Heartbeat. why else would most dance music be set to be close to the heartrate of the dancer?
your link is a bit light on what they actually do, but this says more http://www.kringelbach.org/papers/PLR_Gebauer2015.pdf
Which does again suggest emotional pleasure from music (except for edge cases) is largely learned/conditioned.
Fascinating stuff.
Which does again suggest emotional pleasure from music (except for edge cases) is largely learned/conditioned.
Fascinating stuff.
About the first of my venture follies: a pacifier for babies that produced the sound of a heartbeat. I came to it after meeting the entrepreneur and his engineer, and contributed by making the design a bit more manufacturing-ready.
The main guy was certain that he was going to get rich. He'd gotten the idea from some study that played recorded heartbeat sounds from a tape machine, and observed that infants slept better and gained weight faster. But as the tape began to wear out the effect dissipated---ergo, to generate it electronically would be beneficial.
The great mistake that the engineer and I made was to give Howard money. We paid for a patent search, and it turned up one for a doll with a click-click sound. Howard insisted that this could be bypassed, but Peter and I were unconvinced and unwilling to subsidize things any further.
The last I know Howard had become a radio personality of sorts, making occasional appearances on local shows like Mark and Brian, as an astrologer. I'll say it again, you can't make this stuff up.
Some years later an MD had a product that was by and large the same thing. I doubt it made him rich either.
All right, NOW we can go back to global feedback 😀
WOW, this train really fell off the track!
Getting back to the subject of this thread...If global feedback could be shown to make an amp perform nearly flawlessly, shouldn't that be the goal? Or would some still insist that GNF is always evil? Just wondering.
Mike
Getting back to the subject of this thread...If global feedback could be shown to make an amp perform nearly flawlessly, shouldn't that be the goal? Or would some still insist that GNF is always evil? Just wondering.
Mike
I don't know why this test is important to you but here is one CFA at almost full power. Something must be wrong with your CFA.
Attachments
mostly recently here there has been really bad fanboyism about CFA vs VFA - with many examples where the input topology difference isn't even in play - some of the claimed performance differences look to be coming from other design decisions not required by the CFA/VFA distinction
for instance any CFA designs shown on diyAudio recently seem to also implement the "flat loop gain over audio" foolishness - but you can have higher/sloping gain at audio frequencies with either VFA or CFA
for instance any CFA designs shown on diyAudio recently seem to also implement the "flat loop gain over audio" foolishness - but you can have higher/sloping gain at audio frequencies with either VFA or CFA
Last edited:
i will investigate further. Most of my exposure to date has been traditional Bharatantyam music as SWMBO used to dance. New musical directions are always good.
Aside: Guitar seems to work best with little one.
Some GNFB amps do work almost flawlessly.
That's not the problem.
The problem is producing the illusion of a supernormal stimulus.
"A supernormal stimulus or superstimulus is an exaggerated version of a stimulus to which there is an existing response tendency, or any stimulus that elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus
Examples
https://www.google.com/search?q="gi...oTCJWg7Kyn3scCFZYsiAodD_QP7Q&biw=1366&bih=635
https://www.google.com/search?q="ch...ChMIufam8LPexwIVCpmICh0SoAby&biw=1366&bih=635
Good, and for sure, great, musicians in live performance, have more of everything that catches our attention and emotion, and that includes their sound and rhythm. Generally, whether vocal or instrumental, their performance has greater dynamic contrasts and more variety and complexity of harmonic structure - upper partials and roughness - and precision of rhythm than more ordinary musicians.
Due to deficiencies of our listening rooms, transducers and sometimes electronics, these qualities are masked. And with our audio equipment we tend to compensate in various ways or, simply try for a more intense experience.
So, give Pavarotti some extra upper partials, give that electric bass a bit more snarl and thump, or give the whole auditory palette a smidge more "detail" and "accuracy," brightness or"darkness".
So often the dissatisfaction with clean audio production is that some folk have found the audio equivalent of chocolate cake. Can never have too much of that, right?😀
The answer to your question is 'yes'.
leading to people going to a classical concert and complaining its doesn't sound like their hifi so the concert halls start to put sound reinforcement in, keeping simon in a job!
It's nothing to do with fan boyism. It's about design choices. I built both CFA and VFA of amplifiers and on the sx-Amp (c 60 kHz -3 dB LG), made flat loop gain a design goal. There had been a lot of discussion about PIM and I wanted to see if there was anybeffect on the sound. My big VFA also has extended loop gain (about 40 kHz).
I do not favor either topology over the other. In my book they are both valid design choices.
Regards distortion the sx-amp is high (see the plots in the write-up) and the e-Amp low double digit
I like using the sx-Amp for classical and acoustic music, and the e-Amp for heavier stuff on the B&W's. I have a pair of small bookshelf speakers that don't have a particularly flat response but image superbly - they are a great match for the sx-Amp but seem to lose their 'sparkle' with the bigger amps.
The Ovation 250 is 'semi- retired' now- I need to do a rebuild. This was a straight VFA but has a very 'dark' sound. The guy that sold me the book shelf speakers loved it SMD preferred it over the e-Amp at the time, which he described as a thoroughly modern amp. He is a tube guy BTW.
Do there you have it. Amps seem to sound different and there is something there for everyone.
😎
Last edited:
Me too. An amplifier's topology is just topology. It depend on skill of the designer. You can make bad or good amplifier with same topology. And GNFB, too 😉
yes, hard to understand anyone bragging about it since it logically implies one or both aren't accurate, transparent
no lots of people understand that electronics effects boxes are used throughout the recoding, mastering and playback chain
some just have a preference on where effects boxes should be, and believe that the choice of "audibly transparent" isn't hard to make or implement in electronics
some just have a preference on where effects boxes should be, and believe that the choice of "audibly transparent" isn't hard to make or implement in electronics
I did not go for the "flat loop gain over audio" foolishness in my amp. I could not get more then 80 dB at low frequencies as it use simple resistor load (no active load there), but I could boost it up to 20 kHz (compensation) and result was a flat loop gain (and very similar THD at all audio frequencies). I could not get that with any of my VFA amps with CM where it's " normal" to have 120 dB at low frequencies and hardly more then 60 dB at 20 kHz.
I don't prefer CFA over VFA, just CFA is new for me and I enjoy to play with it.
Last edited:
