@kgrlee
"To be able to compare with and without the "+1 error". The MM system is again taken into account as a separate low-pass filter. A direct comparison with the postings #120,21,22 is immediately possible. " [hbtaudio]
Of course, an amplifier “overdrives” with the factors 1000 (f approx 20Hz), 100 (f approx 1kHz), 10 (f approx 20kHz) if we feed in a signal with an amplitude of n volts.
Supply Voltage 15Vdc (minus approx 2V) ---> max swing approx 13Vpeak:
n_20 = 13 / 1000
13mVp
n_1k = 13 / 100
130mVp
n_20k = 13 / 10
1300mVp
(this consideration refers to an ordinary, standard operational amplifier)!
Since I wanted to illustrate the comparison between the filter function (regardless of the type of implementation) on the one hand and the so-called +1 error (D+E / E = D/E +1) on the other, the excitation signal is of course divided linearly to 1/1000 beforehand.
For me, of course, these matters have become second nature, just like impedance matching, starting with the dot before dash calculation.
Hopefully, I have now been able to dispel the lively notion that hbtaudio has no idea about his profession. We all make mistakes, constantly and more and more as we get older ...
We (including myself, of course) often succumb far too quickly to a preconceived view or opinion.
#
Phono equalizer preamps have been open books for eons.
Neil Armstrong walked on our moon in 1969, isn't that wonderful? I grew up with this (technically physical) miracle as a child and with sport.
So I wish us all a little more serenity and humility.
HBt.
"To be able to compare with and without the "+1 error". The MM system is again taken into account as a separate low-pass filter. A direct comparison with the postings #120,21,22 is immediately possible. " [hbtaudio]
Of course, an amplifier “overdrives” with the factors 1000 (f approx 20Hz), 100 (f approx 1kHz), 10 (f approx 20kHz) if we feed in a signal with an amplitude of n volts.
Supply Voltage 15Vdc (minus approx 2V) ---> max swing approx 13Vpeak:
n_20 = 13 / 1000
13mVp
n_1k = 13 / 100
130mVp
n_20k = 13 / 10
1300mVp
(this consideration refers to an ordinary, standard operational amplifier)!
Since I wanted to illustrate the comparison between the filter function (regardless of the type of implementation) on the one hand and the so-called +1 error (D+E / E = D/E +1) on the other, the excitation signal is of course divided linearly to 1/1000 beforehand.
For me, of course, these matters have become second nature, just like impedance matching, starting with the dot before dash calculation.
Hopefully, I have now been able to dispel the lively notion that hbtaudio has no idea about his profession. We all make mistakes, constantly and more and more as we get older ...
We (including myself, of course) often succumb far too quickly to a preconceived view or opinion.
#
Phono equalizer preamps have been open books for eons.
Neil Armstrong walked on our moon in 1969, isn't that wonderful? I grew up with this (technically physical) miracle as a child and with sport.
So I wish us all a little more serenity and humility.
HBt.
Just very briefly (and please don't create a fundamental debate out of it):
I have never really used a “complex voltage divider” in reality that represents the inverse function. This has never been necessary. In the virtual world, for pure convenience, I have set up less than 10 (fingers) simulations with such a filter.
Absolutly
#
The case can be closed. The background of this artificially constructed case is based, among other things, on Bob's VinylTrack thread, from which he detached himself.
Nick S.'s comment was about the reconstruction and restoration of historical shellac records and solely about the fact that a wide range of influences should be taken into account. Bob C. is concerned with his work and selective view of how the signal processing could look alternatively in order to achieve a less wavy frequency response and to shift the band limitation far beyond the practical 15kHz (of the typical MM system). Technically, of course, it is not a shift. Hans P. is all about the possible modeling of the sensor. Perhaps it's also a little bit about wanting to be right, or about misunderstandings. Nick S. is simply happy about his equalizer circuit and the dimensioning, which is outside the established standard.
Variety and no arguments.
In all debates, I'm on the side of logic and communications engineering, as well as evolution and physics.
Clarification completed - case closed.
best regards,
HBt.
Everything could have been shortened:
because the statement that clicks and pops have extreme amplitudes in our specific case (the daily handling of an intact LP) is simply not correct.
The hint "to unsettle" may be necessary.
HBt.
correction
quick typo 60dB attenuation should of course read:
40dB and expressed in terms of gain -40dB, i.e. 1 divided by 100. As can be deduced automatically from the voltage-time curves posted. Because we know the H[jOmega] exactly!
The last evolutionary step of our species, homo sapiens sapiens, was >> n * 10^4 earth years ago.
If we humans living today do not have a genetic defect or a disease or environmental damage to the receptive and processed aparatism, we all hear the same' and all the same thing.
Prejudices, i.e. a bias, and the currently set filters are individual and depend on many factors.
#
The above quote is largely incorrect and therefore basically worthless, although it is very common in the context of normal small talk.
kindly,
HBt.
... and no one is able to repeat it in 2025 with human crew, in the cell phone era. I call it lost knowledge and analog audio becomes to be one of them.
If your phono amp design offers 20 dB overload across the entire audio band, I’d say you are likely to handle 99% of all recorded material.
I think the statement that perhaps kicked off this discussion was my insistence that 9 dB overload was not enough, and I stand by that.
Personally, I’ll continue to shoot for 26 dB since this is imminently achievable on +-15V opamp rails.
I don’t buy the ‘clicks and pops are better handled by passive EQ’ one bit. It’s another one of those ridiculous old wives tales (like ‘feedback destroys the music’ or ‘feedback goes round and round’) that if not nipped in the bud enters audio folklore and gets repeated ad infinitum. I’m fully expecting an article or review to come up in Stereophile saying this in the next few months.
I think the statement that perhaps kicked off this discussion was my insistence that 9 dB overload was not enough, and I stand by that.
Personally, I’ll continue to shoot for 26 dB since this is imminently achievable on +-15V opamp rails.
I don’t buy the ‘clicks and pops are better handled by passive EQ’ one bit. It’s another one of those ridiculous old wives tales (like ‘feedback destroys the music’ or ‘feedback goes round and round’) that if not nipped in the bud enters audio folklore and gets repeated ad infinitum. I’m fully expecting an article or review to come up in Stereophile saying this in the next few months.
Last edited:
Alternatively I don't buy the argument that ‘clicks and pops are always better handled by active EQ'. There exists a number of factors that influence however "better" is ultimately being defined and current mode passive isn't being acknowledged as to exist in such a challenge.
If one accepts that clicks and pops are a non-issue the question becomes "then what is" that warrants spending over $50 on a pre-amp perhaps tested by ASR? What is it about those $50 devices that wasn't known and addressed 40 years ago that wouldn't pass a "properly conducted DBLT" today in the comparison to a "clean" device now costing much more?
The point is that you can't have it both ways.
If one accepts that clicks and pops are a non-issue the question becomes "then what is" that warrants spending over $50 on a pre-amp perhaps tested by ASR? What is it about those $50 devices that wasn't known and addressed 40 years ago that wouldn't pass a "properly conducted DBLT" today in the comparison to a "clean" device now costing much more?
The point is that you can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
Not related to clicks: the MM preamplifiers that do well in an ASR test are sometimes the ones that produce a lot of hiss when connected to a real cartridge, because according to PMA, ASR measures with a much too low source impedance. It's not just ASR, the same holds to a lesser extent for Stereophile, Elektor and even some Japanese standard.
There are likely countless exceptions and faulty test methods, yet what then becomes the dominant issue of low price devices if noise isn't the issue? A characteristic verifiable by DBLT for those that believe wholeheartedly in the merits of such testing.
Great, so we all can easily hear up to 20kHz, we all have the gift of absolute hearing, gladly tinitus has no negative effect and training the hearing abilities is a waste of time to name just a few things. 🤣we all hear the same' and all the same thing.
Prejudices, i.e. a bias, and the currently set filters are individual and depend on many factors.
#
The above quote is largely incorrect and therefore basically worthless, although it is very common in the context of normal small talk.
kindly,
HBt.
Hans
Of course, the low selling price itself is the problem.
What?
In other words, you don't want to believe the fact that they are basically exactly the same.
So we are dealing with questions of faith!
Let us assume that filter network a) has a lower resistance or impedance than network b), which one fulfils the task assigned to it better?
H(jOmega)_a = H(jOmega)_b
Am I right in assuming that you fundamentally assume that the existence of something is denied?
Or do you mean that a given function can be implemented passively or actively, but they are still not the same because a) is implemented passively and b) is implemented actively, while they provide the function identically?
Yes!
what if ...
What does n dollars have to do with the function (and its implementation)?
Let's put it this way: in 1985, many people discovered the Commodore 64, among other things.
And above all, there was still a functioning retail sector, climate change was already in full swing, the world was calmer on the whole, FM radio was completely in order and our record players were spinning perfectly, Thomas Magnum flickered across the screen, Captain Picard was already in the pipeline...
I'm slowly beginning to understand what you're trying to say.
Now again I don't understand anything at all, does that mean we can't have a clean device at a fair price? Clean in terms of signal processing automatically means that certain technical parameters are not undercut, right?
What minimum requirements must an equalizer preamplifier meet in order to receive at least seven sparkling stars in the zero to ten star category.
We can now define and declare this quite openly and freely.
HBt.
Post 236 is intended to refer to post 225 and ridicule a fact.
"(...) If we humans living today do not have a genetic defect or a disease or environmental damage to the receptive and processed aparatism, we all hear the same' and all the same thing. (...)" [hbtaudio]
Feel free to make fun of me
Apparently even your compatriot MarcelvdG likes this.
😍
You have distorted my statement (the quote).
"(...) If we humans living today do not have a genetic defect or a disease or environmental damage to the receptive and processed aparatism, we all hear the same' and all the same thing. (...)" [hbtaudio]
Feel free to make fun of me
Apparently even your compatriot MarcelvdG likes this.
😍
For me:
I
- want to see numbers (facts), the workmanship, the circuit diagram - and the price in €
- then form my own opinion and make a decision if I want to buy a product.
It's that easy.
HBt.
The current question of faith seems to be all about passive vs. active and no longer the question of what is better, because this question is ultimately unanswerable without context (and to make matters worse, the word "better" is not defined in the non-given context!), but what sounds better to the ears of a single individual, where the definition of the word "better" is now also not given.
#
In the meantime, this discussion thread has become a very profound and intellectually demanding thread.
Let's put the cart before the horse and look at A & B. Which version is the better one and why is that? Alternatively, the question could also be: what is the decisive difference in sound?
HBt.
#
In the meantime, this discussion thread has become a very profound and intellectually demanding thread.
Let's put the cart before the horse and look at A & B. Which version is the better one and why is that? Alternatively, the question could also be: what is the decisive difference in sound?
HBt.
