home music reproduction shouldn't be about Pointillism, Impressionism verses Ducth Master's Realism
that level of artistic choice, style is in the creation of the works is more analogous to the composer, musician's work in creating, performing the music of differing genre
we can view the paintings in museums, galleries where the paintings are artificially lit, some behind glass that has anti-reflection coating
but most of us are going to view them as prints mediated by inks, printing tech and viewed under our home or the library's lighting or digital renderings on monitors with some specific color temperature "white", varying gamut, resolution...
those are the tech that you should be using as analogies to home audio recorded music reproduction
most of us don't expect our home audio reproduction systems to make Hendrix sound like Parkening, Segovia
and I do want to view Monet reproductions through a optical system that is close to "perfect" measured by all of the color and resolution test patterns traditional to photo, print, video technical evaluation
as well as Vemeer, Rembrant, Van Gogh, Dali...
that level of artistic choice, style is in the creation of the works is more analogous to the composer, musician's work in creating, performing the music of differing genre
we can view the paintings in museums, galleries where the paintings are artificially lit, some behind glass that has anti-reflection coating
but most of us are going to view them as prints mediated by inks, printing tech and viewed under our home or the library's lighting or digital renderings on monitors with some specific color temperature "white", varying gamut, resolution...
those are the tech that you should be using as analogies to home audio recorded music reproduction
most of us don't expect our home audio reproduction systems to make Hendrix sound like Parkening, Segovia
and I do want to view Monet reproductions through a optical system that is close to "perfect" measured by all of the color and resolution test patterns traditional to photo, print, video technical evaluation
as well as Vemeer, Rembrant, Van Gogh, Dali...
Last edited:
Let's assume you really, really heard a difference. Then, you could not have been measuring the right things. Yes?
(Or, for example, on the psychoacoustic side, not adjusting the SPL of the modified version to be same as unmodified one? Half a dB can make a difference to subjective judgement).
Either way, the conclusion below, would be premature.😱
.................................................
Tests will usually indicate what you hear. The practical side is that it takes a lot of tests, investment in money and time to correlate the sounds with individual tests/parameters etc etc. Thousands of hours... sometimes a life time. This rarely gets done to the detailed degree needed for certainty. Natural facts.
I do believe in what people say they hear.... especially, when a huge number of people from all walks of life over an extended period of time describe it the same as others. This 'meta data' approach is valid as is DBLT. The problem is you sometimes have to choose when the dblt and the meta data when they give different results. I choose the larger base of the meta-data as more likely to be correct. Then I look for an explanation which may be electronic or perceptual in nature. The explanation which satisfies both is the correct one IMO.
yes, large numbers of people can perceive and ascribe a characteristic heard as liked [vs accurate] when it isnt accurate --- that needs to be acknowledged for what it is and move on.
THx-RNMarsh
I do believe in what people say they hear.... especially, when a huge number of people from all walks of life over an extended period of time describe it the same as others. This 'meta data' approach is valid as is DBLT. The problem is you sometimes have to choose when the dblt and the meta data when they give different results. I choose the larger base of the meta-data as more likely to be correct. Then I look for an explanation which may be electronic or perceptual in nature. The explanation which satisfies both is the correct one IMO.
yes, large numbers of people can perceive and ascribe a characteristic heard as liked [vs accurate] when it isnt accurate --- that needs to be acknowledged for what it is and move on.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
college track high school students enrolling in a university freshman Physics course today are often taking the Mechanics Concept Inventory pretest, the results show ~30% scores on basic Newtonian/Galilean Physics concepts
these are people allowed to drive cars, boats, some pilots even, many are playing sports at a high level - and they fail miserably at correctly explaining basic physics of motion
humans "get by" with very unscientific heuristics, basic beliefs at odds with how the world really works
so there's little reason to believe in the wisdom of crowds - many to believe the opposite
and these beliefs turn out to be very resilient
After a traditional lecture course the numbers move by a dismal few 10%, still often below 50%
these are people allowed to drive cars, boats, some pilots even, many are playing sports at a high level - and they fail miserably at correctly explaining basic physics of motion
humans "get by" with very unscientific heuristics, basic beliefs at odds with how the world really works
so there's little reason to believe in the wisdom of crowds - many to believe the opposite
and these beliefs turn out to be very resilient
After a traditional lecture course the numbers move by a dismal few 10%, still often below 50%
Last edited:
"Don't look at the o'scope screen. Listen to the content. No subjectivism there!"🙂
I am of the objectivist persuasion, despite any contrarious devil's advocate appearance.
I hope I would find agreement in thinking the book title refers to the practical knowledge that is possessed by any skilled worker, whether EE, CE, carpenter, cashier, painter, etc.
" Sounds better" is much harder to identify. What jelly makes a better PB&J? Does a Monet look better than a Renoir?
Keeping my post #1033 in mind, I do think that question has a qualified answer. Qualified because it probably won't be the same for every person. And they would all be right.
Last edited:
Aristotle was highly regarded, despite a completely spurious notion of mechanics. Ptolemy's epicycles had some predictive power, but were ludicrously ad hoc.
Thanks in part to confinement in the plague years, Newton had an uninterrupted span to contemplate and reason, and the support of experimentalists and observers like Kepler, Galileo and Brahe.
Thanks in part to confinement in the plague years, Newton had an uninterrupted span to contemplate and reason, and the support of experimentalists and observers like Kepler, Galileo and Brahe.
Physics, and engineering to some extent, are profoundly non-intuitive. If they were not, they would be easy subjects for people to grasp and we would have been doing all the smart things we do today already 2000 years ago.
When things are difficult, it is just too easy to fall into a 'it must be some unknown or unknowable thing that is causing what one 'thinks' one can observe.
The first step in understanding is getting reliable data that can be trusted. You your point Brad, Newton tool Keppler and Galieo's work and synthesized the laws of motion from that. Einstein did a similar thing with Maxwell's field equations, Michaelson- Moreley.
Last edited:
Engineering is nothing but based on expirence, when you dimension something (even airplanes) you do it on the huge amounts of gathered data telling you this works and this will not work. This is why when an aircraft fails some serious investigation into the cause is conducted, as to adjust the data in order to avoid similar events in the future.
Even Newtons laws of motion comes with a set of border lines and assumptions, and within those they are correct.
Even Newtons laws of motion comes with a set of border lines and assumptions, and within those they are correct.
Last edited:
About thinking:
Putzey, who wrote that notorious 'F' Word article said this in an interview and makes it sound easy, but I'll bet it is not:
SoundStage! Ultra | SoundStageUltra.com (UltraAudio.com) | Searching for the Extreme: Bruno Putzeys of Mola-Mola, Hypex, and Grimm Audio -- Part Two
Right now, he's making gear that's so clean he's having trouble measuring the distortion and dirt.
Lotsa feedback used.
To answer Hugh's question, yes, feedback is a boon to audio because using it makes for really clean amps which means preamps with tone controls, niceness knobs for warmth and coolth for those who want custom distortion and noise, eq sections for vinyl, room correction, etc., is where folk are going to differentiate themselves.
Why am I reminded of the late 1960s? Yes, I am that old.😎
Putzey, who wrote that notorious 'F' Word article said this in an interview and makes it sound easy, but I'll bet it is not:
SoundStage! Ultra | SoundStageUltra.com (UltraAudio.com) | Searching for the Extreme: Bruno Putzeys of Mola-Mola, Hypex, and Grimm Audio -- Part One
SoundStage! Ultra | SoundStageUltra.com (UltraAudio.com) | Searching for the Extreme: Bruno Putzeys of Mola-Mola, Hypex, and Grimm Audio -- Part Two
Right now, he's making gear that's so clean he's having trouble measuring the distortion and dirt.
Lotsa feedback used.
To answer Hugh's question, yes, feedback is a boon to audio because using it makes for really clean amps which means preamps with tone controls, niceness knobs for warmth and coolth for those who want custom distortion and noise, eq sections for vinyl, room correction, etc., is where folk are going to differentiate themselves.
Why am I reminded of the late 1960s? Yes, I am that old.😎
Thank you. Probably were on the same page on why you dumped bi polars, however its probably for the same reasons that I want them to drip honey 🙂
Second harmonic normally exhibited by single ended class A operation or in the case of the SIT amp device manufacture. For Nganya thats where the formula comes in making the entire amplifier have a second harmonic characteristic and more 🙂. Second harmonic can also be sculptured in some devices by adjusting bias current, degeneration, Vcc etc
The hours you v spent on this research is not trivial, probably over 80,000 hours, whats your take ?
Re - Putzey, who wrote that notorious 'F' Word article
When he was talking about for eg, 60dB feedback, i think he meant Gain !
More feedback = less gain 😉
When he was talking about for eg, 60dB feedback, i think he meant Gain !
More feedback = less gain 😉
Subjectivist language is for the non scientific, gullible and untrained. I align my attitude wholly with Bonsai and endorse his amplifiers and preamps entirely. Unfortunately the DIY community has a subculture that is anti-opamp, but most of their "reference" recordings have passed through hundreds of good opamps before reaching their ears. My frustration is in the cone and tweeter distortion of my Tannoy speakers, and I wish to upgrade eventually to playback system using time-aligned drivers. Those who talk about the "imaging" of their amplifiers are talking b/s completely. Any imaging discernable comes entirely from the recording process of their CDs !!!
Or records/tape 😉
But i've found that whatever source & equipment is used, the MOST important devices in reproducing realistic reproduction/images/depth/width etc, are the speakers. Unless these are designed, & made, to be as linear & time coherent as possible, then you are missing out !
Yeah, people often forget about ALL those OpAmps/Caps etc etc in the chain 😀
Frank,
To be Frank this is also well known, that if you really ramp up the feedback ratio it will diminish the created harmonics by a lower feedback ratio, If I recall correctly Nelson Pass recently had pointed this out in a very clear article. The real question is while you gain lower thd overall what do you lose?, since their is no action without a reaction and first ost you will lose slew rate and need limiting to avoid some severe clipping. The Halcro uses high feedback factor but also employs limiting to avoid the nasties of approaching clipping, while it gets some good review, many also seem to call it sterile, so what is the best?, we can debate forever but if the best measurable sound soothes ones conscience so be it, right? :/.
Colin
