The irony of "Brave New World" as one of the great dystopian novels is not lost here. If Mitch got together with Ray Kurzweil and realized what they are working on we get the "feelies". In any case we need to lighten up these proceedings, this stuff is not that important.
For those interested I consider "1984", "Brave New World", and Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" as the great dystopian trilogy.
For those interested I consider "1984", "Brave New World", and Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" as the great dystopian trilogy.
PMA said:
This is a very important piece of information, thank you for letting everybody know.
I was personally terrified by the perspective of discussing that schematic in public. It must be something that is far and beyond the understanding of a PWV, so thank you again for saving everybody some embarrasment.
Scott, you won't even talk to Dick Sequerra or Mitch Cotter privately, and get some directions. I certainly can't help you, as I have even less rapport with you, than you have with them, and they are better educated. Live and learn, Scott. (Taken from "live and learn, patroller" from the 'Sharing Knife' saga, vol 3 ).
Hi stinius,
Over the course of 30 some odd years, I went from everything that was new, to seeing many similar designs that were in vogue at the time. These days I do see the very odd thing that is different, but often a "new" design is simply a rehash of an older idea. Newer parts may result in improved performance, but it's basically the same old thing again. Mind you, that never diminishes my respect for someone who does execute a design nicely. I didn't think it was sporting or fair for you to comment on a new design from Pavel the way you did. For sure that will apply to almost everything out there, so the only reason for that remark would have been to diminish whatever Pavel is working on.
Just look at some recent threads. There has been more ego play and grand standing than I would expect from professionals. The number of personal slights continues to grow and nothing is accomplished. Then we have some members breaking off to mindlessly attack whoever dares question whoever they have deemed to be their "audio god". Some people have very obviously failed kindergarten.
This has been a very odd thread. We have some claiming to be professional people, then acting like children almost right away. We also have some people who, rather than claim their superiority, simply make an observation or argument with backup. They are acting professionally without all the other theatrics seen elsewhere.
The true spirit of engineering and electronics people tends to foster education and growth in others. There is a lot is satisfaction in teaching someone and watching the light bulbs come on. Helping other people is what puts the real joy in whatever hobby or profession you happen to be involved with.
It is really disappointing to see someone holding on to "secrets" tightly. You can almost here the refrain in their head: Nah, nah.. nah ..... nah, nah .. nah ....<repeat> . Really silly.
"Ego stroking is down the hall three doors on your left .... this is arguments"
-Chris
I made a reference to that in my post. There really isn't much that can be done that has not been done before. Most topologies will be variations of prior art in some way. Really, the only exceptions may be on the die level in an op amps due to the properties that can be exploited.
Over the course of 30 some odd years, I went from everything that was new, to seeing many similar designs that were in vogue at the time. These days I do see the very odd thing that is different, but often a "new" design is simply a rehash of an older idea. Newer parts may result in improved performance, but it's basically the same old thing again. Mind you, that never diminishes my respect for someone who does execute a design nicely. I didn't think it was sporting or fair for you to comment on a new design from Pavel the way you did. For sure that will apply to almost everything out there, so the only reason for that remark would have been to diminish whatever Pavel is working on.
The reason is simple.
Just look at some recent threads. There has been more ego play and grand standing than I would expect from professionals. The number of personal slights continues to grow and nothing is accomplished. Then we have some members breaking off to mindlessly attack whoever dares question whoever they have deemed to be their "audio god". Some people have very obviously failed kindergarten.
This has been a very odd thread. We have some claiming to be professional people, then acting like children almost right away. We also have some people who, rather than claim their superiority, simply make an observation or argument with backup. They are acting professionally without all the other theatrics seen elsewhere.
The true spirit of engineering and electronics people tends to foster education and growth in others. There is a lot is satisfaction in teaching someone and watching the light bulbs come on. Helping other people is what puts the real joy in whatever hobby or profession you happen to be involved with.
It is really disappointing to see someone holding on to "secrets" tightly. You can almost here the refrain in their head: Nah, nah.. nah ..... nah, nah .. nah ....<repeat> . Really silly.
"Ego stroking is down the hall three doors on your left .... this is arguments"
-Chris
The trouble is Chris, are you or are you not considering the basic logic in forming your conclusions? Have you considered what I have now repeatedly written that there are many factors which affect sound and any particular conclusion is really just one out of many?
E.g. suppose you have repaired 10 amplifiers. Each of them have been tested with a particular choice of cd players, rooms, speakers and on different days. Therefore any concousion you reach will be based on those particular choices.
Hi Scott,
Many really good ideas have popped out now and again, lost in the din of all the squabbling. I have been talking to a Chinese (?) company about releasing a USB type 'scope better suited to audio and other low frequency uses. I don't know where that will go. I'm looking for higher bit depth and sample rate. Something that goes up to 20 MHz at 24 or even 16 bits would be amazing.
I have more little test jigs and partial ideas lying around ... even differential probes to look at both bases of diff pairs. Interesting stuff.
My belief is pretty clear. You take all the information you can on a problem in order to bring about the best solution that you can at the time. What that means in the context of audio design is that the instrumentation and your own hearing each provide valuable information. In fact, they are used as a cross check for each other. The better instrument you have, the more faith you can place in what it is telling you. The inverse of this is that too much importance can be placed with readings from lower quality instruments. You must know the limitations of the equipment you are using. I guess your statement is referring to someone who does not fully appreciate the limitations of their test equipment and ignores what their ears are telling them. I would have to agree with that statement where it applies.
To extend that thought some, I guess there are many people out there that do not understand the limitations of any test equipment - no matter how good it is. They then may generalize that this applies to everyone who uses test instrumentation in forming an opinion. I'm pretty sure that you have worked with people who did not understand why some readings would be invalid when they call for assistance. I'm also sure that you know people who still test, but know when the confidence level starts to drop. They will then also trust what they can hear as well - to the limits of human hearing of course. It's a tough balancing act, but it is far better than either only measuring, or only listening.
I also know that human nature will make everyone desire to be respected. To have something to offer in whatever hobby they may have. But there are times when you really do need some type of device in order to guide your efforts in improving your skills. We all know what that means in electronics, but consider a shooter (hunter or target - no matter). In order to get the most from their weapon (handgun or rifle), they will typically load their own ammunition. That means they will have various powders, weigh scales, micrometers and other dimensional equipment, sky screens (to measure velocity) and maybe even pressure sensors mounted on the barrel. More as well if needed. It's a similar game compared to audio. They can hear the shot, they can feel the recoil and they can see where the bullet struck the target. Some will stop there and only buy factory built ammunition. That's fine, but they can only speak with knowledge up to a point. The rest is pure guesswork, and they may be adamant about what they "know". However, introduce the fellow with the equipment and he can say with certainty what effects a different bullet weight may have, or more importantly, the effect of ambient temperature. That person knows. The other person just beats their chest and makes a lot of noise, but at the end of the day, they do not really know what is going on.
Both audio and shooting are studies that have a host of variables that need to be controlled or quantified in order to discern just what exactly is going on. The people without equipment are in the same boat, but they want to have an opinion anyway. Even if they really do not have any confirmed answers. Of course, we also have people who may buy some test equipment, but they don't understand what answers are correct and which have built in errors due to method or signal vs equipment issues.
Let's just ask one simple question. Why is it that an electronics shop is required to own some basic level of equipment and quality of equipment? Well, the answer is stunningly simple. You can not verify a piece of audio equipment is working within it's stated specifications without actually measuring it. You can certainly hear when it is not at times, but not all the time and not to any level of certainty without measuring it. Like it or not, the human animal just is not that good at hearing consistently or accurately.
These points are not directed at you Scott. It would be inappropriate for me to think I had a better handle on this stuff than you do. I am being more complete in my answer for the benefit of anyone who reads this.
-Chris
Yes, you are right about that. However, can you imagine trying to nail all the real issues down? Heck, I haven't a clue what some people are on about.
Truly!
Many really good ideas have popped out now and again, lost in the din of all the squabbling. I have been talking to a Chinese (?) company about releasing a USB type 'scope better suited to audio and other low frequency uses. I don't know where that will go. I'm looking for higher bit depth and sample rate. Something that goes up to 20 MHz at 24 or even 16 bits would be amazing.
I have more little test jigs and partial ideas lying around ... even differential probes to look at both bases of diff pairs. Interesting stuff.
I'm glad you brought that up. This is what I have been trying to say since forever here. Your wording is interesting, and may get some thinking a little. Maybe even because I didn't say it!
My belief is pretty clear. You take all the information you can on a problem in order to bring about the best solution that you can at the time. What that means in the context of audio design is that the instrumentation and your own hearing each provide valuable information. In fact, they are used as a cross check for each other. The better instrument you have, the more faith you can place in what it is telling you. The inverse of this is that too much importance can be placed with readings from lower quality instruments. You must know the limitations of the equipment you are using. I guess your statement is referring to someone who does not fully appreciate the limitations of their test equipment and ignores what their ears are telling them. I would have to agree with that statement where it applies.
To extend that thought some, I guess there are many people out there that do not understand the limitations of any test equipment - no matter how good it is. They then may generalize that this applies to everyone who uses test instrumentation in forming an opinion. I'm pretty sure that you have worked with people who did not understand why some readings would be invalid when they call for assistance. I'm also sure that you know people who still test, but know when the confidence level starts to drop. They will then also trust what they can hear as well - to the limits of human hearing of course. It's a tough balancing act, but it is far better than either only measuring, or only listening.
I also know that human nature will make everyone desire to be respected. To have something to offer in whatever hobby they may have. But there are times when you really do need some type of device in order to guide your efforts in improving your skills. We all know what that means in electronics, but consider a shooter (hunter or target - no matter). In order to get the most from their weapon (handgun or rifle), they will typically load their own ammunition. That means they will have various powders, weigh scales, micrometers and other dimensional equipment, sky screens (to measure velocity) and maybe even pressure sensors mounted on the barrel. More as well if needed. It's a similar game compared to audio. They can hear the shot, they can feel the recoil and they can see where the bullet struck the target. Some will stop there and only buy factory built ammunition. That's fine, but they can only speak with knowledge up to a point. The rest is pure guesswork, and they may be adamant about what they "know". However, introduce the fellow with the equipment and he can say with certainty what effects a different bullet weight may have, or more importantly, the effect of ambient temperature. That person knows. The other person just beats their chest and makes a lot of noise, but at the end of the day, they do not really know what is going on.
Both audio and shooting are studies that have a host of variables that need to be controlled or quantified in order to discern just what exactly is going on. The people without equipment are in the same boat, but they want to have an opinion anyway. Even if they really do not have any confirmed answers. Of course, we also have people who may buy some test equipment, but they don't understand what answers are correct and which have built in errors due to method or signal vs equipment issues.
Let's just ask one simple question. Why is it that an electronics shop is required to own some basic level of equipment and quality of equipment? Well, the answer is stunningly simple. You can not verify a piece of audio equipment is working within it's stated specifications without actually measuring it. You can certainly hear when it is not at times, but not all the time and not to any level of certainty without measuring it. Like it or not, the human animal just is not that good at hearing consistently or accurately.
These points are not directed at you Scott. It would be inappropriate for me to think I had a better handle on this stuff than you do. I am being more complete in my answer for the benefit of anyone who reads this.
-Chris
Hi Kenji,
So, like, what are you asking me here?
I have had the real benefit of having almost every single brand of equipment on my bench. The ones that interested me came home for a listen (with the customer's approval of course!). Between that and the time period I was servicing equipment, I'm a pretty lucky fellow.
Kenji, you have no idea how many people showed up with their product to request that I perform the popular modification for that time. More often than not, their equipment wasn't even working properly - and certainly not to "spec". These are normally people very interested in getting the most from their equipment as possible. The "golden ear" crowd.
I had two options. Correct their problem (and make no mention of this), install the modification and be the audio god. Or, repair the problem and ask them to come in and listen before they pursued any circuit or component changes. I always did call them in after fixing the problem. Most could not believe they did not detect that the equipment was not operating properly. All were extremely pleased with the results. Sometimes after that I would make certain changes, but only ones that made a real improvement.
I enjoy live music as well.
I do believe that my likes and dislikes have the benefit of knowing how many products sound, and certainly I have been able to correlate what I hear to what I can measure to some extent. I also enjoy the music instead of listening to the equipment - unless I am designing something. Once it's finished, I just enjoy it.
I have and enjoy different brands of both tube and solid state type gear. I currently have examples of all of these here. They each bring something different to the table, but may favorite is quieter and cleaner than the others. That does not detract from the enjoyment I get from listening to any number of units though. Cosmetics also play a part. If a unit is both beautiful to look at, and it sounds good, I'll be even happier.
I do not like things that sound bad, or have problems.
I don't know if I answered your question, but I think that the way you asked it, it's too difficult to give an answer.
-Chris
Give me a break! Now what are you picking at?
Sure. Often you fail to determine what factors bear on the topic at hand. Then you want to play with "conditions" in order to try and win a debate that doesn't exist.
Consider this. I worked on a bench with the same loudspeakers, amp, preamp and tuner for many years. I've repaired a silly high number of audio components with this setup, often using the same CD. The temperature was pretty constant at around 20 ~ 22 °C as well. The pressure and humidity are well outside my abilities to control. This test bench and equipment was deemed to be more than acceptable by every single company we did warranty service for. That also means I often saw many of the same model of product time and time again.
So, like, what are you asking me here?
I have had the real benefit of having almost every single brand of equipment on my bench. The ones that interested me came home for a listen (with the customer's approval of course!). Between that and the time period I was servicing equipment, I'm a pretty lucky fellow.
Kenji, you have no idea how many people showed up with their product to request that I perform the popular modification for that time. More often than not, their equipment wasn't even working properly - and certainly not to "spec". These are normally people very interested in getting the most from their equipment as possible. The "golden ear" crowd.
I had two options. Correct their problem (and make no mention of this), install the modification and be the audio god. Or, repair the problem and ask them to come in and listen before they pursued any circuit or component changes. I always did call them in after fixing the problem. Most could not believe they did not detect that the equipment was not operating properly. All were extremely pleased with the results. Sometimes after that I would make certain changes, but only ones that made a real improvement.
I enjoy live music as well.
I do believe that my likes and dislikes have the benefit of knowing how many products sound, and certainly I have been able to correlate what I hear to what I can measure to some extent. I also enjoy the music instead of listening to the equipment - unless I am designing something. Once it's finished, I just enjoy it.
I have and enjoy different brands of both tube and solid state type gear. I currently have examples of all of these here. They each bring something different to the table, but may favorite is quieter and cleaner than the others. That does not detract from the enjoyment I get from listening to any number of units though. Cosmetics also play a part. If a unit is both beautiful to look at, and it sounds good, I'll be even happier.
I do not like things that sound bad, or have problems.
I don't know if I answered your question, but I think that the way you asked it, it's too difficult to give an answer.
-Chris
Joshua_G said:
Joshua,
There is no contradiction here. Being biased in some way doesn't mean you take a wrong decision. Clearly, you would never buy an amp that sounds bad to you, no matter what the bias.
Let me try an example. Suppose you are looking for a new amp and you are invited by a friend to come over and listen to his new amp 'A'. When you get there, another friend comes over bringing his amp 'B'. You guys spend a nice evening listening to music and switching amps. They have some differences but both sound pretty good and enjoyable.
After you get home you decide to try the amps out in your own system. You learn that amp 'A' has a dealer close near you, while the amp 'B' dealer is 200 miles away. Next day you drop in at 'A' and arrange to loan the amp over the weekend.
The amp really shines in your system, all previous reservations are gone. You'd really like to buy it, but would prefer also to listen to 'B' because 'A' is more expensive and you know 'B' is also pretty good. When you call the 'A' dealer to discuss returning the amp, he tells you he has a 15% discount on that brand right now. You really are not looking forward to two round trips of 400 miles each for something that probably will be a close call anyway, so you decide there and then to buy 'A'.
Was it a good choice? Absolutely, you got the amp that will give you a lot of enjoyment with a good discount. Good deal all around. Were you biased? Absolutely, at several stages in the process, and then some we haven't mentioned. If your friends would have had brands 'C' and 'D', you probably never would have bought 'A'.
If both 'A' and 'B' dealers had been close to you, changes are you would have selected 'B'. Etc etc. So, there you have it, clear bias as an influence in your final decision. But that decision is still a good one.
Its only an example, and there are undoubtedly holes in it, and you yourself can probably come up with many different ones. And it is not specific to audio of course; the same general principles apply to buying a car or anti-dandruff shampoo.
Jan Didden
john curl said:
I seriously advise you folks to keep this stuff as a trade secret. You'll just serve to make your three rules of discovery a self fulfilling prophesy. I don't think there are any manipulations of FFT data that have remained "undiscovered", you will just be poking a stick into a hornets nest.
EDIT - Are you really rehashing uA709 measurments? The hornets have left the building.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.