John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks.
Yes, the critical bandwidth of the Bark scale centered at 1KHz is about 160Hz i.e 80Hz either side of 1KHz. Hard to tell, from eyeballing Miklos plot where the 1080Hz x-axis cursor would meet the plot? But the general concept of masking is that energy within the same critical band or Bark is all added together i.e. is not differentiated from the fundamental. Energy in the next critical band (~1080Hz to 1270Hz) is all added together & may be audible depending on whether it is above threshold for that frequency

I don't think we have the data to drill down to that level of resolution. Nor do the tests that are quoted actually look at that. It's either sweeps of a second tone OR varying sized noise bandwidth (white, I think). We don't have anything to say that we can lump everything within the critical band together just so. It may be the case, but that's not what the tests say. Perhaps a small distinction.

Unless I'm looking at the wrong Figs in "Hearing: An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics, Fifth Edition", I don't see these figures supporting what you say - what book?
I'm using the same book. Is figure 10.9 a rectangular window equivalent critical bandwidth plot? It hints at 100 Hz bandwidth at 1k spot. That's a metastudy plot, so we don't want to over-read what it suggests, too.

Are we not more sensitive to the masking effects of broadband noise then to pure tones?

That's the corollary of what I wrote. We're more sensitive to 2 pure tones than we are a pure masking tone with a noise of certain bandwidth surrounding it. Pretty sure we're in agreement here.

I didn't think I made a comment that read like that?

I'm not above misreading what you meant here; if so apologies:

Just a point - what we see in Miklos plots is not 2nd harmonic distortion spike, it's close-in distortion products (many of them) as a result of jitter. Categorizing it as 2nd harmonic distortion is somewhat misleading but the masking question to still applies

The mp3 comment was my own added flavor that masking works, but not to the point where we can reduce things *massively* without audible consequences.
 
Last edited:
To help wash down the second drink a blast from the past on stereo imaging The Stereo Image | Stereophile.com
How can we possibly believe anything on that link?

First, that beard and stash...really??
Second, stick figures??? Really???


Of course, I've not read the content yet...first impression is all there is...

Jn
Sigh. Toasted a 2 million dollar widget yesterday.. Seems the vendor made some interesting choices...perhaps not the best...

It's fun discussing how to fix, what went wrong, how to protect.. So many get all defensive....

Like, what? Garnish the paycheck??? For maybe two hundred years???

Self Quote "look, you are the best on the frikken planet...do not get all defensive on me...""

Sigh..yunguns...

Jn
 
I don't think we have the data to drill down to that level of resolution. Nor do the tests that are quoted actually look at that. It's either sweeps of a second tone OR varying sized noise bandwidth (white, I think). We don't have anything to say that we can lump everything within the critical band together just so. It may be the case, but that's not what the tests say. Perhaps a small distinction.

I'm simply quoting the masking mechanism of operation as stated in the definitions of masking, nothing more - all energy within a critical band, within a certain temporal window, is perceived as a single frequency tone even though energy is in more than on frequency i.e. masking is taking place. Two frequencies each in different critical bands are not perceived as a single tone.
 
Toasted a 2 million dollar widget yesterday.. Seems the vendor made some interesting choices...perhaps not the best...

Sometimes that happens with big, expensive stuff. Those stories are always interesting. Although 2 million is pretty up there.

There was a big transformer, years ago, that they moved down the streets of Livermore on a oversize truck to Lawrence Lab. They had to take down the power lines to get it in. They hooked up, turned it on and it blew up. So, another was built and moved in a few months later. They hooked up, turned it on and it blew up. Turned out debris, bits of wire and things, were left in the bottom of the big oil tank from during manufacturing. That was the story I heard from my brother who was a ME intern there around that time. Given how pat it is though, I wouldn't be surprised if it were embellished for effect. Still, it makes a fun story as stories go.
 
Last edited:
Disabled Account
Joined 2012
Sometimes that happens with big, expensive stuff. Those stories are always interesting. Although 2 million is pretty up there.

There was a big transformer, years ago, that they moved down the streets of Livermore on a oversize truck to Lawrence Lab. They had to take down the power lines to get it in. They hooked up, turned it on and it blew up. So, another was built and moved in a few months later. They hooked up, turned it on and it blew up. Turned out debris, bits of wire and things, were left in the bottom of the big oil tank from during manufacturing. That was the story I heard from my brother who was a ME intern there around that time. Given how pat it is though, I wouldn't be surprised if it were embellished for effect. Still, it makes a fun story as stories go.

That's interesting Mark. I worked on the 230KV substation installation inside LLNL... those transformers took the 230Kv and stepped down to 18KV for Magnetic Fusion experiment. It needed a LOT of energy/power. The oil inside is Ultra purified. Over time it has to be replaced and or filtered. At Hoover dam where the 230KV comes from, those new Brown-Bovari transformers that replaced some of the original GE ones have the oil continuously circulating thru filters to remove oil oxidation, corona affects and moisture etc. There are still some original GE transformers still running from the 1930's. But the oil used by GE is not allowed anymore.... Maybe the B-B transformers will last as long?

You cant imagine the power and energy of such systems.... at Hoover Dam you cannot walk near them. But at LLNL I was sometime standing next to them. Your body senses the fields, hum was almost painful level and the arc during disconnect would draw an large arc. we were told not to look at the arc during open/closing to the transformers... x-rays alone from that probably took a few years off my life span. Don't know what that intense 60hz field cutting thru me did. Brain damage?

Good times. When R&D budgets were king.


THx-RNMarsh
 
Last edited:
I signed up to this forum, very interesting.

AES Paper Digest: Do Audio Op-amps Sound Different? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

How low can you go? Someone may think all op-amp sound same. ;) :D

Things to note about the study:
1. Did I understand that it's 4x 40db gain inverting opamps with padding? Perhaps useful to gain up the distortion products but is that a relevant use case? Maybe in mixing consoles. Rest of us aren't running 4x riaa preamps.

2. That's very close to a null result if I'm looking at it honestly. There needs to be asked how likely it is to have a consistent preference across a sequence of 20 comparisons. Does that distribution of trials end up looking like random variation? Even if not random, it's pretty small effect.
 
Member
Joined 2005
Paid Member
Since JC hasn’t been picked on for over 45 nanoseconds I’ll do my best to set him up.

John , with the Blowtorch having 3 stages of active regulation ( series, shunt?, and cap multiplier) and an DC side CLC filter - a fairly good level of line isolation - have you ever heard any audible difference between AC line cords with it ?
 

6L6

Moderator
Joined 2010
Paid Member
300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
 
I was going to say, Mr. Curl only tends to get flak when he starts pushing out concepts like "real designers would do this (insert something vague and wildly uninformative and or the flavor of the month component)" or "look at this paper from 1970 (since outmoded and shown to be factually wrong in its conclusions), you guys aren't PAYING ATTENTION" or "only a 20k USD system? No wonder you can't hear these differences".

Did I hit bingo?
 
Things to note about the study:
1. Did I understand that it's 4x 40db gain inverting opamps with padding? Perhaps useful to gain up the distortion products but is that a relevant use case? Maybe in mixing consoles. Rest of us aren't running 4x riaa preamps.

2. That's very close to a null result if I'm looking at it honestly. There needs to be asked how likely it is to have a consistent preference across a sequence of 20 comparisons. Does that distribution of trials end up looking like random variation? Even if not random, it's pretty small effect.
It's because of the circuitry (especially the power supply) around the op-amps, that's why they sounded basically the same.
 
Member
Joined 2016
Paid Member
I was going to say, Mr. Curl only tends to get flak when he starts pushing out concepts like "real designers would do this (insert something vague and wildly uninformative and or the flavor of the month component)" or "look at this paper from 1970 (since outmoded and shown to be factually wrong in its conclusions), you guys aren't PAYING ATTENTION" or "only a 20k USD system? No wonder you can't hear these differences".

Did I hit bingo?

Yes, you hit the jackpot!
but more entertainment is to be had in the usb cable thread in here at the moment... It's the same old stuff, but keeps a smile on your face...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.