stinius said:
It's in the eyes of the beholder, as Joshua_G said. We continued to talk about phase intermodulations while others tried to turn the talk on personalities: who got on who, and so on. I even spent some time drawing schematics to show how phase intermodulations can be created. But this is the topic about John Curl's preamplifier, not about Bob Cordell's PIM measurement instrument, so please stop leading us off the topic. And please stop generalizing what "almost everyone" think; we did not delegate you such responsibilities.
I know and that was not my intention.Wavebourn said:
It is 121 468 members on this forum, so why don’t we let them vote?
The members that support your view can raise their hands, and say that they support you.
The members that are “almost everybody” can stay calm and don’t have to do anything.
If you are getting more then 60 734 votes, you are the winner.
That’s fair play
stinius said:
No, it does not work such a way. You should ask who delegates you their right to speak on the forum instead of them.
Who agrees to give you own right to speak may be represented by you. Otherwise you expropriate their rights speaking instead of them.
That's fair.
But anyway that's your repeated attempt to pull the discussion off-topic.
I suppose that is correct. You can only critique what you CAN hear , perhaps making you more tolerant of equipment that has shortcomings. There might be others that can hear like bats, (I sure learned) who would readily point out those shortcomings.
We can equalize before the fact (early in the chain) to compensate for OUR shortcomings. Loosing sensitivity has a certain "breaking point" as far as enjoyment. My wife has hearing issues , she can not hear fingers on strings or other subtle aspects of the recording. She enjoys the music (the part she can hear) , but what happens over 7-8Khz matters not. (all equipment sounds alike as long as it is loud with good bass). Same as the "boomers" in their cars , shorting out good ears by early adulthood , could not discern a "soundstage" if it fell on their head. 😀
OS
ostripper said:
I have a different opinion: what someone CAN hear may be the result of perception filtering (Deletion, Distortion, Generalization, remember?), while the answer "natural sound / distorted sound" may be given by subconscious mind.
Yes , back to that... it costs more and specs @ lower THD , so we are prebiased to think it sounds better or that it's sound (the expensive component) IS the better sound. We are told if we do not adhere to that perception , it is because we are not "refined" enough to appreciate the "vintage wine".
It is a proven fact ... older humans lose HF(at least attenuated). Period. Some CAN'T hear some things. Defective ears , WAX , even a cold or alcohol can change both range and perception.
OS
Everyone who is interested in the same subject as me: Perhaps if we ignored certain individuals who are attempting to take over the thread, then they will get their own thread started and leave us to go back to what we were attempting to talk about throughout this thread. I went through much of the early part of this thread, and I stand by it. At least the first 100 pages. Today, if I were not aware of this thread previously, I would be confused and put off that anything useful could be put forward here, including interesting schematics, yet we used to do it well enough.
We have done this before. For example, I hardly have bothered Bob Cordell, unless he challenges me directly on threads associated with him. I hardly have ever debated with Nelson Pass, considering him a colleague, and although we don't think exactly alike, I know his design record, and its independent evaluation by others who have also evaluated me. We both make 'A' designs when we go for it. As a professional, I think that quibbling with him and his ideas would be immature, to say the least. What do the rest of you think?
We have done this before. For example, I hardly have bothered Bob Cordell, unless he challenges me directly on threads associated with him. I hardly have ever debated with Nelson Pass, considering him a colleague, and although we don't think exactly alike, I know his design record, and its independent evaluation by others who have also evaluated me. We both make 'A' designs when we go for it. As a professional, I think that quibbling with him and his ideas would be immature, to say the least. What do the rest of you think?
ostripper said:
I don't question that, however; I wanted to add that hearing problems may be very often results of perception filtering; children are more flexible, they did not develop such perception filters yet. But I witnessed many times how old people who used to say, "Anyway I don't hear the difference" started appreciating the clean sounding equipment as soon as they've heard one at once, and start hearing distortions of an ordinary equipment. My speculation is, because they realized that an equipment can sound closer to reality than they used to think before.
PMA said:
And your evidence for this is ?? Or is this part of a misleading and deceptive marketing strategy to make people think that only something that is more complex to construct must be better ??
regards
trev
john curl said:
I didn't know it was your thread. It certainly wasn't started by you.
By the way the original request was for some schematic diagrams of your pre-amp. Do you have those handy by any chance ??
Since you are not making this pre-amp anymore,why not release the design details into the public domain for others to build. After all this is a DIY forum and you would assume that the DIY aspect of it would take precedence over anyone with any commercial interests.
regards
trev
Quote
"No. It is possible to get both very low distortion and pleasant, natural sound. Not with opamps and lot of global NFB. Everyone can use an opamp according to a datasheet cookbook. You need no skills for it. "
Unquote
Sounds like another broad brush generalization to me.
"No. It is possible to get both very low distortion and pleasant, natural sound. Not with opamps and lot of global NFB. Everyone can use an opamp according to a datasheet cookbook. You need no skills for it. "
Unquote
Sounds like another broad brush generalization to me.
To get to something real and less of the personal taste stuff the issue of bandwidth and band limiting was just touched on. Its closely connected but not the same as flatness of response. There are academic studies that have pretty good info on perceptible thresholds on flatness but less useful stuff on bandwidth. And issues relating to the impact of phase shift at the band ends etc. are not really commonly accepted.
In no-feedback designs flat response is more difficult and can be very dependent on load (even line stages). I think issue of hearing loss relates but not as much as it may seem. Extended bandwidth is also sensitive to loading etc. How would that all be addressed in the open loop perfectionist genre?
What range and tolerances can be achieved?
In no-feedback designs flat response is more difficult and can be very dependent on load (even line stages). I think issue of hearing loss relates but not as much as it may seem. Extended bandwidth is also sensitive to loading etc. How would that all be addressed in the open loop perfectionist genre?
What range and tolerances can be achieved?
Well, I recently ran some test tones through my speaker (60dB at 18 inches), and above 8kHz I couldn't hear anything even with my ear up fairly close to the speaker. I have hearing loss in the high frequencies but I can still hear high up, but I loose 30dB sensitivity. So I'm kind of wondering if the tweeter is blown, and maybe that what's causing the noise from my speaker?
I guess I better check that tweeter out. Hmmm ... I have no point. Though I don't think ultimate bandwidth of the amp matters if it's beyond a persons hearing range. But, just having high frequency hearing loss doesn't mean you can't hear sounds in those frequencies. They'd just be quieter.
I guess I better check that tweeter out. Hmmm ... I have no point. Though I don't think ultimate bandwidth of the amp matters if it's beyond a persons hearing range. But, just having high frequency hearing loss doesn't mean you can't hear sounds in those frequencies. They'd just be quieter.
Wavebourn,
Beethoven composed the Moonlight Sonata in 1801, was completely deaf in 1818, died in 1827.
Beethoven composed the Moonlight Sonata in 1801, was completely deaf in 1818, died in 1827.
Lumba Ogir said:
I'm getting older, don't remember some details of what learned 40 years ago...
But what he composed then being deaf? When Julietta Guicciardi left him choosing another man who she believed was the real composer, unlike that crazy guy Ludvig, he wrote his Moonlight Sonata about her. It is the story that I remember.
Wavebourn,
forbiddance by her parents prevented Giulietta Guicciardi from marrying him.
He was completely deaf when he wrote his ninth symphony (1824). Actually, he began to lose his hearing around 1796.
forbiddance by her parents prevented Giulietta Guicciardi from marrying him.
He was completely deaf when he wrote his ninth symphony (1824). Actually, he began to lose his hearing around 1796.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.