Please try to get your head around it. You can't correlate good measurement with good sound, because every bodies idea of good sound is different. You probably agree that a high feedback analog amp can sound quite different from a huge low nfb SE tube amp. Yet, both have a fanatic following being convinced that their amp is the worlds' best.
So yes, these are articles of faith, I you want to call them that. Or call them preferences.
OTOH, if I measure an amp and find 0.001% 3rd harmonic, that's an objective fact. If someone else measures this amp they will also find 0.001% 3rd. Based on these measurements, you can make a statement about the linearity of that amp and that is an objective fact. It is more linear than an amp with 0.1% 3rd. There is no faith involved in that at all.
Capisce?
Jan
This is stupid and ignorant, plain and simple. The ears feed into the brain, and there the evaluation is done.
I can't believe people can be so dumb. Sorry mods, but sometimes you need to say it the way it is.
Jan
Lieder can be a good test. Solo piano will little gain riding is a huge challenge. Sadly too much compression on most recordings to really show that.
Yes compression. Yet another typically feedback driven mechanism used on virtually all recordings. Always on vinyl.
You can record depth by mic proximity, the ratio of direct/reflected sound will give you a sense of depth. ( you can fake this with EQ and reverb).
While I agree quite a lot with the first part of this statement, the bit about 'subjective concept and has no meaning in the real world.' is entirely false- the real world is in fact where we humans have our subjective experience.
If you think the subjective experience has no meaning you will be unable to explain why a multiple-billions of dollars/year industry is able to exist off of it.
I've found that Daniel von Recklinghousen's (chief engineer at Scott) comment[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, Times]'If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing.'[/FONT]
[/FONT]
to be spot on. Sometimes you have to think a bit about how to make the measurement. The subjective experience in all of this can be pretty important; if you are persistent usually you can find a way to quantify what you are hearing.
I had a customer who was changing out filter caps in our amps to get better sound (which is a common sort of thing that audiophiles might do; annoying but that's life...). He noticed an improvement, but unlike most he quantified it by simply placing a microphone at the listening chair, and then measuring distortion at various frequencies 'before' and 'after'. He was able to show that the new filter caps decreased the distortion across the audio band. Since the parts he was replacing were fairly new, I don't have reason to think they were defective.
@ atmasphere
Maybe I should have been clearer. Claims that feedback amps fare worse in ‘micro dynamics’ and whatever else people can dredge up hold no water in my view without corroborating evidence.
The whole idea of measurements is that they are designed to remove, or render impotent, the biggest confounder of all: human subjectivity.
The fact that human experience may be through the lens of subjective experience holds no water in an engineering or scientific endeavor.
This discussion has morphed into one in which the merits of feedback are being questioned by one group. That feedback works to enable an amplifying device to more closely approach the ideal is in no doubt. That an ideal amplifier is not ideal for music is in doubt since there is no way to ascertain that other than by pure conjecture.
(At least your customer had a rational, measurement based explanation for the improvement in sound - see, this measurement stuff actually works!)
Maybe I should have been clearer. Claims that feedback amps fare worse in ‘micro dynamics’ and whatever else people can dredge up hold no water in my view without corroborating evidence.
The whole idea of measurements is that they are designed to remove, or render impotent, the biggest confounder of all: human subjectivity.
The fact that human experience may be through the lens of subjective experience holds no water in an engineering or scientific endeavor.
This discussion has morphed into one in which the merits of feedback are being questioned by one group. That feedback works to enable an amplifying device to more closely approach the ideal is in no doubt. That an ideal amplifier is not ideal for music is in doubt since there is no way to ascertain that other than by pure conjecture.
(At least your customer had a rational, measurement based explanation for the improvement in sound - see, this measurement stuff actually works!)
Last edited:
Not at all. Lots of very smart people (I spent 20 years working with PhD solid state physicists) are just misguided sometimes. That’s human.
Which all goes to reinforce what I was taught doing my MBA: knowledge is very sticky and does not transfer easily between different fields of study - which BTW is why multi- domain problems are called ‘wicked’ problems.
I would not presume for one minute for example to be able to comment authoritatively on matters relating to medical science (let alone electronics 😉 )
Last edited:
Oh man, hold your horses, it was ironic... For indoctrinated idiots everyone is stupid, except official science authority dogma followers. 😉
Why not discuss something more interesting ?
How about how to design a feedback control loop of say 100kHz bandwidth that includes the speaker chassis ?
That is surely a lot more fun than arguing over a century old topics of NFB in amplifiers, not ?
😉
Cheers,
Patrick
How about how to design a feedback control loop of say 100kHz bandwidth that includes the speaker chassis ?
That is surely a lot more fun than arguing over a century old topics of NFB in amplifiers, not ?
😉
Cheers,
Patrick
This post is clearer, but the subjective experience does in fact still hold water in engineering and science. If you meant something else, then this still needs clarification.
DBTs are based on subjective experience and data from them are in fact used in science and engineering. Dr. Floyd Toole has a nice YT video on some of his work in speaker design- worth a look if you've not seen it, and if so, watch for the comments about listening panels.
Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts - YouTube