That’s always my objective.
But when I have no clue and no further information to clarify is brought forward, then there is litlle to brainstorm, isn’t it.
I don’t think I’m the only one who doesn’t get your message, so it’s most likely not a one to one communication.
Just a missed opportunity.
Hans
An image tells sometimes more than a thousand words.
Just stating that the opposite is true is in contradiction with what the simulation is showing, so please tell me how you came to that conclusion.
Hans
The simulation shown has nothing to do with “my equalizer preamp” but is an obvious version with gnd reference.
Why are you making such insinuations, completely counter productive.
The simulation was a straight answer to the question whether a passive versus an active EQ could shed some light on eventual differences.
Hans
This is where are in complete disagreement.Fully agree, it can then be measured and localized to the mechanism of action by means of correlation and logic. However, only with a strictly analytical approach and reflection.
Actually, the original sub-topic is highlighting the clicks and pops by mishandling the ingredients and misinterpreting the recipe.
Potato soup a tastes better or worse than potato soup b. However, chromatography and mass spectroscopy have clearly shown that a = b and b = a.
Bye,
HBt.
What you are saying is that two amplifiers measuring the same, will sound the same.
If so all Audio magazines only would have to measure and leave the listening part and manufacturers will have a relaxed time to produce equipment according to a measuring standard.
But, I can only repeat that correlation between measuring and sound perception is very weak.
Hans
What is the reason that you keep this Mr. In your postings.
I don’t think it it helps to make the discussions more fluid.
Hans
Certainly. IM requires some form of non-linear transfer function that doesn't necessarily involve clipping. Signals in the pre-RIAA, those that contain higher amplitudes of high frequency signals caused by inverse RIAA, those being in the presence of a non-linear transfer function, can generate amplitudes of distortions that are also increased as a function by some exponent. Those in turn can create intermodulation artifacts magnified lower down in frequency by subsequent RIAA filtering, this in relation to the subsequent upper frequency attenuation caused by the RIAA correction.
In the presence of single sided pops and clicks in combination with non-linearities can result in more dominant IM than HD. Yet without such distortion there seems no relevance to pops and clicks being of significance from an electrical perspective. This leaves the turntable/cartridge responses to such events as potentially more significant sonically.
A seemingly classic multi-stage implementation employs both passive and active RIAA, with a 75uSec passive network preceded by an active 50/500 Hz network. The advantage of the passive is in the attenuation of high frequencies at lower levels being terminated into a ground, termination that can include EMI/RFI generated from an input stage. This approach can ensure a high frequency sink into ground that could otherwise be impacted by slew rate limiting or other frequency limitations by some active device in a feedback loop.
Ultimately it is considered that a single stage network is a questionable approach, that seems requires a formidable response to protect against high frequencies feeding into the inputs. Although this can be mitigated in part by using FET input devices it isn't clear if this can result in the finest reproduction possible.
In reference specifically to slew rate this presupposes that only signals created by an MM or MC via its mechanics are presented to a device.
The correlation may be very weak for you but not for somebody else. Repeating your mantra does not make sound perception less subjective.
Not everything is necessarily known. Repeating an alternative mantra that the lack of evidence for the existence of something proves it doesn't exist is equally suspect. The failure of test equally doesn't prove it.
What I know is that yours or Hans's subjective sound perception has very weak relevance to me or to anybody else. So if you tell me that you prefer A over B my reaction is "so what" or "nice to know" at best. Nothing else.
The rise time of the 'click' of course is limited by the mechanical response of the stylus+cantelever response - it can never be microseconds and it is well within the ability of any decent opamp in an all-active EQ to track accurately. What's interesting for me is that the click pulse width (I am looking at -0.2 to +0.2 ms) is right in the mid-band.
Last edited:
Surely this is overcome by good layout practice? I'm trying to understand the relevance here.
I think it depends on surface shape of the click. In that measurement we have 95us from zero to peak (rise) and 26us from peak to zero (fall). The fall time corresponds with impulse BW.
Those clicks may look a bit different, but the edges are of similar length. Below examples collected during years.
I suggest that you haven't conducted a poll of "anybody else" to be so bold. Furthermore, relevance is oftentimes a cause to take action, hence to suggest not to take action upon the conclusion something is concluded has no relevance asserts a normal human condition. This isn't inspirational.
It should be understood that the (click) voltage shape from a phono cartridge will never look like this:
Isn’t that exactly the point that sound perception is subjective and that we don’t all hear the same.
It’s unmeasurable.
Hans
I think it’s time to leave this thread.
There is often so little respect for each other.
Almost every other contribution is critisized.
It’s really true but very sad that phono threads are often that destructive.
Hans
There is often so little respect for each other.
Almost every other contribution is critisized.
It’s really true but very sad that phono threads are often that destructive.
Hans