Nelson Pass said:
I like that phrase!
The woolier the sound, the easier it is to tease out ? 😉
Edit My sense of humour can be tasteless.
okapi said:
This sort of soi disant reasoning is the worst kind of nonsense. It's the same sort of thing that led your mother to demand in exasperation, "Just because your friends are doing something doesn't mean you have to. Would you march off the edge of a cliff just because your friends did?"
tnargs said:
The flaw in your reasoning is that my system is quad-amped. The tube amps/Alephs were on the mid-range. My midrange units are Bohlender Graebner RD-75s, which require virtually zero damping because they have very, very low mass in a very, very strong magnetic field. Good try, though...
janneman said:
Oh...so no one did THD tests before automated test units were available, is that it? Oh, puh-leeze!
To date, I have yet to see any sort of cancellation-null figures on anyone's spec sheets. If the test was such a powerful diagnostic you'd think they would be bending over backwards to get the information out for people like you, if no one else.
Or do you claim that there's a vast conspiracy (which would have to include not just all high end manufacturers, but all mid-fi and lo-fi as well) to suppress the information. After all, the concept has been out there for decades, I just picked Hafler (a mere twenty-five years ago or so...) because that's a fairly well known example.
I've got it! Elvis is secretly doing the research in Area 51...right? No? Is it filed away with the blueprints for the 100mpg carburetor? Still wrong? They buried it with JFK? Wrong again? Dang! Okay...I give up...you tell me why there's not been a groundswell of demand for the cancellation test.
Before you answer, note that not one person had thought to mention it before I brought it up. And you'll have to search pretty hard in other threads relating to distortion before you run across another reference to it. (And don't be surprised if it was me who brought it up, once you do find it...)
Pan said:
This is the sort of foolishness that leads me to conclude that you're a troll. Go back and re-read the post wherein I described precisely what I mean. It's not that far back.
scott wurcer said:
Scott, your reasoning, as many others', is flawed.
Let's assume for the nonce that null tests are valid tests, okay? Let's assume that your (and others') blind assumption that I run the other way from such tests because it 'tells me something I would rather not know' is accurate.
Are you with me so far?
Good.
Then why don't those who think such tests are worthwhile flock to the pieces of equipment that rate well on such tests? Either it detects equipment that sounds better or it doesn't. Surely those who haven't been infected with the dreaded "Golden Ears Syndrome" would hear such equipment and decide it was better, right?
Although there are people--some are members here--who claim to be able to hear very, very low levels of distortion, my experience (years in sales, etc.) has been that people can't 'hear' the lower distortion until after they read the spec sheet. Which rather quickly leads me to the conclusion that those who claim to prefer low distortion pieces are reaching their conclusion subjectively, in the purest and worst sense of listener bias. Not once, not ever, have I met an audiophile who could sit in a listening room and pick out the lowest distortion piece by ear.
And if a test has no predictive ability, what good is it? After all, that's the gold standard in science...accurate prediction. Unfortunately, people don't always pick the lower distortion piece. In fact, it's pretty close to chance, although you'll have to take my word on this unless you're willing to go into audio sales for a while.
Or do you intend to take the position that we must have pieces that test well according to some arbitrary standard forced on us 'for our own good?'
fredex said:
Poor reasoning, yet again, on at least two fronts and possibly three, but I'm low on sleep, sick, and weary of silly arguments. Until you're ready to pick the lowest distortion amplifier out of five in a double blind test, I don't see that you're in a position to comment.
Jeez, this is tiresome. Can't you guys do any better than this?
For the record, I have described what I (and others) hear, proposed mechanisms for how it could happen, and suggested possible cures and even explained why I thought they might work. No one else seems interested in trying to work this stuff out because they already know everything there is to know about distortion. Oh, well.
Grey
Has a test ever been used which negatively fed back the inverted signal - the end result should be silence if the feedback was 100% correct?
I think that would just be like turning the volume down. And, to get exactly perfect zero null would be unstable because every amplifier has some delay.
I think this correct - if I'm wrong someone will surely sacrifice me.
I think this correct - if I'm wrong someone will surely sacrifice me.
That's the reason I ask - it's a test of the accuracy of NFB & would show up the time delay of the feedback signal. Would this not be a way of measuring the effectiveness of NFB? I'm obviously missing something!
But, feedback isn't used that way. You can measure delay on a scope, so you don't need to actually try and null out the output. I think Pass showed the effects of adding more negative feedback in his article, which shows an increase in the complexity of the distortion spectrum and more higher order harmonics.
I know you could see delay on a scope using a test signal but as was stated already test signals are not complex signals like music.
I know NP showed this but I wondered if there would be any value in hearing(?) what was left after the subtraction of the original signal & it's inversion fed back through the feedback network?
Again, I feel that I'm missing something obvious that will give me a Homer moment when it's pointed out to me but I'm willing to ask stupid questions.
I know NP showed this but I wondered if there would be any value in hearing(?) what was left after the subtraction of the original signal & it's inversion fed back through the feedback network?
Again, I feel that I'm missing something obvious that will give me a Homer moment when it's pointed out to me but I'm willing to ask stupid questions.
jkeny said:
You can connect a wire from the output of an op-amp to it's inverting input. That would be your test.
In inverting configuration (Vout = -(R2/R1)*Vin) then let R2 go to zero and the output is nulled.
GRollins said:
actually, it is not nonsense in any way. when i made that comment about feedback being efficient/advantageous i was falling back on evolutionary theory. it is a simple idea: mechanisms that persist over evolutionary time cannot be deleterious and are often advantageous. i hope you are aware that evolutionary theory is not the same as a hypothesis, it is supported by evidence. evidence that includes both observation AND measurement.
i am not bringing up evolutionary theory to draw this thread off topic, but, to again raise the point that a person can have all the ideas in the world about how something might work but to prove any of them you need evidence. evidence that is based on experiments which require measurement. the alternative is that your ideas risk becoming just one opinion among many.
you have proposed, without providing any evidence other than your word, that even the most elemental distortion measurements cannot capture differences that you hear. My question to you is: What measurement technique do you propose to capture one or all of the phenomena you propose that are not captured by distortion measurements?
i would also like to say that i feel that your comments regarding pan being a troll are uncalled for. i realize that his comment in that one specific occasion could be interpreted as unconstructive (i did not see it that way) but for the most part he is trying to engage you in a reasonable way. furthermore, dismissing him as a troll does not invalidate the vast majority of his legitimate questions he as asked and you have, up to now,not answered directly.
GRollins said:
My reasoning was not flawed; your information was inadequate. My error was to assume it was adequate.
GRollins said:
The flaw in all your reasoning in this thread is that it is based on uncontrolled listening tests. Which are completely invalid. Your only escape is to mount an argument that uncontrolled tests are better than controlled tests.
Careful... if you succeed, most of modern science will probably collapse around us. 🙄
the main flaw is all-too human.
If we like something, it must be better. No one would confess, that the better sound is due to artefacts and not the absence of them.
So the circuit must have unmeasurable 'good' properties and the existing technical specifications must be wrong!
regards
If we like something, it must be better. No one would confess, that the better sound is due to artefacts and not the absence of them.
So the circuit must have unmeasurable 'good' properties and the existing technical specifications must be wrong!
regards
GRollins said:
I thought this was an interesting point. Experience really does matter, as I learned from a health problem I had with my hearing. Our ears actually turn up the gain for sounds with special importance. People who place much importance on sound quality or a certain type of sound are going to be much more aware of these differences. And people who aren't that concerned with quality sound reproduction are less attuned to these differences.
I imagine your father and uncles placed a lot of importance on seeing differences in shades of color, since this was there occupation. I suspect they learned to "discriminate shades of colors" through experience.
Our sensory system turns up the gain for things of importance to prepare us for future events. How we respond depends on the meaning associated with the event.
Because of an ear sensitivity problem I have, I had to learn more about our sensory system than anyone needs to know. I didn't want to comment till I got my website up. I wrote a paper on my experiences and how I think it relates to high end audio. The paper is on my website is here:
http://sites.google.com/site/johnsaudiopage/
I started an new thread so if anyone would like to comment on my paper, they won't mess up Pass' thread. People can place comments here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138477
I don't expect everyone will agree with my opinions but I'd like to increase awareness of the Jastreboff Model for hearing, as well as hyperacusis and tinnitus.
I was already listening for more detailed stuff than most of my acquaintances, but I had an epiphany when I realized that people who lose their sight experience an increase in auditory acuity as their bodies/minds compensate. After that, I set out to consciously educate my hearing--ideally without having to lose my sight in the process. So far I can still see and have learned quite a bit about imaging.
In recent years, it has been medically demonstrated that there are such things as "super tasters." There are at least two separate mechanisms in play. One is that some people simply have more taste buds. The other is that some people (not necessarily the same ones) produce more saliva, which increases mobility of ions in the chemical sense, enabling more flavor to reach the taste buds.
To date, I am unaware of any analogous research for hearing, but it would hardly be surprising to find that some people have, for instance, more cilia in their inner ears. It's a trivial observation that peoples' outer ears vary widely in shape, and equally trivial to demonstrate that variations in shape of the ear affect the perceived sound, yet those who mock those who actually listen turn a deaf ear (ahem...) to the idea that some people might actually be telling the truth when they report hearing certain things.
It's not Nature vs. Nurture...it's both.
Grey
In recent years, it has been medically demonstrated that there are such things as "super tasters." There are at least two separate mechanisms in play. One is that some people simply have more taste buds. The other is that some people (not necessarily the same ones) produce more saliva, which increases mobility of ions in the chemical sense, enabling more flavor to reach the taste buds.
To date, I am unaware of any analogous research for hearing, but it would hardly be surprising to find that some people have, for instance, more cilia in their inner ears. It's a trivial observation that peoples' outer ears vary widely in shape, and equally trivial to demonstrate that variations in shape of the ear affect the perceived sound, yet those who mock those who actually listen turn a deaf ear (ahem...) to the idea that some people might actually be telling the truth when they report hearing certain things.
It's not Nature vs. Nurture...it's both.
Grey
Grey,
I am in no way mocking anyone. I merely want to share some experiences and ideas. I was trying to make some points, and I'm a bit sarcastic, I hope that doesn't come across as mocking.
I agree with everything you just said. When you do less of certain activities especially big activities this does cause increased gain in other sensory systems. The brain is globally linked, is what Dr. Hazell told me. I can't say I understand that.
People have different ears and brains, and I'm not claiming that some people can't hear things that others don't. But people are also habituated to different sounds, and sound systems. I'm saying it's important to have a point of reference, one that you hear on a regular basis. This helps you make informed judgements.
My dad played the French Horn in high school and also in the air force band. He really admired the sound of James Chambers in the New York Philharmonic. That was his reference. He tried to pattern his sound after him and finally got a sound he was really pleased with. He could have gone professional but his front teeth had to be worked on and the thick caps messed up his sound. He couldn't get the sound he wanted back and he lost interest.
Any how, I've tried to explain to the model to him and he just says, "you're trying to tell me I'm not hearing what I'm hearing." I don't try anymore. He claimed his speaker cables were breaking for almost two years.
I think the Jastreboff model gives credence to both subjective and objective points of view. I think extended blind testing could be helpful.
I do know how sensitive the ears can be to even the quietest sounds. I think the ear is particularly good at detecting even the smallest increase in sounds we have dislike or aversion to.
To avoid confusion place any further replies in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138477
Thanks
I am in no way mocking anyone. I merely want to share some experiences and ideas. I was trying to make some points, and I'm a bit sarcastic, I hope that doesn't come across as mocking.
I agree with everything you just said. When you do less of certain activities especially big activities this does cause increased gain in other sensory systems. The brain is globally linked, is what Dr. Hazell told me. I can't say I understand that.
People have different ears and brains, and I'm not claiming that some people can't hear things that others don't. But people are also habituated to different sounds, and sound systems. I'm saying it's important to have a point of reference, one that you hear on a regular basis. This helps you make informed judgements.
My dad played the French Horn in high school and also in the air force band. He really admired the sound of James Chambers in the New York Philharmonic. That was his reference. He tried to pattern his sound after him and finally got a sound he was really pleased with. He could have gone professional but his front teeth had to be worked on and the thick caps messed up his sound. He couldn't get the sound he wanted back and he lost interest.
Any how, I've tried to explain to the model to him and he just says, "you're trying to tell me I'm not hearing what I'm hearing." I don't try anymore. He claimed his speaker cables were breaking for almost two years.
I think the Jastreboff model gives credence to both subjective and objective points of view. I think extended blind testing could be helpful.
I do know how sensitive the ears can be to even the quietest sounds. I think the ear is particularly good at detecting even the smallest increase in sounds we have dislike or aversion to.
To avoid confusion place any further replies in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138477
Thanks
Masking
According to psychoacoustic theories and measurements the lower harmonics (such as 2nd and 3rd) are most easily masked by the original note, while higher order distortion components should be more easily audible.
janneman said:
According to psychoacoustic theories and measurements the lower harmonics (such as 2nd and 3rd) are most easily masked by the original note, while higher order distortion components should be more easily audible.
Hola Y'all
Just as some people see different colors and like or dislike , I firmly believe that our hearing is differentiated. I know that my hearing is impaired from years of working in loud environments...
I can tell by listening to my Ipod with nothing but volume control that my right to left hearing is impaired right to left volume as well as frequency dropouts and sensitivities....I guess what I am saying just as everyone sees something different we all hear different as well. This is as close to a tyrade as i get ...Listen to what FEELS good and try to respect how others FEEL.
TTFN...Elwood
Just as some people see different colors and like or dislike , I firmly believe that our hearing is differentiated. I know that my hearing is impaired from years of working in loud environments...
I can tell by listening to my Ipod with nothing but volume control that my right to left hearing is impaired right to left volume as well as frequency dropouts and sensitivities....I guess what I am saying just as everyone sees something different we all hear different as well. This is as close to a tyrade as i get ...Listen to what FEELS good and try to respect how others FEEL.
TTFN...Elwood
White paper on zero feedback amplifiers
Perhaps my white paper on 'zero feedback amplifiers' might be of interest here. As the paper refers to some of our one and only Nelson Pass' work, I thought I post it right here. Here is the link:
http://www.linnenberg-audio.de/Whitepaper_1.pdf
Hope, you like it.
Perhaps my white paper on 'zero feedback amplifiers' might be of interest here. As the paper refers to some of our one and only Nelson Pass' work, I thought I post it right here. Here is the link:
http://www.linnenberg-audio.de/Whitepaper_1.pdf
Hope, you like it.