Only in the minuscule "high end" fashion niche. In the general and much larger field of audio engineering, nearly all of the successful, creative, and innovative designers are EEs. Bob Carver would be one exception, but I can't think of many more.
(disclosure: I am not an EE nor any other sort of engineer)
It reminds me my story. 😀
I could not understand, why my fully symmetric fully complementary 200W transistor amp in class AB with deep feedback with unmeasurable distortions powered from toroidal tranny made from 2 KW variac sounds worse and weaker than 100W Tesla MONO-130 with quad of EL-34 output tubes and stinky output transformer. 😀
But back to the topic, still we hear below noise floor, even if it is 1/f product of JFET in condenser microphone, but when I show THD+N curves of opamps and say, "Ah-ah! Crap!" they answer: "No, it is not a crap, because crap is below noise floor, that means it is inaudible". It is audible. And when audiophiles say, "It kills air", they are right.
Hi,
Actually, the noise of even a very noisy fet in a condensor microphone is immaterial. It is the very large value gate resistors noise together with the low capacitance of the capsule that produce the noise...
As to hearing below the noisefloor, let me repeat, if the noisefloor is below the hearing threshold nothing is heard, if then problems are below the noise, they too are not heard.
However looking at an FFT of HD (or worse, at a simple distortion meter) does not say much relevant to what we hear, a problem below the noisefloor on such a plut may still cause audible problems indirectly.
Ciao T
Actually, the noise of even a very noisy fet in a condensor microphone is immaterial. It is the very large value gate resistors noise together with the low capacitance of the capsule that produce the noise...
As to hearing below the noisefloor, let me repeat, if the noisefloor is below the hearing threshold nothing is heard, if then problems are below the noise, they too are not heard.
However looking at an FFT of HD (or worse, at a simple distortion meter) does not say much relevant to what we hear, a problem below the noisefloor on such a plut may still cause audible problems indirectly.
Ciao T
A first, that large resistors are shunted by relatively huge capacitances, you may calculate impedance of 100 picofarad of capsule and compare to 500 megaohm of resistors. Second, there is a huge difference between subconscious perception and conscious recognition. Thanks to Dr. Richard Bandler, I learned this difference enough to understand.
You are right, about "...still cause audible problems indirectly". That is it.
You are right, about "...still cause audible problems indirectly". That is it.
Bearing in mind that this is a huge generalisation, I think it contains some truth. I have a foot in both camps (engineering and science), and have been surprised by the way engineers are sometimes taught to plug numbers into formulae without understanding their derivation or region of applicability. This can lead to problems later on. I don't blame the engineers, as they just accept what they are taught. Later, having found that their 'theory' doesn't always work, they can blame the concept of 'theory' (as opposed to practical matters) rather than finding a better theory.barrows said:
You homunculi could do with setting your sights a bit higher.
James Larkin said:
@ThorstenL
'I am just dead tired of opinion or indeed belief being presented as fact without the least proof or shred of evidence in a forcefull manner by those who will absolutely take others to task for doing the same in areas where they disagree with the position presented.'
Such evidence as there is supports my position, not yours.
Logic, moreover, would suggest that there is a limit to the perfectability of amplifiers, and that at some point improvements must exceed the capacity of human ear to perceive. Can we at least agree on that point?
I understand that you work in the industry, and that the idea that you (or your successors) might become redundant is distressing to you, but it is as inevitable as night follows day, so try to put aside your personal involvement for a moment and take a less self-centred view. There's no point in complaining about the weather.
Matthew 24:6 said:
w
Hi,
I have.
Let us take a capsule like the common Neumann/Gefell ones so beloved by recordists.
The capacity is 35pF, sensitivity is 14mV/Pa or 14mV @ 94dB SPL, so our SNR for noiseless electronics following this capsule re 94dB would be around 60dB so our background noise is around 34dBA SPL!!!!
(I am estimating the slope of noise, bandwidth and the impact of A-Weighting, too lazy to calculate this in detail, this excercise is left to genteel reader)...
Sure, but the human ear at the heart is a very limited resolution/dynamic range system which even generates sounds itself in attempts to improve the hearing threshold.
If something cannot trigger nerve impulses it is inaudible. Something that actually is absolutely not there may still trigger nerve impulses.
Sure, but sadly few care to make these "indirect problems" observable and quantifiable...
Ciao T
I have.
Let us take a capsule like the common Neumann/Gefell ones so beloved by recordists.
The capacity is 35pF, sensitivity is 14mV/Pa or 14mV @ 94dB SPL, so our SNR for noiseless electronics following this capsule re 94dB would be around 60dB so our background noise is around 34dBA SPL!!!!
(I am estimating the slope of noise, bandwidth and the impact of A-Weighting, too lazy to calculate this in detail, this excercise is left to genteel reader)...
Sure, but the human ear at the heart is a very limited resolution/dynamic range system which even generates sounds itself in attempts to improve the hearing threshold.
If something cannot trigger nerve impulses it is inaudible. Something that actually is absolutely not there may still trigger nerve impulses.
Sure, but sadly few care to make these "indirect problems" observable and quantifiable...
Ciao T
Hi,
Such evidence as there is supports the inaudibility of very large amounts of THD low order THD, for example, while it also supports that certain other types of distortion at MUCH lower levels are extremely objectionable (more recently Eral Geddes et al, but going back many decades to Crowhurst and Shorter among others).
Therefore any position that holds low HD/THD as a goal in itself is illustrated absurd and idiotic.
That depends on the nature of the "improvements". For example, any Class D I have encountered needs no more than a 10KHz sinewave at 1/100's full power and a 20MHz 'scope to illustrate various problems with the device. So there is much perfectibility left to be achieved here...
Why should it be. I do not draw the majority of my income from Audio, I do not make living there. Redundancy does not scare me the least, my other line of work will beep me well until money and capitalism are abolished and when they are I'm not worried either.
Remember, NOTHING IS WRITTEN.
What happens in future we do not know. In the 70's and 80's I would have tried to get anyone sectioned who would have advanced the concept that in 2011 people would still be listening to Vinyl and Tubes.
So, the only inevitability is that sooner or later truth prevails.
Ciao T
Such evidence as there is supports the inaudibility of very large amounts of THD low order THD, for example, while it also supports that certain other types of distortion at MUCH lower levels are extremely objectionable (more recently Eral Geddes et al, but going back many decades to Crowhurst and Shorter among others).
Therefore any position that holds low HD/THD as a goal in itself is illustrated absurd and idiotic.
That depends on the nature of the "improvements". For example, any Class D I have encountered needs no more than a 10KHz sinewave at 1/100's full power and a 20MHz 'scope to illustrate various problems with the device. So there is much perfectibility left to be achieved here...
Why should it be. I do not draw the majority of my income from Audio, I do not make living there. Redundancy does not scare me the least, my other line of work will beep me well until money and capitalism are abolished and when they are I'm not worried either.
Remember, NOTHING IS WRITTEN.
What happens in future we do not know. In the 70's and 80's I would have tried to get anyone sectioned who would have advanced the concept that in 2011 people would still be listening to Vinyl and Tubes.
So, the only inevitability is that sooner or later truth prevails.
Ciao T
But, without equivocation, you would agree that at some point amplifiers might become so good, that any improvement would prove inaudible?
w
Capacitance of typical K47 capsule itself is about 80 pF, according to my measurements. That means 10 times less impedance on 40 Hz frequency than resistors effectively in parallel with it. But it was not my point which noise dominates, 1/f of typical JFET, or noise of resistors. My point was, we perceive sounds below noise floor, while typical belief is that what can't be measured is inaudible.
Speaking of limited resolution and dynamic range, let me stress again, that threshold of conscious recognition and threshold of subconscious perception are not the same.
I grew up in Siberia. Do you know what is most annoying in Siberia? No, not cold winters. Mosquitoes in summer. I was a student of physics & mathematics school, we learned off-line, and in summers were assembled in a camp near the river where lived in tents, meet our teachers (graduate students of Irkutsk University and some professors), and practiced math and physics. They were very creative when searched for problems to solve. And once when we were sitting around a campfire singing songs, playing guitar, telling stories, one professor gave us a problem to solve. To calculate precision of hearing needed to locate a mosquito flying around body and kill it without paying attention. It was a very fun problem, and as the result we could not believe that it is ever possible, while it works in reality, to hear so precise!
Once again, there are 2 most limiting beliefs:
1) That subconscious perception threshold and conscious recognition threshold are the same,
2) That everything that is below noise floor is inaudible.
There is one more limiting belief, more fundamental: that our models of physiology can be used to judge can we perceive something, or not. 😀
Speaking of limited resolution and dynamic range, let me stress again, that threshold of conscious recognition and threshold of subconscious perception are not the same.
I grew up in Siberia. Do you know what is most annoying in Siberia? No, not cold winters. Mosquitoes in summer. I was a student of physics & mathematics school, we learned off-line, and in summers were assembled in a camp near the river where lived in tents, meet our teachers (graduate students of Irkutsk University and some professors), and practiced math and physics. They were very creative when searched for problems to solve. And once when we were sitting around a campfire singing songs, playing guitar, telling stories, one professor gave us a problem to solve. To calculate precision of hearing needed to locate a mosquito flying around body and kill it without paying attention. It was a very fun problem, and as the result we could not believe that it is ever possible, while it works in reality, to hear so precise!
Once again, there are 2 most limiting beliefs:
1) That subconscious perception threshold and conscious recognition threshold are the same,
2) That everything that is below noise floor is inaudible.
There is one more limiting belief, more fundamental: that our models of physiology can be used to judge can we perceive something, or not. 😀
Last edited:
But before that we have to find correlation between improvement of measurable parameters and improvement of sound quality. Loooong way to go. 😀
ThorstenL said:
jitter-reducers
wakibaki said:
Ensuing Murth
This thread seems to be going in the same direction, same characters etc. who would have thunk it
expectantly
jms
#2 would seem to depend on #1, so I will withhold unfounded conclusions. The obvious question from #1 would be, "what is the difference between subconscious perception threshold and totally imagined misperception?" Without an answer to that, #1 cannot be answered with any reasonable certainty.
Hi,
At some point an AI (or even certain humans) might pass a turing test.
At some point sex robots may be indistinguishable from real people.
At some point someone may make a passable imitation of a 1984 Château Mouton Rothschild in a lab.
And at some point in time we may have audio and video recording and reproduction systems that really are exactly like "being there" (including "perfect" amplifiers).
For now I am not holding my breath waiting for any of the above, idle speculation is amusing, but futile. It is more interesting to speculate what we may do right now to make something better.
Ciao T
At some point an AI (or even certain humans) might pass a turing test.
At some point sex robots may be indistinguishable from real people.
At some point someone may make a passable imitation of a 1984 Château Mouton Rothschild in a lab.
And at some point in time we may have audio and video recording and reproduction systems that really are exactly like "being there" (including "perfect" amplifiers).
For now I am not holding my breath waiting for any of the above, idle speculation is amusing, but futile. It is more interesting to speculate what we may do right now to make something better.
Ciao T
Hi,
But it still amounts to over 30dBA self noise in my "back of an envelope" calculation.
Again, "audibility of sounds below the noisefloor" depend strongly on the SPL.
Ciao T
But it still amounts to over 30dBA self noise in my "back of an envelope" calculation.
Again, "audibility of sounds below the noisefloor" depend strongly on the SPL.
Ciao T
Since '84 Mouton-Rothschild is a particularly weak example of the genre, that may happen sooner than you think.
The sex robot thing seems pretty cool.
The sex robot thing seems pretty cool.
During DHE seminars with Richard Bandler we did some very interesting experiments, like switch off reasoning and learn to recognize falling on a dish metal money, recognize paper money by touch, calibrate ability to measure distance, and other funny experiments when modern tools were used for calibration of abilities we did not imagine before we had.
And you know what caused "totally imagined misperception"?
Switching on conscious reasoning caused it. 😀
And you know what caused "totally imagined misperception"?
Switching on conscious reasoning caused it. 😀
Yes, I know. Alligators really fly, but on very-very low echelon. 😀
Nobody said that threshold of audibility don't exist. What I said, if something can't be measured it does not mean that it can't be heard. I see, you agree with me now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.