Yan, you are not careful, this method was defended by a doctoral dissertation by Doctor of Technical Sciences Sapozhkov back in 1954. I already wrote about this. Then, in 1972, Baksandal published a similar method, and soon I. Akulinichev published a number of vector distortion indicators. But all these methods imply phase adjustment, which is absolutely wrong, as a result, phase distortions leading to amplitude-phase conversion of signals are excluded from the analysis. The simplest and most reliable method is Hafler, moreover, it does not require dubious adjustments. It doesn't matter that it doesn't measure distortion directly. If there are no additional distortion products on the vector errors, and the errors themselves are below -60 ... -70 dB, then everything is in order with the amplifier distortions. The most important thing is that even a novice radio amateur who has only an oscilloscope at his disposal, or even just his own ears, can conduct a test
Jan:
«Your posts basically throw up a bunch of graphs and hope that we somehow figure out what your point is.
You could be 10 times as effective in 1/10th of the time if you tried to communicate.»
Jan, graphs with model diagrams and all the necessary comments to the tests. Of course, I cannot compare with you in the number of "beads", your posts are about 20% in this thread
Jan:
«Your posts basically throw up a bunch of graphs and hope that we somehow figure out what your point is.
You could be 10 times as effective in 1/10th of the time if you tried to communicate.»
Jan, graphs with model diagrams and all the necessary comments to the tests. Of course, I cannot compare with you in the number of "beads", your posts are about 20% in this thread
Last edited:
Baxandall, with 'x'.
And if you are content with a method that can go down to -60 or -70dB, all modern amplifiers will look the same and your measurement is absolutely useless.
Jan
And if you are content with a method that can go down to -60 or -70dB, all modern amplifiers will look the same and your measurement is absolutely useless.
Jan
I think the topic here is if the vector error is different at a zero crossing or not, i.e. does it vary with the level in a stationary signal? At start from zero...?
//
//
Ohh yes, you are much better than I am. You made 250 posts in a total of 770, so that's more than 30%.
So you had it wrong, again.
Jan
If you look at the definition of the vector error as defined by Jiri Dostal, it does basically depend on almost anything in the transfer function. It varies with amplitude errors (including harmonic distortion) as well as with phase shifts and any combination of the two.
That is why a vector error could be used to compare two different circuits as to their 'accuracy', but it doesn't tell you anything about the type or relative proportion of the elements of the accuracy error, it's a sort of lumped quantity. So for audio it's pretty much useless.
Jan
That is why a vector error could be used to compare two different circuits as to their 'accuracy', but it doesn't tell you anything about the type or relative proportion of the elements of the accuracy error, it's a sort of lumped quantity. So for audio it's pretty much useless.
Jan
for those who did not understand how the Hafler test works
here is a picture with additional comments
The 4th graph is the result of the distortion test, which is difficult to do in a real amplifier due to the lack of the ability to make delays with high accuracy.
When you adjust the phase, you can turn off the higher harmonics of a slow amplifier and then indulge your pride: "what a good amplifier I made"
I take my leave, further "in the future, cook in your little world" yourself
here is a picture with additional comments
The 4th graph is the result of the distortion test, which is difficult to do in a real amplifier due to the lack of the ability to make delays with high accuracy.
When you adjust the phase, you can turn off the higher harmonics of a slow amplifier and then indulge your pride: "what a good amplifier I made"
I take my leave, further "in the future, cook in your little world" yourself
Attachments
Last edited:
Stick to your words once in a life please and good riddance.
You will be not missed at all.
I’m sure such is the final result of your “spreading the truth to the blind and stupid” on any forum you pester and I glean there were quite a few.
tombo56:
«… the blind and stupid” on any forum you pester and I glean there were quite a few».
It's hard to disagree with this 🙂
it's good that at least I learned something, and that's okay
«… the blind and stupid” on any forum you pester and I glean there were quite a few».
It's hard to disagree with this 🙂
it's good that at least I learned something, and that's okay
Sarcasm is lost on you as is any fine technical point explained by other discussion participants.
Stick to your words please.
Stick to your words please.
petr_2009 give us very useful information and persons like Fagos do nothing more than
insulting and misunderstanding what exactly is written.
This is childish and not professional behaviour I think.
You say that petr_2009 "cannot prove nothing", so Mr. Fagos, can you show us the results of your work in this case?
Because on the simulation that petr_2009 provide, the results is clear. But it seems that they are not clear for you.
insulting and misunderstanding what exactly is written.
This is childish and not professional behaviour I think.
You say that petr_2009 "cannot prove nothing", so Mr. Fagos, can you show us the results of your work in this case?
Because on the simulation that petr_2009 provide, the results is clear. But it seems that they are not clear for you.
After all that was explained by people with real knowledge and experience in designing, building and measuring amplifiers, this is really a “fantastic” argument.
Simulation with ideal unlimited bandwidth signal has nothing in common with real universe and physic laws.
So, why you don’t use this “useful information” to build (no simulation phantasies please) an amplifier that will shame all designs that are in existence and present it here?
Altium, it is not clear to me what specific results you want to see. If everything that was said earlier in the topic did not convince you, then perhaps you should first turn to the textbooks. In addition, formally, petr-2009 showed nothing but simulations and quotes. And as you know, the burden of proof lies on the approver.
I am glad if the information of petr_2009 is useful for you and everything has become obvious to you. I hope you have strong arguments that you could provide in defense of his point of view? It would be appropriate, I think, and no one would be against it.
Pagos, petr-2009 is author of many really good sounding amplifiers, also he provide lot of articles in russian and ukrainian magazines.
Since I see that you have a very negative attitude towards him, I would like that you show us your developments: your schemes, simulations, real prototypes, etc.
If you do not have such, it seems very frivolous to criticize his developments, because they really sound very good.
I've make some of them and they showed excellent results of measurements and auditions.
So, please stop being rude to him, it does not make a good impression.
Since I see that you have a very negative attitude towards him, I would like that you show us your developments: your schemes, simulations, real prototypes, etc.
If you do not have such, it seems very frivolous to criticize his developments, because they really sound very good.
I've make some of them and they showed excellent results of measurements and auditions.
So, please stop being rude to him, it does not make a good impression.
But petr showed nothing, but unrealistic simulations.. And he was the only rude here. And he showed nothing you ask by other.
Last edited:
A quick glance at this thread shows that the person in need of a lesson in politeness is pjetr himself. As we say "what goes around, comes around". Who, btw, until now did not show any real designs of his own here that could be criticized.