hermanv said:
You'd be surprised, it's a lot more. As for the sound quality, you are somewhat limited by the tiny mic but by uping the data rate till the quality was as good as playing music out of the memory card would go a LONG way before component quality made any difference.
Where to fit those film caps 🙂
janneman said:
Jan
I agree with your former post, where you state this (that one cannot isolate everything but the sound from a live event).
I think that it IS a good thing to turn every stone with regard to preamplfier design to tro to obtain "perfection". But on the other hand I see we are discussing a 2-channel preamplifier in a 2-channel system (even though the preamplifier circuitry itself are not limited to 2-channels - as I briefly wrote). And with a 2-channel system all spatial clues is mapped into the front channels. For example the hall echo is mapped into the front two signals. I know 2-channel systems can sound fantastic (and multichannel systems more often than not crappy), but I find this a real limitation.
I have no real problems with people discussing "the sound of fuses", but one should hold this into some kind of perspective.
While writing away I thought about another thing or two. And that is that many fine preamplifiers are used with CD-players equipped more often than not with standard IC operational amplifiers (opamps). Of course, many of us have large LP collections played back on discrete RIAA amplifiers (FET, tube, bipolar). The better digital sources - SA-CD, DVD-Audio, "DAD" 24/96 DVD-Video (E.g. Classic Records), and maybe BluRay are to a large degree impossible to get out in the digital domain from the players into DACs with more advanced circuitry. SPDIF does not carry it (except "DAD" maybe). Some players can send it out via FireWire, quite a few on HDMI. But not many really advanced DACs can receive this. Most equipment able to do so are el cheapo AV Receivers. Nothing circuit-wise compared to e.g. a BlowTorch.
I just wanted to point people toward the fact that a preamplifier also is a part of a system, and as such not stronger than the weakest link.
Thank you!
😎
RK
scott wurcer said:
Tiny electrets are used in EarthWorks' measurement microphones.
http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm
i once worked on a domed stadium.
owner's philosophy:
regardless of the sound, the dome will sell out
owner's philosophy:
regardless of the sound, the dome will sell out
R-K Rønningstad said:
considering the thread, why not assume the blowtorch is the weakest link?
Wavebourn said:
By cell phone standards those are huge (1/4" or 6mm). Mems microphones in the 3mm and 2mm per side is where the cell industry is going.
However VOIP isn't limited the way traditional telephony is and wide band VOIP systems are available and sound better, even through some cell phones w/ VOIP.
PMA said:
You may laugh, but some famous trio coming soon from Russia demanded a setup that is usually used for rock bands. 😀
1audio said:
The best sounding cell phone I ever owned was a Siemens' one I bought in South Africa ten years ago. Unfortunately, GSM frequencies here are different...
Speaking of small capsules, I am going to try an array of electrets on a stage soon. It will be a stereo setup made such a way so if the singer tries to take it into his/her mouth as they got used to both eyes will be damaged. 😀 On the last folklore festival I drew a wide white line with painted legs on the stage, anyway some of them tried to lick one of large diaphragm condensers.
myhrrhleine said:
I think we may be speeding right past a very interesting signpost here. The "weakest link" principle would suggest that improvements elsewhere are not going to make a difference if the weakest link is the limitation. However many of us have heard substantial improvements in the sound of a system but upgrading a preamp, which by any analysis is not the weakest link. Perhaps that is an incorrect metaphor for the problem we are trying to solve. its also evident when changing a power cord makes a big difference when there is 1000 miles between your house and the power station. While I don't have an answer I think the problem isn't a simple one of reducing errors to that of some limit or we would have been there years ago. Its some completely different mechanism working in what must be a pretty obvious way we just can't see.
My dog cannot perceive color but that doesn't mean color doesn't affect her life- I see the red light and we don't cross infront of moving vehicles. However she would have no way of comprehending color- and abstract concept to a dog. I think we are hitting something like this that we just haven't figures out how to comprehend. No speaker or headphone is within an order of magnitude of the distortion of a decent preamp, but we (those of us who do hear this) hear the differences through those speakers.
I have a different double blind test I have used- send prototypes of a new design to independent observers in different parts of the world who are not in contact with each other. Query their qualitative responses. if there are no perceivable differences then the responses would be random. However there has always been a remarkable correlation among those independent observers. If it were the box perhaps something could be inferred but the box (in this case it was a preamp) didn't change.
This also seems to hold with reviewers describing similar qualitative aspects to new products. (Sounds like the wine discussion earlier complete with qualitative comment and separate preferences.)
myhrrhleine said:
With all due respect, such comments (as any other straw man like arguments) are driving me nuts, even more than the GEB extrapolating their subjective opinions as absolute truths.
You just did a half baked comment, without showing an understanding what is the issue and what was intended (at Scott's suggestion) to be tested. Then you did another half baked suggestion, about some magic hocus-pocus measurements that should be more effective.
If you or anybody else has the slightest idea on how to estimate distortions from a "1 cycle on-one off", that is, how to FFT these signals, estimate the spectra, and get the required sub-ppm sensitivities, if you have any clue of a piece of equipment doing such, of any lab methodology to interpret and compare the results of such measurements, then I am all ears, ready to learn and perhaps eventually do the measurements.
Meantime, let me remind you. Short of the above half baked straw man argument, you did absolutely nothing in clearing this issue.
It is the difference between an easy to make test, and a realistic test of fuse nonlinearity. You have decided that easy is better for you, because it don't show much difference. An I-V plot of the fuse under different musical selections would be more revealing.
I don't want to be picky, but I hope you agree that electric guitar/bass (which is a combined system of the naked instrument and its amp) equally qualify as acoustical, unamplified instruments, as they are, at smaller venues (club gigs), unsually *not* amplified by any PA system. A loud and dynamic rock trio (drums/bass/guitar) is IHMO as hard to reproduce realistically for any HiFi system as any full blown orchestra.PMA said:
- Klaus
I would also like to point out that PA sound goes through waves of development and neglect. In the early years, it was film sound that drove the PA quality. Usually, movie theatres wanted good sound to go with a good picture, and efforts by Westrex, Altec, and later JBL, helped make drivers (in the USA), Vitavox, Tannoy, etc in GB, etc and many good solid designs were made that have lasted up to this time. However this reproduction quality was bandwidth limited between 70-8000Hz, for the most part. This is because film sound was not that good, except in special cases where magnetic tracks were used, such as Cinerama or very high grade Cinemascope.
Most PA systems used parts and designs from the cinema field for many years that included horns in many cases. Even bass horns were made that worked pretty well.
Of course, at first, all designs, until the mid 60's were vacuum tube driven, for good reason. The horns did not require, nor did the drivers like really high power, and would break if overdriven. Also, electric guitars and basses had their own amplifiers, especially made to give them an 'optimum' sound and this reduced the load on the PA itself that could be used mostly for voice.
When the Crown DC-300 was introduced to audio, after being first made as an industrial amp, it seemed that we could get real power into arrays of direct radiators more easily, BUT we found that the Crown sounded less powerful than an Mac tube amp with half the power rating. This we found to be because of the constrictive protection circuitry in the Crown to keep it from blowing up. Many multiples of output devices were too expensive in those days.
Still, between 1970 to 1974, I was completely involved in PA design and no expense was spared to do it right. However, in 1973, McIntosh refused to make tube amps anymore, so we had to use their solid state units, which, while reliable and better than the Crown, did not sound quite as good. This was the first instance where I found a circuit breaker to replace a fuse in an audio circuit. It worked too! During that time, I worked with other organizations that did PA, and they all cared about sound quality.
However, in recent years, most probably due to MP-3, etc, less effort has been put in this direction, I should think. People still find a live performance better than what they normally listen too, unless they invest in hi end equipment. Therefore, I can see why 'good enough' is considered OK in this modern age, just like fast food.
Most PA systems used parts and designs from the cinema field for many years that included horns in many cases. Even bass horns were made that worked pretty well.
Of course, at first, all designs, until the mid 60's were vacuum tube driven, for good reason. The horns did not require, nor did the drivers like really high power, and would break if overdriven. Also, electric guitars and basses had their own amplifiers, especially made to give them an 'optimum' sound and this reduced the load on the PA itself that could be used mostly for voice.
When the Crown DC-300 was introduced to audio, after being first made as an industrial amp, it seemed that we could get real power into arrays of direct radiators more easily, BUT we found that the Crown sounded less powerful than an Mac tube amp with half the power rating. This we found to be because of the constrictive protection circuitry in the Crown to keep it from blowing up. Many multiples of output devices were too expensive in those days.
Still, between 1970 to 1974, I was completely involved in PA design and no expense was spared to do it right. However, in 1973, McIntosh refused to make tube amps anymore, so we had to use their solid state units, which, while reliable and better than the Crown, did not sound quite as good. This was the first instance where I found a circuit breaker to replace a fuse in an audio circuit. It worked too! During that time, I worked with other organizations that did PA, and they all cared about sound quality.
However, in recent years, most probably due to MP-3, etc, less effort has been put in this direction, I should think. People still find a live performance better than what they normally listen too, unless they invest in hi end equipment. Therefore, I can see why 'good enough' is considered OK in this modern age, just like fast food.
john curl said:
John,
Could you detail the method? What "I-V plot of the fuse under different musical selections" are you talking about and how exactly would you correlate this I-V plot with the amp performance?
Let me guess: you are not here to explain and go into this level of details.
Without getting into the issue of whether or not the test is useful to you, it is not a double blind test. Very susceptible to your own biases and pre-knowledge.
While not necessary for my commercial efforts it would be easy to make it properly randomized and blind.
janneman said:
OR it could be a problem like a fluff ball under my stylus, Not in the recording NOR in my head.
1audio said:
Agreed. That's why I was a bit surprised that you didn't go the last few percent and make it considerably more rigorous.
For those who want that live sound in your home.
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/perspectives/drews-clues/audiophile.htm
Should be better than my old A7s. Don't wimp out on the preamp, use a Blowtorch. 🙂
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/perspectives/drews-clues/audiophile.htm
Should be better than my old A7s. Don't wimp out on the preamp, use a Blowtorch. 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.