Thermal memory effects are mainly a problem in zero feedback (or very low
FB) type topologies. It is quite audible but as far as I understand it's a solved
problem with well designed modern IC's.
TCD
No. This is exaggeration. What I have read is less than 1.5% in most cases and 3% in the worst case. Provided you are not using absolute junk, of course.
Party pooper! Have you ever stopped to consider how many ignorant minds these discussions rescue? 😀
Confused....
Please re-read my post, it seems to me like we are agreeing? If one is coming out of MIT with a MEE in the top 20% of their class, with $200K of student loans, they are going to go where the cash is, who could blame them.
Point being, working in audio is not going to be one of the top choices.
Please re-read my post, it seems to me like we are agreeing? If one is coming out of MIT with a MEE in the top 20% of their class, with $200K of student loans, they are going to go where the cash is, who could blame them.
Point being, working in audio is not going to be one of the top choices.
No you missed my point. Working in audio is not a satisfying career choice for a young Engineer these days.
No. I am just choosing not to go into more detail at the moment.
What I meant was the other way around. IMO and IME not all high-end-audio-flavor designers think about what they are doing in terms of some kind of systems perspective. Those who are doing similar kinds of things in audio DSP have to understand enough of the math for it, some even have PhDs. Old analog designers, probably not so much.
Last edited:
You mean like Kii and D&D and B&O who are actually looking at real improvements in reproduction?
Bill, they are included. Some high end products are designed based on trying to advance the application of theory. Some are designed to achieve a perceptual goal which is not necessarily mortally wrong, nor necessarily intended to bamboozle the gullible IMHO.
Consider for a moment that there are music players that can accept VST plugins. Some plugins are expensive and some are cheap. Are the expensive ones designed to fool the gullible? I don't know. The best digital EQ I ever heard way back when was a very expensive one. I think the designer was pushing the limits of what could be practically done at the time.
Consider for a moment that there are music players that can accept VST plugins. Some plugins are expensive and some are cheap. Are the expensive ones designed to fool the gullible? I don't know. The best digital EQ I ever heard way back when was a very expensive one. I think the designer was pushing the limits of what could be practically done at the time.
Last edited:
More detail? You haven't even explained what you mean by stationary and non-stationary.
Working in the high end audio industry for the last 20 years or so (I was an audiophile well before ever working in audio), I am not aware of any company/designer which tries to fool anyone, this is a myth as far as I have observed. For better or for worse, audio designers are generally enthusiasts, trying to make components which they would like to listen to, in the hope that others might like them as well. This entire myth of their being some kind of ill will going on is just not founded in actual fact.
As to DAC designers not agreeing on the best approach to achieving the best sonics, all that indicates is that there is more than a single road to nirvana.
As to DAC designers not agreeing on the best approach to achieving the best sonics, all that indicates is that there is more than a single road to nirvana.
Actually, I decided to use the term nonstationary based on the suggestion of Scott Wurcer when we talking about nonlinearity that was changing over time. I thought that was probably the right term too, but didn't want to get attacked for saying it first. Doesn't matter, I get attacked anyway by the critics and the conspiracy theorists.
That would be the job of marketeers. Some designers moonlight as marketeer though.
That's one of the tactics in the arsenal of high end audio hucksters: name dropping. Some used Feynman, Heisenberg, Pauli (as in quantum mechanics) now we got Scott Wurcer.
If you claim audio stuff can be Time Dependent, then you'd better come up with some evidence of relevance; dropping TI from LTI sends everything we know in EE right in the sewer: superposition, Ohm's law as we know it, Kirchoff, etc... No sane designer, from a table radio to radio astronomy equipment, would accept to drop Ohm's law because of e.g. thermal distortions. Except, of course, high end audio designers with super natural hearing abilities, always in search of a secret sauce that would let them stand out in front of the gullible consumers.
Of course, knowing a little about your MO, now it's the moment you will say it's not you, but Scott suggested time dependent mechanisms in audio, which would be of course a gross misrepresentation. Not to mention your claims regarding TD which obviously violate causality (and no, the Gibbs ringing do not violate causality).
Last edited:
I've read that the D90 is surgical. But the Gustard X16 is supposed to be better.
Any thoughts or comments?
Any thoughts or comments?
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...stortion-speaker-drivers-105.html#post5258270
Scott Wurcer:
"Nonstationary might be more correct."
Posts before and after that one make clear he was referring to changing nonlinearity.
Scott Wurcer:
"Nonstationary might be more correct."
Posts before and after that one make clear he was referring to changing nonlinearity.
Last edited:
Exactly, quoting without context and without any relevance to the current discussion. A classic.
Non-stationary might be more correct that a non-linear non-linearity or distortion of distortions, is that it?
It sounds to me like you are saying some people like effects boxes, that isn't news, and they like effects boxes that change over time like a guitarist who gets bored with fixed distortion so he uses a wah wah pedal for example, possibly, and some designers know what they're doing and some don't, but it doesn't matter because they like the sound and it means they have a different sounding product to everyone else, and it might sound more realistic to them for any number of reasons depending on what they think realistic sounds like.
It sounds to me like you are saying some people like effects boxes, that isn't news, and they like effects boxes that change over time like a guitarist who gets bored with fixed distortion so he uses a wah wah pedal for example, possibly, and some designers know what they're doing and some don't, but it doesn't matter because they like the sound and it means they have a different sounding product to everyone else, and it might sound more realistic to them for any number of reasons depending on what they think realistic sounds like.
Last edited:
Given 15 mins on the internet I could probably find a couple. BUT in general I think VST is a good idea. Having a computing unit as the core of a home audio system where you can add and remove functionality to suit and as you want is a big step forward. It has some usability limitations but they will get sorted eventually (and I am an old stick in the mud who hates pretty much every music player UI).
I recently updated my headphone amp.
I was using a spl phonitor with hardware crossfeed.
Updated to an HP-2. Im using CanOpener (AU in OSX) as my crossfeed and it blows my spl phonitor out of the water. Both in sound detail and crossfeed functionality.
Further more, I play with music production and all my synths/effects are AU. Emulations today are crazy good.
I wouldn't even consider getting external gear unless I was performing. Which I don't.
