It is actually possible to improve something without measurement. You just use your ears to note whether something is an improvement. You can cross-check your expectations by finding that sometimes, the less expensive or more crude solution actually sounds better. Then how would expectation bias be important in this case?
IF what we normally think of what causes resistivity, we find that it is thermal energy that causes the lattice atoms to oscillate about their equilibrium positions. If the atoms don't vibrate, like at near absolute Zero temperature, then there is almost perfect conductivity. However, in the real world we almost always have room temperature to contend with, AND then we also have impurities, vacancies, grain boundaries or dislocations to contend with.
IF what we normally think of what causes resistivity, we find that it is thermal energy that causes the lattice atoms to oscillate about their equilibrium positions. If the atoms don't vibrate, like at near absolute Zero temperature, then there is almost perfect conductivity. However, in the real world we almost always have room temperature to contend with, AND then we also have impurities, vacancies, grain boundaries or dislocations to contend with.
Of course, one is free to do that with one's own designs. In this case we are discussing how to determine if someone else's ears can be trusted when we don't hear what they hear.
Maybe you can tell us how you know who's hearing to trust if you don't hear what they hear? Maybe other people might find use for your method if it seems plausible to them.
Last edited:
Very funny John. Wth all the years of experience, multitude connections in the audio manufacturing side under your belt and myriad new parts being offered such as the OCC 6N silver wire. 12 years is still not enough for you to improve your situation with what is available, just in finding satisfactory replacement on a single simple item no longer available to you. Sounds like improving something without measurement is highly improbable, bordering on impossible for the rest of us.
It's laughable, that's why it's laughed at. And "brighter"
Means more hi freqs which is measurable.
Last edited:
Also, some of the suggested links seem to be behind a paywall. Don't know if people will chase down other resources.
A quick look at "solid state physics phonons" on Google showed a few recorded lectures. Don't know how well that will help. It's pretty dense matter.
*But really, Kittel's "Intro to Solid State Physics" is out there for anyone who wants to dig in. Introduction To Solid State Physics 8th Edition By Charles Kittel
*But really, Kittel's "Intro to Solid State Physics" is out there for anyone who wants to dig in. Introduction To Solid State Physics 8th Edition By Charles Kittel
Last edited:
Sorry, you lost me there: where did this vacuum in an audio system appear from?Max Headroom said:
Yes. So what? Are you now suggesting that the alleged difference between copper and silver conductors for audio purposes are due to minor differences in how they radiate miniscule amounts of heat? You really are clutching at straws.
No. You have never done any physics, have you?
No. Many radio systems use a bandwidth much wider than audio. You don't know much about radio, do you?
Thermal noise. Shot noise. Partition noise. Flicker noise.
A quick look at "solid state physics phonons" on Google showed a few recorded lectures. Don't know how well that will help. It's pretty dense matter.
*But really, Kittel's "Intro to Solid State Physics" is out there for anyone who wants to dig in. Introduction To Solid State Physics 8th Edition By Charles Kittel
You really think any of the "my ears are all I need" crowd will bother? Or actually try to understand and not just look for more ways to bend physics to there preconceived and often wrong assumptions?
Great way to make an effects box. It will sound like YOU want it to. And since so many audiophiles prefer effects boxes it's probably a good marketing strategy. Just promote your self as a high priest of audio and your off to the bank.
+1, definitely.
We were told to eat, drink, exercise and do many thing considered by those we respect to be "good for us", which most we really would not categorize as "good".
I am sick and tired of all the "good for me" I need to follow on other subjects, don't tell me I need to follow your ears, taste, meters or analyzers for my personal entertainment, I want "good", period. Probably not applicable to the average Joe audio customer, but I suppose that is the attitude of real audiophile.
Yes. 100Mhz carrier (give or take) and in Australia maximum permitted deviation of 75kHz = 600:1 carrier/modulation.
Dan.
I get what you mean but I think this also would be a measurement, albeit with your ears(/brain...) as the "measuring device".
The making of an effects box
I came across an amplifier with an intriguing sound and decided to make some measurements. To be fair I will name no names but only say this amplifier is intended to have a flat response over the entire audio bandwidth and it is a commercial product. I decided to compare this amplifier with exactly the same function realized with a simple 5534 plus passives circuit. No matter how I measured the 5534 circuit it was flat, single tone sweep, multitone, or real music.
I decided to compare the two with real music to eliminate some of the usual complaints. I used the first track of a recognized high quality LP, Pink Floyd's Final Cut. This cut has three somewhat distinct level parts at the intro. The first plot shows one amplifier in the right channel and the other in the left channel, both plots are the right channels of the respective recordings.
I sampled and averaged the spectra of about 10 seconds of each at 1min, 1:50min, and 2:25min to get all three levels. The second plot shows the difference, blue first, then green, and then red. The amplifier under question has a boost of almost 5dB over a 100Hz to 1kHz band, dropping to 3dB at a slightly higher level to almost flat at high level. This level dependent frequency response is of course accompanied by substantial distortion.
I don't have a clue as to how this was achieved (well I do but that would be telling). IMO an effects box plain and simple.
Remember this is sold as a flat amplifier interchangeable with any other.
I came across an amplifier with an intriguing sound and decided to make some measurements. To be fair I will name no names but only say this amplifier is intended to have a flat response over the entire audio bandwidth and it is a commercial product. I decided to compare this amplifier with exactly the same function realized with a simple 5534 plus passives circuit. No matter how I measured the 5534 circuit it was flat, single tone sweep, multitone, or real music.
I decided to compare the two with real music to eliminate some of the usual complaints. I used the first track of a recognized high quality LP, Pink Floyd's Final Cut. This cut has three somewhat distinct level parts at the intro. The first plot shows one amplifier in the right channel and the other in the left channel, both plots are the right channels of the respective recordings.
I sampled and averaged the spectra of about 10 seconds of each at 1min, 1:50min, and 2:25min to get all three levels. The second plot shows the difference, blue first, then green, and then red. The amplifier under question has a boost of almost 5dB over a 100Hz to 1kHz band, dropping to 3dB at a slightly higher level to almost flat at high level. This level dependent frequency response is of course accompanied by substantial distortion.
I don't have a clue as to how this was achieved (well I do but that would be telling). IMO an effects box plain and simple.
Remember this is sold as a flat amplifier interchangeable with any other.
Attachments
I agree. And, i don't think it's fair to shame John for his views. He has used a combination of listening and measuring and has had a pretty successful career as an audio designer. And, I'm quite sure some other good designers use their ears as best suits their talents.
At the same time I'm not so sure about John's advice to other designers. There is a type of focusing illusion that easily occurs with sighted listening. Blind listening is fine, and if people want to measure by listening I would say go for it, just make sure you are keeping honest with yourself and practice a lot blind. If you can't hear a difference without knowing what you are listening to, you are outside the limits of your measurement tool.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.