I think that conscious overconfidence is a sham to cover a lack of understanding.
Unconscious overconfidence is just aggressive ignorance.
Unconscious overconfidence is just aggressive ignorance.
How about the bank robber who rubbed his face with lemon juice because he thought it would make him invisible to security cameras?
Reminds me of the two Australian bank robbers living in a small town in Colorado, who forgot to not talk.
Your point is sound, but I disagree with what it suggests. It is enough to focus on what we currently know is most audible, and go down the list as needed. Not all things will need to be addressed. ....
Like .mp3?
//
Just requires: buffer stage (using higher VDC supplies than usual) -> passive RIAA -> gain stage.
Nobody said it was an op amp. And no one has made any noise claims.
Starting with a buffer followed by a passive Riaa, is not a very good idea, you will loose at least 20dB S/N.
But you can start with a 20dB flat amp and than a passive Riaa, it really doesn't matter for the anti Riaa signal.
The only real variable is the unknown voltage swing in Joe's picture.
I showed a rather large output voltage of 1Volt, but when going back to 1mV, the anti-Riaa can drop to 18Volt, but you will most likely get a 100Khz square wave corrupted with a lot of noise.
Everything that Joe does has to be kept secret, even the used anti_Riaa 😀
Hans
I concur. Meeting and discussing with nobel prize winners, this is exactly what I find. John
For many years I worked closely with a member of the Royal Society. During his career he wrote several books,
hundreds of papers, and graduated many PhDs who became very successful. He was world renowned in his field,
and was the least pretentious person I've ever known. Sadly, he passed away this year.
Starting with a buffer followed by a passive Riaa, is not a very good idea, you will loose at least 20dB S/N.
With 17V peak input, you can't have much (or any) gain in the first linear gain stage.
But you can do it. Nobody said anything about a noise spec requirement.
Last edited:
Yes, but was that because of how little they really know? 🙂
Also, was it in medicine or engineering?
Nobels were in Medicine talking about things close to their domain, the individual in Nat'l Academy of Science was Engineering. My mentor was just recognized for a lifetime achievement in the American Chemical Society and he rubs certain people very wrong, but I get his style and in that vein is pretty humble (he's extremely point blank). My greater point was it's a mixed bag, like everywhere else.
I'm as much to blame as anyone, but can we walk swiftly away from the present thread direction? It has been an issue historically and I have no reason to believe this round will go any better.
Last edited:
Wow, I didnt think I would need to explain that. My point was, your comments spoke of humility being a virtue, but in the process you exhibited the opposite by insulting everyone and alluding to some kind of greatness ie. a complete lack of humility and some insight would have allowed you to see that hypocrisy, but insight is clearly not high on your list. I myself hold no allusions to being particularly humble; although it depends on the company.
Last edited:
but yeah, happy to move onto whatever the topic is... or just walk away until it cycles around. Bedtime for me anyway; carry on chaps. I do think it's just a generalization to say the most brilliant people are humble. depends how you define it. I find it swings both ways. Some genius types are unbearable until you work out how to interact with them (sometimes due to them being on the spectrum, so it's not personal), some are not. I have a pretty good idea how little I know, but I dont suffer fools (not placing that label here on anyone). It's not for me to say how humble I am anyway, that statement alone presents a sort of contradiction.
Last edited:
What about .mp3?
"to focus on what we currently know is most audible" as in .mp3 has taken away everything (and then some!?) that we cant hear...
//
With 17V peak input, you can't have much (or any) gain in the first linear gain stage.
But you can do it. Nobody said anything about a noise spec requirement.
Well, that shows in a nutshell that there are many hurdles to be taken.
You would need a valve amp to prevent 20dB loss in S/N.
And you still end with a noisy 1mV square wave.
No noise specs where given, but a Riaa preamp with 4Mhz BW that produces more noise than the surface noise from the LP is not exactly an achievement, i’m sure even Joe would reject this.
Personally I think that Joe showed a 10KHz square wave and confused this frequency with the BW of >100 Khz.
Hans
Personally I think that Joe showed a 10KHz square wave and confused this frequency with the BW of >100 Khz.
The delights of analyzing charts without axes labelled and units specified. Nothing new here:
Saul Bellow said:A fool can throw a stone in a pond that 100 wise men can not get out.
Well, that shows in a nutshell that there are many hurdles to be taken.
You would need a valve amp to prevent 20dB loss in S/N.
And you still end with a noisy 1mV square wave.
No noise specs where given, but a Riaa preamp with 4Mhz BW that produces more noise than the surface noise from the LP is not exactly an achievement, i’m sure even Joe would reject this.
Personally I think that Joe showed a 10KHz square wave and confused this frequency with the BW of >100 Khz.
Hans
My point earlier was that a 100 KHz signal at the input was likely to "leak" into the output. If you stop the RIAA at 50 KHz you need less on the input but there is still 40 dB of attenuation above 50 KHz. However I need to point out that the Spectral DMC-10 from the early 1970's could reproduce a 100 KHz square wave through the phono connection. I don't know what new revelations come from that ability today.
RE MP3/AAC etc. The lessons about what matters and what does not are right there. We have not learned how to understand them. If that much can be discarded and its that good we should look at what remains to understand our hearing. Reducing hearing to a single dimension is clearly not enough. This book has been very enlightening on the subject https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08RHGZBT2/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Everything that Joe does has to be kept secret, even the used anti_Riaa 😀
Hans
Hans, I was going to let you off the hook, but I have changed mind. You deserve this...
When the following explanation is made clear, will you overcome your arrogance and be a man enough to apologise?
You don't seem to know how an Inverse-RIAA is used, so I shall explain in no uncertain terms:
To produce a 100KHz square wave with 4Mhz BW, the Anti-Riaa will have to produce a signal of almost 17.000 Volt.
Do I have to say more ?
Hans
.
You bet I have to say more. 17.000 Volt? No way! And it's not an anti-RIAA, something got lost in the translation. Maybe that is what has confused you.
This is the Hagerman Inverse-RIAA:
Gradually above F4 pole the C1 and C2 reactance becomes so small so that the response above 50KHz becomes attenuated and flat.
Log20(R3+R4/R3+R4+R5+50) = -12.6dB and then it stays flat above that.
When you test the phono as I did with a 100KHz square wave, the top of the square wave is flat. It will be reconstructed and look the same way if the phono has the same F4 pole, so the voltage won't rise at all, just stay flat.
When this inverse RIAA is then fed to the input of the DUT, it has a corresponding series resistor in its RIAA network that makes the response above 50KHz go flat.
Flat, flat, flat!
Indeed for you do say to be true, the R3=R4 of Hageman's Inverse RIAA would have needed to have gain.
So where in your head did you think that the response would rise to...17.000 Volt, does resistors have gain?
the Anti-Riaa will have to produce a signal of almost 17.000 Volt.
Do I have to say more ?
Hans
17.000 Volt?
Foot-in-mouth!
PS: Why did some of the other august thinkers not see this one coming? Maybe RIAA is too far back in the past for them?
Attachments
Last edited:
Reducing hearing to a single dimension is clearly not enough. This book has been very enlightening on the subject https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08RHGZBT2/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Thx. Will take a look at it. Already believe typical measurements don't give enough attention to verification needed for best accuracy of the stereo illusion.
Regarding mp3 verses, say, CD quality, sometimes an imperfect CD can sound better if reduced to MP3 256kpbs (or lower). Have used that trick before to clean up a recording with some unwanted artifacts. OTOH a good quality recording usually sounds better without lossy compression.
Last edited:
Yes, this is a correct explanation. At the fundamental and harmonics of the input 100kHz
square wave, the inverse RIAA circuit is just (approx) an attenuator, and the RIAA phono
circuit is just (approx) a gain block. So the output signal would indeed be a square wave.
There may be a bit of mutually compensating linear distortion in the two circuits, because
of the 50kHz corners, and the 100kHz square wave, being too close together in frequency.
A higher test frequency will do better because of less phase shift, given enough bandwidth
in the active circuit.
square wave, the inverse RIAA circuit is just (approx) an attenuator, and the RIAA phono
circuit is just (approx) a gain block. So the output signal would indeed be a square wave.
There may be a bit of mutually compensating linear distortion in the two circuits, because
of the 50kHz corners, and the 100kHz square wave, being too close together in frequency.
A higher test frequency will do better because of less phase shift, given enough bandwidth
in the active circuit.
Last edited:
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- The Black Hole......