Thank you Bill. Do you mean that it is impossible for the search to turn up further understanding? Could you expound the reasons obvious to you that I may not be aware of?
It's not easy otherwise we would all have motion feedback speakers. Whilst it is possible to try and cancel distortion in the speakers with a predistortion as per Nelsons fun board there are so many gotchas that, IMO it's better off considering it a 'warmth' control.
If you pick your speakers right the 2H distortion is low enough that you have other issues to fix first anyway. Trying to fix the wrong speakers by adding a different distortion profile onto them is the recipe for audiophila nervosa.
Unless you accept that what you prefer is none of anyone elses business and just kick back and enjoy. That also works.
My subs, cross-over caps, and HF drivers are all fairly new. Doesn't matter though, I did not say I used the latest speakers, did I?
I said or was trying to say that if someone thinks that decades ago the best sound was from finding amps that cancel out particular speaker distortion, it is not sufficient reason to conclude how to get the best sound today.
Overlooked by who? We got it, pathologically bad capacitors have little use in audio. Just why did you post this?
My measurement was done about a week ago, on SEAS W18NX001 driver. This is a nice small woofer with nextel coated paper cone. It keeps low distortion, in 0.1% order of magnitude. That's why I have shown it, as I do not like colorizers compensated by even more colorizing SE tube amplifiers.
And, for a multi-way speaker, any simple formula of trivial distortion cancellation is an illusion. If you ever worked seriously with speaker drivers, you must know what I mean. Otherwise I am just sorry.
Attachments
I agree that recording is an art. Whether the result is more or less palatable is a matter of taste. However, what happens after that is a matter of science, not art - at least for the hi-fi enthusiast.mmerrill99 said:
Apart from those rare occasions when an amplifier can genuinely compensate for transducer or room problems, accuracy in sound at the listener's ear arises from accuracy in voltage handling in the electronics. In any case, if you want to be able to swap amplifiers or speakers then you need both to attempt accuracy rather than complementary errors.indra1 said:
I don't see why people find 'accuracy' such an offensive word. Perhaps it is because it sounds a virtuous word, but they prefer some degree of innaccuracy so they have to convince us that their inaccuracy is somehow more accurate than our accuracy? Hence we hear about 'synergy' (i.e. the amp distorts in the opposite way to the speakers) or 'musicality' (i.e. the amp distorts in a way which I like) set in opposition to our accuracy - which they regard as 'clinical' or 'conventional'.
Who mentioned THD? Wait a minute - you just did!morinix said:
Air is fairly close to being symmetric. It is certainly more symmetric than single-sided, so the nearest approximation to air is PP not SE. Maybe the author was attempting humour?Mark Johnson said:
I think you meant to say "A well known issue with high dielectric constant caps - in particular, high dielectric constant ceramic caps"?RNMarsh said:
It puzzles me why someone looks back 40 years to find a circuit where the designer cynically designed-in some second order distortion by unbalancing an LTP, and then implying that we should copy this. All it shows is that mild FX boxes pretending to be audio equipment are not new.
Because an F5 clone Amp tuned to have about 0.3% leftover negative phase 2H sounded better to me compared to the same amp tuned to produce minimum distortion on my SB Acoustics Satori drivers. However, typical noise around my house prevented meaningful measurement of total system distortion.
Yes Bill, not easy is obvious. I am curious and willing to spend more effort if there still exists a chance of finding clearer understanding. Your previous comment worried me that somebody already proved that the mechanism has nothing to do with accuracy on conversion of recorded material to a listenable form.It's not easy ...
... Unless you accept that what you prefer is none of anyone elses business and just kick back and enjoy. That also works.
Thanks for the advice, has been working well for me for a long while.
Using what source? What hardware, what type of music? Busy and dense, soloist?
Best thing I have read from you - it's not even condescending!
Then you simply don't understand the behavior of speakers.
Audiophile use all the same words, for TOTALLY different things than measurements- this is true. "Linearity" to many of them is based on voltage sag in the amp, because the device sank too much current and flopped on it's face. Reality? The sound may have been utterly perfectly linear in playback with distortion in the thousands.
If you want to understand their concerns, setup a system where you can adjust feedback. Go between a lot and little. You'll very quickly discover the heart of what countless audiophiles are judging.
Thank you for the woofer data Mr. Macura, I fully agree with your statement I quoted above. I take it that you find bi/tri/quad amping using LLXO of little significance.
Or include a method to tune and optimize total generated distortion that some amplifiers provided. I really do wish that reasonably priced ppm distortion driver accuracy is achievable real soon. But in the mean time, why are attempts that may alleviate the problem from amplifier side being frowned upon?
Because it is being offensively used to ridicule other amplifiers simply for intrinsic higher electrical distortion disregarding cancellation effect. I suspect this attitude arising from insufficient understanding hampers progress.
Perhaps so, but non intuitive to me. It is way easier to extinguish the flame of a candle by blowing compared to inhaling.
Mostly CD quality flacs on my HP pavillion laptop, mp3 on various smartphones and a Marrantz CD player belonging to a deceased cousin. I prefer mostly jazz and soloists, but did listen to Pink Floyds, ELPs and various Sheffield Lab CDs.
Last edited:
How do you know you weren't using the amp's distortion to compensate for the CD player?
Thank you for your attention. I ripped some tracks from the CD to flacs and mp3s and play them through various devices. I got very similar impression.
I know the nut is tough, I just hope that it is possible to be cracked someday.
Last edited:
You might like to consult the posts on page 452 of this thread in this regard.
Regards,
Braca
if you agree that recording is an art (i.e. massaged & manipulated acoustically) then this directly contradicts what you said before of what Hi-fidelity was all about - fidelity to the original acoustic event which I believe you said was the ideal comparison regarding fidelity. But do you agree that what is picked up through microphones is only a small slice of the soundfield & expecting fidelity to the original acoustic event is thus logically & technically flawed as a result? All we can expect to achieve is the best illusion possible.
If instead you actually mean the fidelity to the crafted illusion that the recording engineer has created through psychoacoustic audio manipulation of the original event we are in a different territory - unless you were at the final mix down & heard what the engineer heard through his speakers/room, then you have nothing to compare to & anyway, even if you were there, many here say memory of sound is so flawed that only echoic memory is to be trusted - so a real Catch-22
I believe the only sensible approach is in our evaluation of the realism of the illusion produced & we evaluate this with different systems - does A device in the system produce a more realistic illusion than B - it's a relative evaluation, based on our internal auditory models of real world sound & behavior.
Last edited:
Where did DF96 define hi fi as "fidelity to the original acoustic event "?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.