a " perfect " output.
Recordings are flawed, so is the loudspeaker-room interface.
I respect your expertise, no matter what but input is output plus amplification just does not work in the real world.
We do not have a " perfect " input and we do not have a " perfect " output.
Recordings are flawed, so is the loudspeaker-room interface.
I respect your expertise, no matter what but input is output plus amplification just does not work in the real world.
Take Peter Walker, more or less the God of the 50th.
Each and every life presentation he made sounded mediorcre.
He just was not able to present his procucts but he TALKED a lot in so called scientific magazines like Wireless World.
It measures better so it sounds better.
Does not work in real.
Each and every life presentation he made sounded mediorcre.
He just was not able to present his procucts but he TALKED a lot in so called scientific magazines like Wireless World.
It measures better so it sounds better.
Does not work in real.
no matter how expensive/expansive/complicated your system may be,
what you hear coming out on the speakers are merely facsimiles
of the "real thing".....so why not enjoy the music instead...?
my expectations of my system is simple, no hum, no hiss, must never clip
at the listening levels i listen in.....
what you hear coming out on the speakers are merely facsimiles
of the "real thing".....so why not enjoy the music instead...?
my expectations of my system is simple, no hum, no hiss, must never clip
at the listening levels i listen in.....
The idea would be to make a competent amplifier, driving that Magico, to mimic the Wavac driving that Altec Voice of the Theatre, such that an afficianado of the latter's "sound" would be fooled ...
The remarkable thing, which greatly surprised me as I began my latest round of audio adventures nearly 3 decades ago, is that even the most "terrible" recordings can be rescued; in the sense that one can "hear around" all the intrinsic distortions and gross application of effects, and listen in to the heart of the music making. This didn't make sense at first, but I steadily evolved my understanding, to now appreciate that enough detail is captured by the microphones, no matter how primitive, for a clear picture of the underlying musical event, the performance, to be reconstructed without conscious effort by the brain. This can only happen when the playback is working at the very best level, so that the details of the performance, and the details of the distortion of the recording can be mentally separated. IOW, the distortion within the recording itself has be "perfectly" replayed - strange concept at first, 😉 - for one's hearing to be able to deal with it, and discard it as irrelevant to the music ... 🙂
The Bose Wave Radio effect.
Yes, the ear is superbly tolerant for distortion and picks up the interesting pieces.
That`s physical, and that consumes energy so it is kind of stress to the body and soul
( OK, if there is one. We are likely biological mashines created by coincidence ).
A " nice sound " though makes me relaxed and can even bring me in a state of bliss.
You know, you can learn beauty.
Yes, the ear is superbly tolerant for distortion and picks up the interesting pieces.
That`s physical, and that consumes energy so it is kind of stress to the body and soul
( OK, if there is one. We are likely biological mashines created by coincidence ).
A " nice sound " though makes me relaxed and can even bring me in a state of bliss.
You know, you can learn beauty.
AN AMPLIFIER SHOULD NEVER BE DRIVEN INTO CLIPPING: I think that explains the PRAT effect with modern low sensitivity speakers. Come on, over 99% is transfered into heat. That is an energy draining mashine.
Evidence?
I've listened to a fair share of live music over the years. Lots of PA systems ranging from wonderful to horrible, so lots of amplifiers. Lots of boards, lots of EQ settings, lots of frequency response variations. The pace, rhythm, and timing were in every case completely determined by the musicians, with one exception- large reverberant halls could swamp some of that information. But there's no analogy to amplification unless you deliberately build in variable and frequency-sensitive delay line circuitry.
Given the stunning lack of any backup evidence and the origin and exclusive notion of the "PRaT" meme in high end audio (I can't, for example, find any sound reinforcement company making claims that their PA amps have "better" PRaT), it's clearly a marketing term for the same market niche that demagnetizes LPs.
AJT
Welcome and yes, a major point of this thread is to establish a way for designers to make what people want to hear. When I read, 'the audio problem has been solved', I can't help noting the similarity between this attitude and those of scientists who have made efforts to prevent further understanding throughout history.
abraxalito
+1 As stated earlier, I think the ears should be included in the testing tool set with all the other gear.
Joachim Gerhard
Welcome and yes, a major point of this thread is to establish a way for designers to make what people want to hear. When I read, 'the audio problem has been solved', I can't help noting the similarity between this attitude and those of scientists who have made efforts to prevent further understanding throughout history.
abraxalito
+1 As stated earlier, I think the ears should be included in the testing tool set with all the other gear.
Joachim Gerhard
Very well stated 😎
Last edited:
You seem to assume that greater THD means smaller high order components. Usually the opposite is the case, except for amps with huge low order distortion and negligible high order distortion with a little added NFB - but that is just poor design if hi-fi is the aim, not 'voicing'. Some people prefer that sound, but it is not reproduction - I suppose for them some 'voicing' is acceptable.yldouright said:
This is the old "music signals are unbelievable complex - too complex for ordinary electronics to handle" myth. Music signals are relatively simple: bounded in time, bandwidth and dynamic range. Now sonar target recognition or incoming missile tracking: that's complex.
Then why use words with existing well-defined meanings, which can only cause confusion? Some people seem to move smoothly from talking about 'timing' in music reproduction to talking about alleged 'time delays' in amplifiers, so they seem to imagine a link between these two uses of the word 'time'.Pano said:
Talk of describing faces may be confusing originals with reproductions. The relevant issue is not describing a face, but comparing a face with a photograph of that face. We would then use terms which describe photograph quality, not face quality - these terms could be used of any photo. We may use subjective terms, but these relate reasonably well to known objective issues (e.g. sharpness vs. focus) and are likely to be agreed between different viewers. If you and I see the same photo then we are likely to agree on whether it is sharp, even when we disagree on how important this is.
Last edited:
yldouright, most people assemble a system with what they consider are "correct" components, and then use that to judge the quality of a recording - which usually means that the majority of recordings are 'bad', 😉 ... to them. I on the other hand use recordings to judge systems, which I find is a very powerful "measuring" tool - a system that can pass all such tests will rate extremely highly on the criteria you propose - because, unlike most, it is truly competent at the task of reproduction ..
There is a difference between 'the audio problem' and 'the electronic aspects of audio reproduction.' Perhaps not understanding that distinction is the basis of your confusion.
Discussion on Amps
Even with all the definitions relating to sound, it serves no purpose evaluating a system if the room acoustics are not checked.
Even with all the definitions relating to sound, it serves no purpose evaluating a system if the room acoustics are not checked.
Skywatch
Welcome. Each individual component interaction in the audio chain will eventually be addressed but we need to define the end result first.
SY
Welcome. Each individual component interaction in the audio chain will eventually be addressed but we need to define the end result first.
SY
The sound of a shutter induces models to look sexy. There is no technical relationship between the sound of the shutter and the way the portrait looks, but a psychological one. You can't make good portraits using a camera without a shutter sound. Or with a shutter that sounds like chicken bones being snapped in two.
It is the same with amplifiers. Psychological mechanisms will cause differences to be heard in sighted tests. This is not a bad thing. If the desired end result is musical enjoyment, the simple awareness that a guy went out in a dark shed to select capacitors by ear may help. I don't blame high end producers to cash in on this phenomena. It is as real as the healing properties of placebo's.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.