Yes.
I was also under the impression that this thread is about tube sound, thus limited to amplifiers! Obviously the 'ancillaries' will appear in the discussion, but their own development etc. should be on separate threads (to repeat)?
Fas42,
Amplifiers are a link on their own, and those problems have been solved. If you are refferring to using extra electronics to solve/correct other problems than its own, that again is a different/extra subject? What exactly do you mean by "the context of total systems"?
Last edited:
I'm sure most people on this site understand that a single distortion figure (THD?) at a single frequency (unstated, but perhaps 1kHz?) and a single power level (at or just below rated output?) tells us something, but not much, about an amplifier. So what?Pano said:
Is this just a variant of the oft-repeated claim by 'them' that 'we' believe in THD?
Well, so stop speaking about "Audio Amplifiers" or "Speakers" and change the names for "Sound Transducer Driver" 🙂
Now, we have 3 things to define and to match together:
- The Sound
- The Transducer
- The Driver
Funny that when translated in French, this gives:
"Pilote pour convertisseur sonore" !
Last word become first and vice et versa.
An usual an politically correct way to evacuate problems is to mix them up making them even more obscure !
Yves.
Aren't tube also Solid State? They aren't liquid nor gas, so they also are solid state forr me. An in the glass there is also silicium, so both have some common components.
The cathode will certainly have some interesting solid-state physics going on, and some chemistry too. The anode may have interesting metallurgy (an applied branch of solid-state physics), relating to things like secondary emission.
Definitely me!!
SY suffers from the same problem as me: we are scientists. That means we are
a) more likely to spot nonsense,
b) less likely to believe nonsense
than some contributors to this site.
SY suffers from the same problem as me: we are scientists. That means we are
a) more likely to spot nonsense,
b) less likely to believe nonsense
than some contributors to this site.
I am a scientist to, and why I often see the limits to knowledge where others see certainty.
Shoog
Shoog
Of course. Part of wisdom is recognising the boundaries of knowledge.
Those who lack knowledge (in areas where knowledge is available) tend to do one of two things:
1. assume others know no more than they do themselves;
or
2. assume they themselves know much more than they actually do, thus confusing their own confusion with knowledge.
Actually, SY and I don't always agree. I am slightly more likely than him to accept reasonable anecdote as a possible flag for a genuine unexplained phenomenon, but the difference between us might not be visible to someone with very different assumptions. I am slightly more likely than him to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that their silly statements arise from ignorance rather than salesmanship.
Those who lack knowledge (in areas where knowledge is available) tend to do one of two things:
1. assume others know no more than they do themselves;
or
2. assume they themselves know much more than they actually do, thus confusing their own confusion with knowledge.
Actually, SY and I don't always agree. I am slightly more likely than him to accept reasonable anecdote as a possible flag for a genuine unexplained phenomenon, but the difference between us might not be visible to someone with very different assumptions. I am slightly more likely than him to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that their silly statements arise from ignorance rather than salesmanship.
The problem as I see it is yourselves are describing a potential absolute, where as myself and many others, are basing our opinions on a range of real world amplifiers which we know and which have attributes which we desire.
Shoog
Shoog
By nature I am a theorist. I have no reason to believe that conventional physics is inadequate to explain and describe audio amplifiers and their cables, so if something is impossible then it is impossible. I don't expect enhancements to the Standard Model (when they come along, as they surely will eventually) to have any immediate application to electronic engineering.
What can sometimes happen is that an engineering approximation is used outside its domain of applicability. This is where people complain that theory doesn't work; it doesn't work if you use the wrong theory. That doesn't mean there is a fault in the underlying physics, just that we have misapplied it. There are subtleties in electronics which are not always properly understood, especially by those who work at the level of entering numbers into formulas without understanding where those formulas come from.
I firmly believe that the job of an amplifier is to amplify a signal. It may also apply some gentle band-limiting. Anything else is unwanted. If you want tone controls, then add tone controls. If you want a niceness knob, then add a niceness knob. Don't build in a fixed amount of tone control or niceness and then call it 'hi-fi' or 'high end'.
What can sometimes happen is that an engineering approximation is used outside its domain of applicability. This is where people complain that theory doesn't work; it doesn't work if you use the wrong theory. That doesn't mean there is a fault in the underlying physics, just that we have misapplied it. There are subtleties in electronics which are not always properly understood, especially by those who work at the level of entering numbers into formulas without understanding where those formulas come from.
I firmly believe that the job of an amplifier is to amplify a signal. It may also apply some gentle band-limiting. Anything else is unwanted. If you want tone controls, then add tone controls. If you want a niceness knob, then add a niceness knob. Don't build in a fixed amount of tone control or niceness and then call it 'hi-fi' or 'high end'.
Yes, amplifiers are one of the links, of a chain whose function is to reproduce the recording. And, considering that link in isolation, yes, the 'problems' have been solved: it is relatively straighforward to produce a unit of electronics that will pass all the tests that have been deemed important, in isolation.
There are two complications: the first is there is severe disagreement on what are the sufficient tests to verify the performance of an amplifier - those people who rely on measurements are quite comfortable with what is currently used, others who perhaps have more sensitive hearing, or a different way of listening don't agree, because 'correct' amplifiers do not perform well enough; and the second issue is that the amplifier must also behave perfectly correctly in its intended environment, as part of an audio system - it must be a good "citizen". It should not interfere with, or degrade the performance of another link by its presence while functioning, nor should it be adversely affected by any aspect of its environment. These sort of things are routinely not tested for, and in my experience this is precisely where they do fail to "measure up" - meaning the end sound quality is not good enough ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.