This basic EE lecture is not specific to IC opamps. It applies to any sort of opamp, including discrete ones (like Parasound power amps).
Here is a nice test:
Straight wire VS 4562, pick which is which
Straight wire VS 5532, pick which is which
Straight wire VS 4558, pick which is which
Straight wire VS TL072, pick which is which
Straight wire VS OP271, pick which is which
Likewise. 😀 (Opamp Applications is pretty much mandatory reading, right?)
All 1k+ pages of it.
(Mr. Wurcer triggered the memory of reading that line in Mr. Zumbahlen's book, somewhere in the first two chapters)
(Mr. Wurcer triggered the memory of reading that line in Mr. Zumbahlen's book, somewhere in the first two chapters)
It is a guess. An educated guess. If you read my analysis, you'll know that I didn't compare 4562 with 4558 or TL072, because 4562 is in a different league than those two.
They are audible.
This is also a question I would want to be answered. Since long time ago. I know that it is not easy to prepare a test like this (thank's Mooly) that's why I didn't want to ask...
What I want to know is, is this visual difference is the characteristics of the DUT?? Because this visual difference is what I can hear in many blind test cases, but there is no proof that this difference is the DUT characteristics.
To prove it is actually simple. We do several recordings and observe if the visual difference is still there (same amplitude and frequency) between two DUTs.
Interesting....I have one of those old H-P 339A's......which opamp did you choose?
Yes, read here:
My ABX for 4558 and TL072 regarding that small segment was 5/8. So to find which one is the 4558 I need a variable of quality. I need to use the brush sound for this. Note, this is for the first time I use brush sound (or HF) to determine which one is which between 4558 and TL072 and it appeared that it can't be done that way (OR: I will conclude that TL072 has worse brush sound than 4558). Of course, SR difference is too small and shouldn't be audible. But I expected (based on purely guess work) a JFET input opamp (TL072) will have better brush sound than 4558, which appeared to be wrong too.
Yes. And how bad the TL072 is.
Yes, I believe that 4562 will be the winner if you conduct a preference test. This is because "dynamics" is the most critical factor for enjoyment and it is very easy to perceive (by most ears).
You know what, I was planning to give two thumbs up to Douglass Self if Gladys were NE5532. I thought, he must be an expert if he could make the 5532 as good as that Gladys, without issues I always find associated with 5532. But until now, 5532 is still what it is.
Last edited:
Hmmm... I think I'm the best one to do that (narcissist 😀) for 2 reasons:
(1) You should know human psychology well in order to know other people's psychology condition and use that information to find the "issue" in his mental condition. Insecure people have so many issues that when you "push" on one specific small "spot", they will go crazy and hurt so bad.
(2) You should have stable, good psychology or mental condition if you want to get involve in a "war". There is "action-reaction". If people are hurt or attacked they will hurt or attack back.
Psychologists, OTOH, are not special. Most psychologists are ordinary people who read Psychology books. Those who are good with Psychology, they can write psychology books. It is something that you "just understand" without reading other people's book or opinion...
The problem with psychologists are, when they don't have the capacity to understand Psychology, they learn the Psychology and they misinterpret it. They label people based on what they have learned from the books they read.
That's why I said (to Jacco) the other day that Psychology is often about Statistics. It works for the majority, but it doesn't work for the outliers...
That's why we can find some geniuses refuse to have their IQ measured. That's I think because they don't like those psychologists "label" them based on a stupid algorithm and act as if they are more "genius" than the geniuses. If you want to measure other people intelligence, you have to be more intelligent, no short cut.
Yes, agree. TL072 was one of my favorite. But LF353 is just better (I think it's a high end version of TL072)
That was true at the time of Freud and then Jung, when psychology was primarily theoretical. It started to change with Skinner, but experimental research was done with animals, other than humans. The results didn't work so well on people, as it turned out. Then Martin Seligman came along and almost single-handedly changed the paradigm. He faced incredible resistance and criticism, and it took him 20 years. Now, we have modern cognitive psychology which is mostly experimental, and experimental methodology in this area is continuing to be refined. In addition, cognitive psychologists now often collaborate cross-disciplinarily with neuroscientists and others. Things have changed dramatically, at least for psychologists who keep up with the field. Unfortunately, there are still many in practice who received their training 20 years ago and have not kept up.
You don't mean that while maintaining correct detection of ones and zeros, the pit and land makes a difference?
//
That tends to be the case with a large number of these blunt-object tests and synthetic markers: useful primarily at the population level, but weakly correlated at the individual level.
And, yes, clean diagnoses make for pretty case studies, but real human beings are messy. I quoted the "Zebras" medical aphorism, but there's also Hickman's dictum: "Patients can have as many diseases as they **mn well please".
Both aphorisms say, "look for big effects that are common first before going off on a wild goose chase". My comments, however belligerently given or received, stem from that problem-solving mindset.
No. There is nothing to register for or install. Just decline (close) any offer to join Dropbox and you should see the links to the files.
Regarding statistics and individual people, a possibly interesting psychological finding is that most people tend to think statistics don't apply to them, rather that they are an exception, or at one end of a bell curve. It is hypothesized that people feel that way because they know so many personal details about themselves, and for most people, statistics are only used when specific detailed information is unknown or unavailable. When specific, detailed information is available, the correct solution would be to combine that information with available statistical information using Bayes rule. This is fully discussed in the book, Thinking Fast and Slow.
Also, it should be noted that statistics are generally derived from populations of individuals, most of whom don't believe the statistics apply to them.
Also, it should be noted that statistics are generally derived from populations of individuals, most of whom don't believe the statistics apply to them.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.