Nope. Time element — all the things to do with the time response of the system.
Time alignment is nice, really takes a good DSP but good performace can be had in a simple 2-way with a passive XO.
Efficiency?
dave
For the purposes of this thread, I'm maintaining a zoomed-out and theoretical/hypothetical perspective.
There are numerous threads in this forum about the specifics of virtually any component in a chain.
I'm primarily referring to signal integrity, which can be analyzed in the time domain (or frequency domain), but let's keep it simple.
When Bruno (Putzeys) states that audio amplification is basically a solved problem, I know what he's referring to, but that's not about the 'subtle elements' I'm referring to
(with this statement I've probably lost 50% of the readers).
Class A: 100% of the input signal is used (conduction angle θ = 360°), output device close to the most linear portion of its transconductance curve, no 'turn on' time etc. So, theoretically 100% signal integrity, at the cost of efficiency.
Now, before people start to think I'm just preaching to the choir: I don't use class A amps (anymore), because I detest the heat, tubes, etc.
Sometimes people make decisions that are (potentially) at the expense of performance/quality.
So (probably) no more Class A for me, neither vinyl. Although the best systems I've listened to included SET amps, vinyl and horn speakers.
Acceptable alternatives exist. In this regard I'd like to refer to Thorsten Loesch's comments about Gainclone amps.
Although it's not exactly my ideal implementation, the Topping LA90 illustrates the (measurable) performance potential of an op amp based amplifier.
Here's another risky/thin-ice statement:
Considering its intended purpose, the small midrange used in the Kii speakers sounds better than the Purifi PTT6.5X04-NFA-01,
despite (thanks to?) its 35x lower price.
Why? Purposely built/designed efficiency vs neither fish nor fowl (> a bit exaggerated, I admit).
Anything deviating from the (hypothetical) ideal implies energy/'information' lost (or buried).
That's the core reason why 80-95% of modern hi-fi speakers sound more or less the same.
Of course, whether this all matters also strongly depends on personal preferences.
There are numerous threads in this forum about the specifics of virtually any component in a chain.
I'm primarily referring to signal integrity, which can be analyzed in the time domain (or frequency domain), but let's keep it simple.
When Bruno (Putzeys) states that audio amplification is basically a solved problem, I know what he's referring to, but that's not about the 'subtle elements' I'm referring to
(with this statement I've probably lost 50% of the readers).Class A: 100% of the input signal is used (conduction angle θ = 360°), output device close to the most linear portion of its transconductance curve, no 'turn on' time etc. So, theoretically 100% signal integrity, at the cost of efficiency.
Now, before people start to think I'm just preaching to the choir: I don't use class A amps (anymore), because I detest the heat, tubes, etc.
Sometimes people make decisions that are (potentially) at the expense of performance/quality.
So (probably) no more Class A for me, neither vinyl. Although the best systems I've listened to included SET amps, vinyl and horn speakers.
Acceptable alternatives exist. In this regard I'd like to refer to Thorsten Loesch's comments about Gainclone amps.
Although it's not exactly my ideal implementation, the Topping LA90 illustrates the (measurable) performance potential of an op amp based amplifier.
Here's another risky/thin-ice statement:
Considering its intended purpose, the small midrange used in the Kii speakers sounds better than the Purifi PTT6.5X04-NFA-01,
despite (thanks to?) its 35x lower price.
Why? Purposely built/designed efficiency vs neither fish nor fowl (> a bit exaggerated, I admit).
Anything deviating from the (hypothetical) ideal implies energy/'information' lost (or buried).
That's the core reason why 80-95% of modern hi-fi speakers sound more or less the same.
Of course, whether this all matters also strongly depends on personal preferences.
Last edited:
I heard a well made three way horn with TAD drivers.
It had lifelike sound because I can test that with my own music instruments and near field recordings of them.
I play them at the same time and with the same melody. If it sounds the same a loudspeaker is finished and no further optimization is possible.
This is important because you never know if your louspeaker sounds ok - even experienced listeners have some days where perception is playing a trick and you change an already perfect sounding system.
It had lifelike sound because I can test that with my own music instruments and near field recordings of them.
I play them at the same time and with the same melody. If it sounds the same a loudspeaker is finished and no further optimization is possible.
This is important because you never know if your louspeaker sounds ok - even experienced listeners have some days where perception is playing a trick and you change an already perfect sounding system.
Very much indeed.
Amazing collection they have as well.
Thanks Dave for the link
Wish I could visit the museum
Appears they are doing well or not sure what it means.
Website mentioned reservations are fully booked.
Appears they have many items of all things for early music playback/ entertainment
including music boxes and nickelodeons
Favorite stop for travels for me here in the states was
Musee Mecanique
all things coin operated
but had many air operated nickelodeons
and music boxes
my personal collection, I love my horn loaded
Victrola 78 record player.
Hand wound spring powered.
Comes in handy with power outages for music listening.
Huge record collection of Jazz and Big Band.
My unit was dated 1921
hundred years= still working.
Perhaps you're right, this isn't on topic and I feel we are quite a ways apart on this.
Not losing information?
A big take away from CES 1978 was Julian Vereker telling me that a hifi has to be considered an information processing system, and you want to lose as little information as possible.
I’d say he must be living in the future. Strongly disagree with that statement.
I guess that depends on your feeling of what “same” means.
dave
Here's another big take away from that same period (1979). This time by Richard C. Heyser:
"There is evidence from studies of the brain that the perception of music is different from the perception of language, and that words which are spoken are perceived differently than [sic] words which are sung. There is also evidence that the way in which we perceive certain natural sounds, whether as music or language, may be related to cultural differences and learning experience. If these, and many other such things in our perception of sound, be true, then where in our audio technology do we address such factors? If not, then why not? In an earlier discussion I broached the issue of the end product of audio. [It] is the listening experience...not meter readings, or wiggles on an oscilloscope, or piles of charts and graphs. The end product is that very private and personal experience we have when listening to reproduced sound. If we are ever going to put a number on the quality of that experience, then it is clear that we must do more than specify the cosmetic perfection of a waveform or pursue an endless quest of reducing measurable distortions on laboratory signals which may have little bearing on the process of perception of sound.
Somehow in our technical considerations of audio we must also recognize the role played by human emotion. Aggression, paradox, strength of opinion, and conflict of interest may not be considered as control variables by an audio designer, but they can be very important in determining the success of the product which he designs."
"There is evidence from studies of the brain that the perception of music is different from the perception of language, and that words which are spoken are perceived differently than [sic] words which are sung. There is also evidence that the way in which we perceive certain natural sounds, whether as music or language, may be related to cultural differences and learning experience. If these, and many other such things in our perception of sound, be true, then where in our audio technology do we address such factors? If not, then why not? In an earlier discussion I broached the issue of the end product of audio. [It] is the listening experience...not meter readings, or wiggles on an oscilloscope, or piles of charts and graphs. The end product is that very private and personal experience we have when listening to reproduced sound. If we are ever going to put a number on the quality of that experience, then it is clear that we must do more than specify the cosmetic perfection of a waveform or pursue an endless quest of reducing measurable distortions on laboratory signals which may have little bearing on the process of perception of sound.
Somehow in our technical considerations of audio we must also recognize the role played by human emotion. Aggression, paradox, strength of opinion, and conflict of interest may not be considered as control variables by an audio designer, but they can be very important in determining the success of the product which he designs."
..and you're saying what, that we've moved beyond having doubts of such magnitude to allow ideas like this to flourish?
No argueing with your experiences.
TAD's professional drivers are direct descendants of the WE/Lansing heritage.
My inderstanding is that reseach done since then has shown that these 2 inputs are processed by different parts of the brain.
dave
As soon as the data is squeezed into a single number, THD as an indicator of sonics is basically a useless thing (unless it is huge — Geddes work suggests it needs to be 25% or so to be an indicator of sonics).
dave
Last edited:
Actually quite the opposite, being well defined and simple to measure makes it useable as a measurement, not subject to weasel words or interpretation or dispute. Any complex set of measurements that's hard to interpret will be too nebulous to work practically surely? And 0.1% distortion is easily detectable by the untrained human ear in the right test, so that 25% figure is clearly bogus by more than 2 orders of magnitude...
And another thing I keep hearing the word "sonics" used yet never is it defined by those that use it... What do you think it means? The only meaning for sonic I know is relating to sound, as in ultrasonic, infrasonic, supersonic, subsonic, hypersonic. Its nothing to do with electronics such as an amp.
Try it out with headphones and REW.
0.1 % H2 and then 0.1 % H5, maybe with a 100 Hz fundamental.
THD treats them equally, but the ear/brain doesn't. Not at all.
When designing a system (amplifier) you design it with zero flaws. After burn-in and testing and for some reason there exist a discrepancy, you with a vast number of years of experience, technical knowhow and capabilities you find the component(s) responsible for the problem and you replace them with ones that satisfy your performance criteria. You also need calibrated instruments capable of making an accurate measurement (not simulation) in real time to determine the flaw in your design and correct it. Just imagine if your PC being incapable of calculating anything correctly, is this distortion? Of course it is. So what percentage distortion would you accept in this case. Absolutely zero.
Sonic according to Webster: having a frequency within the audibility range of the human ear, relating to, or being the speed of sound in air at 1224 km per hour at sea level at 15°C
Sonic according to Webster: having a frequency within the audibility range of the human ear, relating to, or being the speed of sound in air at 1224 km per hour at sea level at 15°C