Having lived there in the eighties of the last century, I would say that market pressure must have played an important role. While many in the West saw Japan as a monolith aiming to take over the World in a concerted way, this was far from the truth. Sony, Matsushita, Sharp, Toshiba and the others were competing on the basis of quality and product features for the Japanese customer as if a war were going on, with Akihabara as their main battle field.
Another feature of that domestic Japanese market was price collusion. Although there was a war going on, Japanese producers still agreed on minimum price levels. The result was that product innovation was the only weapon they had in their struggle for the home market.
This only changed somewhat after Japanse consumers, fed up that the same TV set would be much more expensive in Japan than abroad, started a buyers strike. Still, competition in Japan is, even today, more on quality than on price, and this domestic competition is still a driving force in product development. Take cars. There are still models being produced specifically for the Japanese market; what is exported is just a subset of the total product portefolio on sale in Japan.
Another feature of that domestic Japanese market was price collusion. Although there was a war going on, Japanese producers still agreed on minimum price levels. The result was that product innovation was the only weapon they had in their struggle for the home market.
This only changed somewhat after Japanse consumers, fed up that the same TV set would be much more expensive in Japan than abroad, started a buyers strike. Still, competition in Japan is, even today, more on quality than on price, and this domestic competition is still a driving force in product development. Take cars. There are still models being produced specifically for the Japanese market; what is exported is just a subset of the total product portefolio on sale in Japan.
Last edited:
@vacuphile,
KiCAD's connection to CERN is certainly encouraging.
As it is an open source project and able to get enhancement by plugins there is a chance that it will be finally a "can do it all" without the hefty pricecap that is usally associated to these packages.
Advantages are that no practical restrictions wrt max. number of pins, layers or board size exist.
As others have already mentioned the differences in the GUIs and in the inherent logic of the desing process can be surprisingly large between the various EDA packages.
Efficiency,workflow and mantaince issues beside stability are usually the major concerns for professional usage.
Is it of importance that schematics can be exported to a simulation tool, or doesn't it matter? For nonprofessional use it might be no problem to draw an additional schematic for simulation purposes but it includes the risk of additional errors.
What about the library-format? Especially when doing specialized analog (mainly) layouts, a lot of parts are usually user-generated parts (includes drawings, footprints etc.) , so it is important to have included a good part editor. After having spended time for this part inclusion it is one major reason to stay with a package and not to switch to another (unless a migration is possible).
Export of pcb data is important too, and obviously an included viewer for gerber is an advantage too.
Don't get me wrong, compared to what was available 30 years ago, all of these modern packages are overwhelming and will certainly do all well to get a working pcb at the end.
But the screenshots are always looking good, but it takes some time to find out if the intended process flow does work for _you_ and the best way is to do an example project, nothing complicated just a pcb to try out all what is needed, like drawing a schematic (and altering with backannotation), start with the pcb (using library parts, doing new library parts, editing library parts, pcb stacks and so on), routing, editing, checking and exporting with verification by review of the gerber files.
And sometimes you might want just to do a pcb on the fly without going trough all the project enabling hassle (needs some self-control to not use it for serious project ) and it would be a nice feature if the package supports it.
@ Evenharmonics,
Given your usual problems to show evidence it should make you think about your claims/assertions.
Do you need quotes of your posts as you can't remember what you did ask for?
Or are you now arguing that you did not ask for listening tests wrt damping factor?
Lets assume that you do remember having asked for listening test result wrt damping factor, why should asking you for the specifics of the wanted listening test be seen as "evasive"?
KiCAD's connection to CERN is certainly encouraging.
As it is an open source project and able to get enhancement by plugins there is a chance that it will be finally a "can do it all" without the hefty pricecap that is usally associated to these packages.
Advantages are that no practical restrictions wrt max. number of pins, layers or board size exist.
As others have already mentioned the differences in the GUIs and in the inherent logic of the desing process can be surprisingly large between the various EDA packages.
Efficiency,workflow and mantaince issues beside stability are usually the major concerns for professional usage.
Is it of importance that schematics can be exported to a simulation tool, or doesn't it matter? For nonprofessional use it might be no problem to draw an additional schematic for simulation purposes but it includes the risk of additional errors.
What about the library-format? Especially when doing specialized analog (mainly) layouts, a lot of parts are usually user-generated parts (includes drawings, footprints etc.) , so it is important to have included a good part editor. After having spended time for this part inclusion it is one major reason to stay with a package and not to switch to another (unless a migration is possible).
Export of pcb data is important too, and obviously an included viewer for gerber is an advantage too.
Don't get me wrong, compared to what was available 30 years ago, all of these modern packages are overwhelming and will certainly do all well to get a working pcb at the end.
But the screenshots are always looking good, but it takes some time to find out if the intended process flow does work for _you_ and the best way is to do an example project, nothing complicated just a pcb to try out all what is needed, like drawing a schematic (and altering with backannotation), start with the pcb (using library parts, doing new library parts, editing library parts, pcb stacks and so on), routing, editing, checking and exporting with verification by review of the gerber files.
And sometimes you might want just to do a pcb on the fly without going trough all the project enabling hassle (needs some self-control to not use it for serious project
) and it would be a nice feature if the package supports it.@ Evenharmonics,
Ah, the usual denial. Part of running your audio business.
Given your usual problems to show evidence it should make you think about your claims/assertions.
Do you need quotes of your posts as you can't remember what you did ask for?
Or are you now arguing that you did not ask for listening tests wrt damping factor?
Lets assume that you do remember having asked for listening test result wrt damping factor, why should asking you for the specifics of the wanted listening test be seen as "evasive"?
Last edited:
Evidence of what?@ Evenharmonics,
Given your usual problems to show evidence it should make you think about your claims/assertions.
You are repeating your routine, same one that you pulled couple months ago on your Hydrogenaudio posts, deflect, pretend, then deny when quotes are shown.
I have had a chance to work with a few big Japanese companies, and I think I know why.
Their goal is not making money, but making a new product.
Last edited:
I do not like noise shaped dither, especially for low sampling like 44.1 and 48 kHz and I was able to tell it in ABX, with some recordings.
I have had a chance to work with a few big Japanese companies, and I think I know why.
Their goal is not making money, but making a new product.
I have the same experience. I think the bias is more towards innovation than profit. And then reality bites. Sony, Matsushita, Hitachi, Toshiba have all retreated from their once very global presence. Make no mistake, they are still giant companies, but they’ve been overtaken by more nimble competitors like Samsung and Apple. And they all totally missed the apps platform wave and the rise of new kinds of products in the way Apple and Google did.
The voltage source (the common type of amplifier) can only control the voltage (AC signal) of the amplifier. To be able to do this, it has to relinquish control over the current (some here hate it when I use terminology like that, too bad).
Really, on the current side, the amplifier can go anywhere. Since the force factor (F=Bli) that causes motion and displacement, the sound you hear, then you can make a sound argument that we are not listening to the voltage of the amplifier, only its current. This does not mean that the voltage is unimportant, I have never seen any argue that, the voltage is the content, but it does not have direct control of the current going through the coil.
I am being told that I am not allowed to use the above kind of descriptors, but if they can disprove F=Bli, then that would be quite something.
So the answer to your question, if the driver changes the current of the amplifier, then the force factor is changed, this changed current is further modified by the driver. Eventually, the program (voltage) will subside and it settles down, only to resume when the program dynamics change.
Here is what one EE said about that mechanism:
"The loudspeaker operating on voltage drive exhibits a feedback effect where the EMF deriving from voice coil motion summates directly with the voltage applied to the driver, so that the resulting current is a mixture of the original signal and a spurious signal corrupted by the speaker's own mechanical, electrical and acoustic properties and circulated in the feedback process."
Note the words "corrupted" and "circulating."
Why does this happen?
F=Bli
Last edited:
Rare form tonight Joe, really written like a serious technical discourse. Would you please take your stuff to the vendors forum.
I'm not quite sure... But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say the EE either missed a lot of classes, didn't take the relevant ones, is trying to make up explanations outside of his(or her) discipline, or is trying to mislead others in an effort to make money off the gullible.
Perhaps you should provide that EE's name? It's just too easy to claim some "expert" said so.
Jn
You have it wrong Joe. It is not about like or hate, it is about communication. I think your impedance compensation has some merit. However the way of your explanation is way off. Your pushing of the confusing explanation will only diminish acceptance and credibility.
Hi Joe,
I have to agree with others here. It's not that we dislike your use of terms. What you are demanding is that we all "unlearn" decades of good training so that we can learn your particular ways of expressing yourself. Since you are out of step with the rest of the world, it might be much more reasonable to ask you to properly express yourself. We can't unlearn something that is like our first language (whatever that might be). What you are doing is redefining the words we use, English in this case, which is like your own secret code. We are going to interpret what you write (or say) in the accepted manner of our profession. It is tiring trying to figure out what you mean. It doesn't help when your message is in opposition to accepted (proved) facts.
So, not to be insulting, please take some electronics courses and learn how to communicate effectively. It's high time you learned how to speak the language. If you don't feel that is reasonable, then please stop complaining about being misunderstood. That also applies to arguing your pet theories on amplifier - speaker interactions. If you can't use the accepted language, don't make any comments. What else can you do with someone who chooses not to communicate properly? It just comes out as nonsense no matter whether you have a point or not.
-Chris
I have to agree with others here. It's not that we dislike your use of terms. What you are demanding is that we all "unlearn" decades of good training so that we can learn your particular ways of expressing yourself. Since you are out of step with the rest of the world, it might be much more reasonable to ask you to properly express yourself. We can't unlearn something that is like our first language (whatever that might be). What you are doing is redefining the words we use, English in this case, which is like your own secret code. We are going to interpret what you write (or say) in the accepted manner of our profession. It is tiring trying to figure out what you mean. It doesn't help when your message is in opposition to accepted (proved) facts.
So, not to be insulting, please take some electronics courses and learn how to communicate effectively. It's high time you learned how to speak the language. If you don't feel that is reasonable, then please stop complaining about being misunderstood. That also applies to arguing your pet theories on amplifier - speaker interactions. If you can't use the accepted language, don't make any comments. What else can you do with someone who chooses not to communicate properly? It just comes out as nonsense no matter whether you have a point or not.
-Chris
This was ripped with EAC from the CD, so I have the whole album.
I was there, the RTP preamp with M-S matrix internally was commissioned for the job. I was told that told that it had never been done that way before. Of course M-S recordings go back decades, it is putting the matrix inside that was different.
I have taken a listen on headphones and my system and I like the recording, I find it to be unusually pleasant and realistic and warm for a piano recording, plenty of piano recordings drive me out of the room, this one keeps me in the room. The Goop loopback version is even better.
The lid of the piano was taken off, the SF12 (twin Fig-8) were placed above Nock's left shoulder, emphasing the bass side of the piano. Consider it the sound that the pianist hears, this is his perspective you hear.
Dan, if Mike Nock had heard you call it a warm sound, he would have been pleased.
The irony here is that all of you here would have almost certainly heard recordings where one of my custom microphone preamps have been used. So if that chagrins some of you here, then I will have a little wry smile on my face.
Now you guys (you know who you are) can resume your usual hostilities. A good laugh.
Cheers to you all, JR.
May be you should replace your amplifier? I'm used to low quality (piano) recordings but I haven't had such a tragic experience with my amps (and speakers)? When I hear piano recordings, I expect to hear that 'grand' sound. If it is not there then the system is not good enough. Never heard one that is fatiguing (in the last decade). It's a beautiful musical instrument imo.
I listened the piano recording by Joe using headphone, my first impression was it was too soft/polite, the bass was lacking, suitable for background music, not something that I expect from a grand piano performance. Will see how it is going to be using my speaker/amp later.
Preamps with onboard M+S? - Gearslutz
Yep
Edit:
Are you appropriating Allen Wright's designs? The schematics are signed with his name. The cookbook came out with only his name on the cover.
Allen Wright - The Tube Preamp Cookbook [English]
Zielig.
Last edited:
Thank you, yes my findings also. In experiments with applying no dither, flat dither or different shaped dither when downscaling I have noted the different sounds also. IME no dither when downscaling can sound slightly 'rough' but 'natural', flat dither puts an audible white noise mask on low level content and shaped dither puts a 'tone control' on the noise mask and sounds 'wrong' and 'unnatural'. It is fact of life that CD releases have been downscaled with or without dither and are then played back using DS dacs that use differing proprietary noise shaping curves, there is no 'standard' for digital audio.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.