Sure. And there might be some value to it, but I don't think it added much to what we already know. Caps can distort however much, but measured distortion in electrolytics where the AC voltage is only a few millivolts looks very good. If they have some kind of non-stationary distortion behavior that doesn't show up with continuous tones and that is still audible, the seeming contradiction needs to be carefully picked apart and examined until we understand it much better. I don't think that would be expecting too much for a PhD dissertation from a major university that basically only looks at capacitor and opamp distortion with the intent of aiding, among other people, design engineers.
It still does 86dB with a single ended source and you'd need a transformer to better that. The distortion is low enough that, even if it dominates an amplifier its so low as to not be worth worrying about. If you care about signal integrity $6 seems a small price to pay.
As it's friday
BorderPatrol Digital to Analogue Converter SE | Stereophile.com
$1850
TDA 1541, NOS, no output stage tube rectifier. Measures horribly. Reviewer loved it.
But then again in the review he said of the benchmark
BorderPatrol Digital to Analogue Converter SE | Stereophile.com
$1850
TDA 1541, NOS, no output stage tube rectifier. Measures horribly. Reviewer loved it.
But then again in the review he said of the benchmark
But it seems to be a misleading rule of thumb, as there were a lot of praised so-called high end products that measured quite good, even sometimes exceptionally good.
I´d say, there is simply no correlation (in most reviews) between measured performance and listening impressions; beside the obviously easily detectable defects like hum,noise or similar effects.
I would agree. Subjective reviewers can't actually review these days. At least Herb admits he has no idea what 'Neutral' is so you know to stop there and not waste your time.
The sad conclusion here is that, if an audiophile assembles a system of stuff where he believes in the mantra of the designers then he will be happy with the sound, however wrong it might be.
The sad conclusion here is that, if an audiophile assembles a system of stuff where he believes in the mantra of the designers then he will be happy with the sound, however wrong it might be.
Obviously....
@billshurv,
As i don´t know who the "Herb" (Stereophile?) is and having not seen the context where he mentioned "Neutral" , i can only comment along the lines of discussions around here and other places.
It obviosuly is possible to define a meaningful "transparency term" to devices/gear (and being able to assess that in ones own reproduction system at least up to certain degree) but what "Neutral" overall is, is a far more complex matter.
We have seen from various opinons cited and posted that the references point for "neutrality" in reproduction ranges from the original event ("the real thing") to an arbitrarily choosen reference point, namely the recorded content.
Given the fact, that we already know that the "mix" is influenced not only by the raw material but by the recording environment as well (see the cited papers from various AES conventions) and the quite wide spread in quality available in recording facilities (see for example the cited study by Genelec´s Mäkivirta when comparing the measured results of the same loudspeakers in different facilities all over the world), it seems that we all have to admit not to know in reality which way a "neutral" reproduction could be achieved - means in practice.
Of course in theory we know that "neutral" would mean to reproduce the original sound field, but afair there is only one method of quite good approximation, which is the binaural recording. Best match probably if recorded with the individualized HTRF or later eq´d to the effect and reproduced with in ears.
So i would not blame "Herb" for admitting that.....
I´d say it is sad being forced to choose such a system without having/giving the opportunity to evaluate the other different possible approaches to reproduction.
Beside real gross effects it is imo quite difficult to qualify something in absolute terms, means with appicability to all humans.
It might be that someones "wrong" is the "right" for someone else.
Herb Reichert. Reviewer, claims RNM is a mate of his here Gramophone Dreams #23: AudioQuest, Triode Wire Labs | Stereophile.com
He is not someone whose writings I give any credence to.
You've basically agreed with me in that reviews are not worth the paper they are written on
He is not someone whose writings I give any credence to.
You've basically agreed with me in that reviews are not worth the paper they are written on
But that wasn´t the piece in which he wrote about the "neutral" thing or did i miss it?
Can happen....
You've basically agreed with me in that reviews are not worth the paper they are written on
Have i?
Or does it just illustrate how difficult interpretation really is.
If someone finds out that some similarities between a reviewers perception and his own exist, he might find a lot of interesting/useful informations in reviews. Sometimes it is needed in addtion to "crack" the code used.
When I was young and easily influenced I thought I had cracked the code of the reviewers I liked. At some point I realised that this was exactly what they wanted me to think. I'm much more content being able to make my own mind up with fewer external influences. But I do subscribe to Gramophone magazine now. This is far worse for my wallet .
When reviewer is in a different country, different size room, different construction methods different equipment, different music tastes there is zero common ground to work on. Easier to just read the measurements.
There is more useful information on this forum than in all the magazine reviews I have ever read.
.When reviewer is in a different country, different size room, different construction methods different equipment, different music tastes there is zero common ground to work on. Easier to just read the measurements.
There is more useful information on this forum than in all the magazine reviews I have ever read.
When I was young and easily influenced I thought I had cracked the code of the reviewers I liked. At some point I realised that this was exactly what they wanted me to think. I'm much more content being able to make my own mind up with fewer external influences. But I do subscribe to Gramophone magazine now. This is far worse for my wallet
Ah, the ol' Borg mind-meld got you
I hope you haven't fallen into the trap of thinking that caps in the servo circuit are not in the signal path.john curl said:
DA does no harm, apart from a very minor change in subsonic frequency response. High-k ceramics need to be used with care, of course, but the fact that some designers use the wrong caps in the wrong place is not an argument for not using caps.
Regarding the McGill thesis linked by Dan, I was a bit surprised that you can get a PhD for something like this. Maybe it was from some sort of Sound department rather than EE? I note that he uses 'i' for the complex operator; engineers always use 'j'. The chapter on capacitors contains some mistakes: he seems to say that ESR arises from inductance (it doesn't); he claims (without saying why) that DA produces second-order distortion. In eq 4.1 (for 'apparent power') he multiplies by Z instead of dividing by Z. He says that a smaller value cap from a particular range may have smaller plate area (true) and/or less distance between plates (not true) - I can only assume his Prof never bothered to carefully read the thesis, or didn't know about caps. Many of the references are to non-peer-reviewed work, such as Bateman or Self. He notes that a DC bias on a film cap can increase 2nd order distortion while leaving 3rd unchanged, but doesn't say why this is to be expected. At this point I got bored and stopped reading.
Thanks Bill for a Friday morning laugh. I want Herb's dog! Mr. Marsh probably doesn't need mates like this.
When I was young and easily influenced I thought I had cracked the code of the reviewers I liked. At some point I realised that this was exactly what they wanted me to think. I'm much more content being able to make my own mind up with fewer external influences. But I do subscribe to Gramophone magazine now. This is far worse for my wallet
You shall not look out for a "Guru" to follow......
As i´ve said, you have to find out first;
"Easier to just read the measurement"? Yeah sure, that´s what THEY want you to think.
Given the much broader range of topics, that might be, but there is an awfull lot of misinformation around also; as said before, it´s most likely individually different, i´d assume for the most the truth is more at the middle between "not worth the paper" and "accept everything my guru writes".
Oh I know who to ignore, which helps with reducing the misinformation
Ah the ol' echo-chamber got you
Well Pavel it is clear that from that rule of thumb you will never have a high end product! All of your designs you have shown measure far too good. Maybe you could put some diodes in the feedback loop to make the gain asymmetric and get that coveted recognition. (A technique to get the tube sound.)
The thesis states that it was submitted to McGill's Department for Music Research (which is separate and apart from the faculties for engineering and the sciences).
The thesis reflects that the author's advisor was Wieslaw Woszczyk. Google Scholar shows that Woszczyk is a very active member of AES and has published a slew of papers. A glance at the titles of the papers shows that most are concerned with acoustics, rather than electronics. Oddly, Woszczyk's CV on McGill’s site does not state from where, when, or in what area of study Woszczyk received his own Ph.D.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.