Since it is audible, one can conclude that another point may be that the non linear process that this signal has to pass through (in order to become audible) is our ears or the processing of the acoustic signal by our brain, no?
George
Well, anything with acoustic instruments or voice - but excluding the large amount of all electronic music. Point really is, source material matters, and can't be assumed!
You hit the pain squarely on the head. About 500 billion or more people have described the polar cap the same way over time and distance.
Which brings me to DA as it is the only parasitic phenomenon which listening will rank subjectively in the order of it's DA.
As long as I point out potential problems with polar parasitics --- measurements and practical and one takes care to use the polar in best way to avoid most of the issues...... all is fine. But, one word uttered about audibility and all hell breaks loose.
This has been going on like this since day one and apparently we will just have to learn to live with it.
But we got a few things covered about polar caps which are not often thought about in applications. Some times important and sometimes not... depends on circuit etc. This is scattered over the internet and put it together here for all internet eternity.
I'm not going deeper into DA than is typically known. And, what are the conditions to minimize its impact or maximize it, either. I gave a short answer to that already.
Nor have we talked about group delay at the low end with rolled off freq rsponse using coupling caps of any type. ... only thd of the part, forever. Dc-servo solve a host of issues. Many of which are audible depending on the details of use. It is good to bring up those details from time to time so new designers (and a few old ones) can avoid the audible as well as practical pit-falls.
And, there is the accumulated over all affect of several in series to listen to which makes the polar cap even less desirable.
Well, at least it is brought up. not that anyone learned anything new.
I do suspect that DBLT has set us a low bar. From that we can throw away a lot of information and even listening experiences. From my own way of listening and that experience I think we can hear or detect much better than we assume from DBLT.
Now I have broken every rule of engineering so I am the most ignorant and stupid and naïve and have a grand imagination. So, what else is new?
THx-RNMarsh
Hi Richard,
I would say that you've abided by all the rules of engineering in your work. Much of the value of servos are buried inside how they are used and implemented. I'm also certain that some capacitors are not going to detract from the sound quality either. At least not in any way that shows them to be a lost cause - like HF compensation. They are more linear than Cbc, that's for sure.
I'm sure some of us have learned quite a bit from information you and others have brought up in this thread. But this thread is a lot like a local pub. Lot's of chatter with the occasional really important statement made. The trick is to know what has value and what hasn't.
-Chris
I would say that you've abided by all the rules of engineering in your work. Much of the value of servos are buried inside how they are used and implemented. I'm also certain that some capacitors are not going to detract from the sound quality either. At least not in any way that shows them to be a lost cause - like HF compensation. They are more linear than Cbc, that's for sure.
I'm sure some of us have learned quite a bit from information you and others have brought up in this thread. But this thread is a lot like a local pub. Lot's of chatter with the occasional really important statement made. The trick is to know what has value and what hasn't.
-Chris
I can confirm, Richard.
And not only have you committed the sacrilege of using your ears, but you are diverting a ceremonial* reserved solely to the holders of the pure scientific truth, where the resistances are written R, the capacitors C, and where all this little troop obeys with discipline and absolute rigor to the holy law of Ohm.
I just ask myself the question, what makes this little posse so angry, jealousy? Or the fact that we dare to say that all this beautiful first-year theoretical teaching of electronics do not describe exactly the sad reality of the imperfections of the components that produce our technologies?
And that audio engineering produces the best results when it's conducted like cooking. Rigor in chemistry, good chose of products, some feeling and a taste that others share when they taste ;-) ...And a pinch of imagination and creativity. (thanks for your servos.)
Oh, by the way, my life would have been much simpler if I had just obeyed the orders of the "electrically correct", but much less amusing.
* The name of the ceremonial is "measurements".
Last edited:
yes, definitely. Once they are made aware of the problem created. So, we should point them out from time to time... boring as it is ... because right now, there is a whole brand new group of wide-eyes and bushy tailed engineers ready to have at it. But dont know some caps are microphonic or resistors that have a voltage coef and TC which can cause issues, etc. Parasitic effects from the perfect/ideal.
Some people cant be teachers -- poor souls have to teach the same thing over and over to new students to the subject.
I am trying to point out simple but over looked things that many have come to know but not all and not new EE's nor many hobbyists here. It can improve the product in longer life, stable specs for longer period and even better sound in some cases.
THx - Richard
Last edited:
Do you really see this as an angry, jealous posse? I honestly wonder if there's a language barrier (and I mean that without any slight to you), as I don't see that at all versus just "grouchy realism" which calls things as they are without any decoration and little patience for, well, BS or invalidated or extraordinary claims. That's a trait endemic to a lot of experienced and/or talented engineer/scientist types (generally my favorite people to work with, because stuff actually gets done right).
A forest of coupling caps
Hmmmm replacing all the films with electrolytics would be cheaper and measure the same and sound the same.
THx-RNMarsh
Maybe it is much more simple, our ears + brains just evaluate the rate of change of base signal frequency in the left channel.
Ears only, I'll need more evidence of that. JC himself admits the difference for him disappears ears only. The years of "proofs" of audibility are tainted with literally hundreds of sloppily done blind or just plain sighted tests. Mr. Marsh and others claim revisiting past conclusions is a waste of time or downright insulting so the beat will go on.
Your last statement denies all the advances in modeling and device simulation of the last 4 decades. Where do you think that decent sound of your cell phone came from?
Maybe the appreciation of distortions of all kind and of high noise originates in not very good quality of early digital. It is only in the last decade when really good D/A converters became available in a consumer audio market, avoiding the need for artifact masking. Then, we can taste the real quality of good digital recordings, especially in classical music genre. I assume that all that adoration of vinyl and tapes (and FM) is because of their intrinsic lower (or really low) resolution thus much lower demands on quality (yes electrical signal precision) of the audio chain.
Sorry, but I have not understood this sentence. Richard, and all of the people I know, involved in audio design (amplifiers, speakers, studio gears and mixing desks) work the same way. Ideas, calculations (including simulations), measurements, listenings, comparing and listening again.
is is like "tasting" for a chief and a wine maker.
As i said, my cell phone is decent... but no magic...
About modeling and simulation, it has not changed my way to work. Just simplified a lot the work, saving hours of calculations and prototyping. The real thing occurs on the bench. Don't you agree ?
But (i'm serious and interested) what, in what i had wrote here, imply in your mind that I deny the advances you are talking of ?
I just think all this technology does not help a lot when we are in concern with "the character" of the sounds. It is something subtle that make the difference. Of course, so obvious that it does not need to insist about: we all fight for less distortion, speed, dynamic, large bandwidth ... and low prices...
PMA, may-be some nostalgia or habit for the kind of sound old people were used to. Not my cup of tea, I was, since the beginning in the digital fan club.
Are-you not surprised when you listen to a recording of some tune done with a mike in front of your speakers ? Those speakers that you feel quite accurate when you listen to them directly ?
I believe that is the work of your brain.
This said, please, take a moment to think about this. The old analogue had the advantage of mixing things up a bit, hiding behind a curtain the imperfections of play and production, and thus, leave a larger part to the dream and imagination in the listener head. In the raw coldness of the digital, things are only what they are, often disappointing.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.