As we all know, and you especially, it is neither a voltage source nor a current source. It is a mechanoelectrical transducer that can be modelled by a dummy electrical higher order RLC circuit. Some examples and hints:
https://pspatialaudio.com/analogy.htm
https://dadaelectronics.com.au/doc/Audio/RIAA/MM Paper.pdf
Oversimplification always leads to false conclusions.
@PMA
Even if the question is general, it is directed at "Hierfi" - it should be a hint; the fact that I personally know this field inside out is irrelevant.
#
You made my day
😉
#
Do we really want to take the bull by the horns or would we rather just philosophize inane?
@Hierfi
Where are your concrete examples that I have been waiting for here for some time now?
HBt.
Even if the question is general, it is directed at "Hierfi" - it should be a hint; the fact that I personally know this field inside out is irrelevant.
#
Don't panic, my analytical thinking apparatus works perfectly.
You made my day
😉
#
Do we really want to take the bull by the horns or would we rather just philosophize inane?
@Hierfi
Where are your concrete examples that I have been waiting for here for some time now?
HBt.
The entire discussion is completely fruitless and will peter out if only fortune cookies continue to be unwrapped.
#
One party will forever owe the necessary answers; it must do so in order to avoid the threat of disenchantment, there is no magic anymore.
Bye, bye
I will leave the pitch now.
HBt.
#
One party will forever owe the necessary answers; it must do so in order to avoid the threat of disenchantment, there is no magic anymore.
Bye, bye
I will leave the pitch now.
HBt.
Kein MM, sondern ein MC System
That's why we're not getting any more replies here in this thread, two group members out of three have already left our thread.
I mistakenly assumed that we were talking about MM systems and somehow needed to process their output, all as a continuation of Bob and Nick's theses with special consideration of Hans' new findings ...
We don't have to philosophize about MC's, MC's are great.
That's why we're not getting any more replies here in this thread, two group members out of three have already left our thread.
I mistakenly assumed that we were talking about MM systems and somehow needed to process their output, all as a continuation of Bob and Nick's theses with special consideration of Hans' new findings ...
We don't have to philosophize about MC's, MC's are great.
Notwithstanding the preponderence of non-sequiturs too numerous to count in the decimal system the reality seems you have an addiction in the hope of my responses.
We will see...
A comeback can never be ruled out, especially not with addicts.
Gerrit, you don't answer questions put to you anyway. This makes any constructive exchange with you impossible.
Perhaps we should leave it at that.
"Tschüß",
HBt.
For some reason, even I left this thread, it keeps popping up on my screen... But as you @hbtaudio already linked my thread that deals with completely different topics, please tell me what your curious mind wants to hear from me? Sorry I have no will or wish to read all you posted here, please be so kind to summarize in few words, I'll try to answer
Welcome back to the pitch "Drbulj".
There is no need to read my last posts, they are not addressed to you.
The link, i.e. “your thread”, is nothing more than a reading tip. Any reader who does not think one-dimensionally will automatically recognize the connection.
I am firmly convinced that we should not continue this thread here, the one we are in now.
Let's put it this way,
your troika was asked to provide two concrete and dimensioned circuit examples, one of which should be the good one and the other the less good one. That means: A) sounds better than B). And the engineers among us wanted to get to the bottom of these claim objectively.
That was the well-intentioned intention. A circuit analysis - completely trivial and totally harmless.
Bye now,
HBt.
Psst
Of course we (also) need to know whether MM or MC (for our virtual test) should be used. And how they should be treated. I or U, current or voltage ... view or handling!
I wanted to answer whatever you wanted to know from me regarding audio, sorry but among your words there is no question that I can recognize precisely?
Is this a question?:
What I also see is pile of assumptions, and about those I do have few concrete questions to you:
Is this a question?:
If this is about phono preamps, I can answer. But please specify what. I'm not gonna guess.
What I also see is pile of assumptions, and about those I do have few concrete questions to you:
You think here we have members - readers that are one-dimensional ?
What connection? Guess not soldering connection, or what?
What is my "troika" ? I don't know that expression and even less understand how you know what is mine? Sometimes I don't know myself what I own, how to hell you ( NN for me) can say that something is mine, whatever that is?
Do you think that I am not an engineer? Who are "engineers among us" ? And who are not? How is it possible to generally classify peoples education in unspecified groups?
Dražen, you address many interesting questions to me. I myself have no such questions for you. Ultimately, it's all a question of personal reading skills. You can look up the term Troika when you hear or read it for the first time.
But, as I already wrote, you are not addressed at all in the group of three (the phalanx) Dražen, Gerrit and Hans. Of course you can answer on behalf or make a suggestion.
We should continue our nice chat somewhere else, maybe via PM.
Have a nice day.
#
We are still looking for two concrete circuit examples, Phono-EQ-DUT A sounds better than Phono-EQ-DUT B, according to the motto that you can detect significant differences in sound. Or with the better click and pop behavior with special consideration of the overdrive behavior of the underlying circuit topology and dimensioning (component values ...).
HBt.
Definitely, because this thread is ultimately a spin-off from Bob C. VinylTrack thread.
But, as I already wrote, you are not addressed at all in the group of three (the phalanx) Dražen, Gerrit and Hans. Of course you can answer on behalf or make a suggestion.
Of course not, you write about yourself that you are a mechanical engineer.
We should continue our nice chat somewhere else, maybe via PM.
Have a nice day.
#
We are still looking for two concrete circuit examples, Phono-EQ-DUT A sounds better than Phono-EQ-DUT B, according to the motto that you can detect significant differences in sound. Or with the better click and pop behavior with special consideration of the overdrive behavior of the underlying circuit topology and dimensioning (component values ...).
HBt.
My posting #6 is " ursprünglich " number 233, Hugo has kindly cut out a larger but coherent part of an interesting side topic and thus created this new thread (here).
It does no harm to know this.
It does no harm to know this.
From humble knee of me of not the we is for the we of not the we to be to he...
In the continuation from post #272 is shown the degree the RIAA is theoretically expected to change with frequency for a +/-5% change in the E2 voltage to voltage conversion. Note that E2 for 1.00 produces a flat RIAA. As E2 can be created in a physical reality to support continuous adjustment what can be imagined this offers, or is good for?
I'm very sorry that I actually said anything
"liebe" @hbtaudio, you really did not get my first message?
Again you give people labels and names, classify them in groups by your own criteria . Who gives you right to stick names to people Didn't they teach you in kindergarden that this is NO NO?
For next time allow me to suggest sticker for myself: "person that belongs to group that thinks hbtaudio has some iss......
Oh, hey, is this ignore button? Oh yeah, whoosh, ghost, so easy 😊
As all the topics raised have the makings of a sequel, I am offering a possible continuation here:
Fortsetzung
The first page only serves to set the mood for the topic - whatever that may be(?).
Bye,
HBt.
Fortsetzung
The first page only serves to set the mood for the topic - whatever that may be(?).
Bye,
HBt.
ref posting 272
That doesn't really knock your socks off, or has Mr. Hans P. come up with a revolutionary new mathematical proof. But you also know by now @Hierfi, that there is no such thing as a "current RIAA" or "voltage RIAA", neither with the predicate passive nor without.
Bye,
HBt.
You see, and I find that interesting. Why? Because you can simply copy this from almost any reference book of the last century on this particular topic of AC technology (and networks) or do it by yourself.
That doesn't really knock your socks off, or has Mr. Hans P. come up with a revolutionary new mathematical proof. But you also know by now @Hierfi, that there is no such thing as a "current RIAA" or "voltage RIAA", neither with the predicate passive nor without.
Bye,
HBt.
Sorry, I forgot to write:
As soon as we can agree that what we believe in at the moment does not exist, then we can finally agree that this nothingness cannot be responsible for perceived differences in sound.
That would catapult us forward enormously.
#
As soon as we can agree that what we believe in at the moment does not exist, then we can finally agree that this nothingness cannot be responsible for perceived differences in sound.
That would catapult us forward enormously.
#
Of course, this crap doesn't get us any further on the ladder of growing up
neither that kind of childish "make fun of".