jan, I agree with Michel. It’s all about our choice to agree or disagree with a certain mastering engineer’s job. I do not agree all the time, but I usually enjoy the mastering engineer’s intention with a big respect. They are talented people, for sure (with some exceptions?).
When we search a song title on Tidal streaming service today, we can find many different versions of the same song, and we can instantly compare different masters done by different mastering engineers. Someone can say one is better than the other, but that only means his preference is similar to a specific mastering job, and his preference would be be different if he changes his preamp or speaker cables…
Recording engineers add warmth at different stages with $$$ vintage stuffs or cheap digital plugins, and mastering engineers also may add warms, bass, stereo width or whatever he wants. Greg Calbi, a very famous mastering engineer once showed me a collection of his line cables for coloration, and he said he uses them as passive filters when he masters. Another famous guy, Howie Weinberg was using his secret weapon, $100 Behringer psychoacoustic effect box (called Edison) for his masters in 90’s, and producers and record company A&R loved his masters. Classical recordings would be a bit different, though.
I was actually very surprised when this H2 experimental boards were offered by Mr. Nelson Pass. For me, it is definitely a Zen Koan from our master, a question does not have an answer. I understand that this is a part of his entertainment, like a contemporary art, so I just enjoy this opportunity.
When we search a song title on Tidal streaming service today, we can find many different versions of the same song, and we can instantly compare different masters done by different mastering engineers. Someone can say one is better than the other, but that only means his preference is similar to a specific mastering job, and his preference would be be different if he changes his preamp or speaker cables…
Recording engineers add warmth at different stages with $$$ vintage stuffs or cheap digital plugins, and mastering engineers also may add warms, bass, stereo width or whatever he wants. Greg Calbi, a very famous mastering engineer once showed me a collection of his line cables for coloration, and he said he uses them as passive filters when he masters. Another famous guy, Howie Weinberg was using his secret weapon, $100 Behringer psychoacoustic effect box (called Edison) for his masters in 90’s, and producers and record company A&R loved his masters. Classical recordings would be a bit different, though.
I was actually very surprised when this H2 experimental boards were offered by Mr. Nelson Pass. For me, it is definitely a Zen Koan from our master, a question does not have an answer. I understand that this is a part of his entertainment, like a contemporary art, so I just enjoy this opportunity.
I really like Jan's question. I think it's is the right question, worthy of more discussion.
When we look at a painting are we "seeing" a painting or are we appreciating art, or both? And how much does reproducing the artists "seeing" conditions impact the conveyance of the artist's intentions, and your ability to fully appreciate them?
When we listen to music are we "hearing" sounds or are we appreciating art, or both? Same follow-up question.
I'll get back to Vermeer, but I want to hear some other thoughts first.
Should we start a new thread here in the PL forum?
When we look at a painting are we "seeing" a painting or are we appreciating art, or both? And how much does reproducing the artists "seeing" conditions impact the conveyance of the artist's intentions, and your ability to fully appreciate them?
When we listen to music are we "hearing" sounds or are we appreciating art, or both? Same follow-up question.
I'll get back to Vermeer, but I want to hear some other thoughts first.
Should we start a new thread here in the PL forum?
But.. what we buy is actually the art books, not the original paintings、metaphorically.
Once upon a time, many years ago (386BC or thereabouts) in Ancient Greece there was a philosopher by the name of Plato. Besides writing his dialogues (sounds like a contradiction in terms doesn't it?) he founded a Training School which he called the Academy. One of his main teaching methods was discussion leading.
One fine Grecian evening Plato and a group of his students were seated around a rock on the shores of the Aegean Sea. (They had taken an Awayday from Athens.) After a while the discussion centred round teeth — horses teeth in fact — and more specifically: “What do you consider to be the correct number of teeth for an adult, male horse to possess?”
Glaucon said that as a horse had such a small mouth it was obvious that there could be no more than fifteen teeth.
‘Nonsense!’ cried Thrasymachus ‘Any fool can see that a horse has a very long jaw bone so it must have forty-two teeth.’
By this time the discussion became very heated and Plato decided that it was time to control the pace of the discussion by summarising: ‘Glaucon has said that a horse has fifteen teeth because it has a small mouth, and Thrasymachus has said that a horse has forty-two teeth because of its long jaw.’ (Notice how careful Plato was not to put forward his own ideas on the subject. Plato was convinced that a horse has eighty-two teeth because of an image that he saw in the shadows of some cave or other.)
But this strategy didn't work. As soon as Plato had finished his summary, Aristophanes threw aside his pet frog, jumped to his feet and exclaimed that a horse must have twenty-three teeth because it takes 23 minutes to eat a bag of hay.
The discussion went on this vein for a further two days and nights. (They had to hitch-hike back to Athens because their Awayday had expired.) Eventually Socrates who was not looking very well and had remained silent for the whole of the discussion (black mark to Plato for not bringing him in earlier) suggested that they should walk over to one of the horses, that were used for giving rides on the beach, open its mouth and count the number of teeth. The class was so amazed at the sagacity of the suggestion that silence reigned for the first time in three days.
One fine Grecian evening Plato and a group of his students were seated around a rock on the shores of the Aegean Sea. (They had taken an Awayday from Athens.) After a while the discussion centred round teeth — horses teeth in fact — and more specifically: “What do you consider to be the correct number of teeth for an adult, male horse to possess?”
Glaucon said that as a horse had such a small mouth it was obvious that there could be no more than fifteen teeth.
‘Nonsense!’ cried Thrasymachus ‘Any fool can see that a horse has a very long jaw bone so it must have forty-two teeth.’
By this time the discussion became very heated and Plato decided that it was time to control the pace of the discussion by summarising: ‘Glaucon has said that a horse has fifteen teeth because it has a small mouth, and Thrasymachus has said that a horse has forty-two teeth because of its long jaw.’ (Notice how careful Plato was not to put forward his own ideas on the subject. Plato was convinced that a horse has eighty-two teeth because of an image that he saw in the shadows of some cave or other.)
But this strategy didn't work. As soon as Plato had finished his summary, Aristophanes threw aside his pet frog, jumped to his feet and exclaimed that a horse must have twenty-three teeth because it takes 23 minutes to eat a bag of hay.
The discussion went on this vein for a further two days and nights. (They had to hitch-hike back to Athens because their Awayday had expired.) Eventually Socrates who was not looking very well and had remained silent for the whole of the discussion (black mark to Plato for not bringing him in earlier) suggested that they should walk over to one of the horses, that were used for giving rides on the beach, open its mouth and count the number of teeth. The class was so amazed at the sagacity of the suggestion that silence reigned for the first time in three days.
It is possible that you could listen to Nelson Pass's H2 board. Listening is neither immoral nor illegal nor fattening. This exercise can help you discover what you do hear, rather than what you should hear. It may be a surprise.
This is my very humble position: analyzing only the signal amplification stage, we have two design philosophies. One of them is where the signal should be preserved as similar to the original and that the discrepancies with the original fall below the thresholds of perception according to the level involved in each particular case. For this design philosophy the guidelines to reach the objective are widely known and it is only a matter of following them (it could be a bit boring for the designer, since there is no place for personal imprints).
The other design philosophy is based on adding or removing certain qualities of the original signal to try to cause a certain perception in the listener, through and in conjunction with the transducers and the surrounding environment. This is where I believe that it will always fail in the attempt, since the universality of parameters to keep in mind to achieve the objective is infinitely broad and, even, based on the opinion of a finite sample of listeners, that sample is never enough to finish gestating a product that everyone likes. Just to give an example, the opinions of the sample of people that we try to take as valid for the development of our system can have a validity only temporary and even dependent on the mood of the moment of those same people. Fashion or tendency in the acceptance of these altered qualities could influence, but it could also happen that after a certain period, the same qualities lose acceptance due to the appearance of new trends or fashions. While this philosophy has its entertaining side for the designer, it can entail serious fustrations as well.
I have always wondered if these intentional subtleties in sound would not be largely masked by the single variation of the temperature of the surrounding air inside the chassis where the amplifier circuit itself is housed. I have seen amplifiers of all kinds, but none with controlled temperature of the interior and exterior atmosphere. It is a fact to be able to find differences of ambient temperatures of up to 30 ° C. That is a difference that markedly alters all the points of the circuit.
And continuing with the simulation of my circuit, I have obtained something very similar to the one proposed by Nelson Pass:
The other design philosophy is based on adding or removing certain qualities of the original signal to try to cause a certain perception in the listener, through and in conjunction with the transducers and the surrounding environment. This is where I believe that it will always fail in the attempt, since the universality of parameters to keep in mind to achieve the objective is infinitely broad and, even, based on the opinion of a finite sample of listeners, that sample is never enough to finish gestating a product that everyone likes. Just to give an example, the opinions of the sample of people that we try to take as valid for the development of our system can have a validity only temporary and even dependent on the mood of the moment of those same people. Fashion or tendency in the acceptance of these altered qualities could influence, but it could also happen that after a certain period, the same qualities lose acceptance due to the appearance of new trends or fashions. While this philosophy has its entertaining side for the designer, it can entail serious fustrations as well.
I have always wondered if these intentional subtleties in sound would not be largely masked by the single variation of the temperature of the surrounding air inside the chassis where the amplifier circuit itself is housed. I have seen amplifiers of all kinds, but none with controlled temperature of the interior and exterior atmosphere. It is a fact to be able to find differences of ambient temperatures of up to 30 ° C. That is a difference that markedly alters all the points of the circuit.
And continuing with the simulation of my circuit, I have obtained something very similar to the one proposed by Nelson Pass:
Attachments
Last edited:
There is a paradox with the temperature: if we intend to keep the Tj of the component constant to maintain a certain quality parameter unchanged, we must control the temperature of the surrounding air and keep the dissipation of the component in question constant. With a variable signal crossing it, is it easy to implement it in the short and long term, given the typical inertia of the scenario?
The ACA (it inverts) has a negative 2nd harmonic phase, I verified it. When I hooked up the H2 as a preamp, the 2nd harmonic phase goes positive as (I think) Nelson predicted. The ACA has feedback and over most of it's range THD <1%. What happens if you use a P channel JFET and a negative rail to make the H2 ???
Interesting Jan. I see parallel of what tone control and the H2 offers in salt, pepper and hot sauce on the table in a restaurant. Some people could not accept addition of some spices in audio reproduction as high end, but hold no such view in food preparation.
That depends on where you operate it on the load line. Adjustment of
supply voltage on the H2 will give you either phase, and this works as
well with a P channel part.
> Some people could not accept addition of some spices in audio reproduction as high end, but hold no such view in food preparation.
Do you want MSG in your food ? I don't.
And if you look at Nelson's Super-Symmetry, its entire purpose is to cancel even order harmonics.
Above all H2.
Cheers,
Patrick
Do you want MSG in your food ? I don't.
And if you look at Nelson's Super-Symmetry, its entire purpose is to cancel even order harmonics.
Above all H2.
Cheers,
Patrick
Unfortunately, due to my physiological condition, I could not take MSG whether I want to or not. I could get really sick from it. I consider it as poison, not spice.
Anyway, have you ever found anybody who consider any restaurant inappropriately categorized as high end because there is salt or pepper being offered on the table?
HMmmm, perhaps you would not believe this, but it simply will not sound the same.
Last edited:
Nelson's freebie H2 generator circuit has quite good PSRR, actually. It runs from its own pure and clean, local DC supply. Whatever ick and grunge may be on the incoming DC power (+24V), gets removed by a prefilter, a high NFB voltage regulator IC, and a healthy amount of output filtering. Look at the right half of the schematic and observe all the components connected to R6, R7, and R8. They make sure that R2 (over on the left) sees nothing but a clean and constant DC voltage.
60 of them were given out, 90 hours ago. At 3:30PM on Sunday. Many of the recipients won't even have a chance to hook it up to their listening equipment until the weekend: work, family, the usual. And a healthy fraction of recipients, are not even subscribed to this particular thread.
So you are addressing, oh I don't know & this is just an estimate, about 20 people or thereabouts, and telling them to hurry up because you are losing patience. I recommend you ask again after a couple of weeks.
I was there myself but did not race forward quickly enough to snag one. Alas.