Richard Heyser was not a 'devil's advocate', he suffered the indignation of his papers and presented ideas being rejected by established 'authorities' like many have, who think outside the box of traditional testing. Please remember that these are his UNPUBLISHED papers, no matter where they were first directed to. 'Audio' was not the only publication who didn't publish everything that he wrote. He was just 'too far ahead' for people to take a chance, and much of his early work was BEFORE ABX testing was established by the 'objectivists' to disparage the 'subjectivists' from being taken seriously.
I knew him from 1968, and he stated to me verbally many of the advanced ideas that are in his "unpublished" articles, and actually got me started into looking at 'negative feedback' as a problem as much as a solution. Why would you think that I would deviate from the OP-AMP model, when it was so established, even in the late 1960's and onwards. Heck, why not just build a DISCRETE OP-AMP, if the IC's were not good enough?
What I found more than 40 years ago, was that the OP-AMP model, while useful for servos and myriad other applications, was sometimes problematic with audio quality. Why?
Well I'm sure that a multi-dimensional measurement espoused by Richard Heyser would find something, but even today's best test equipment will not find it, as it is just an extension of the earlier fixed level testing of yesteryear, for electronics anyway, so it does not give any added dimensionality to the test, and our EARS still have to be the final arbiter, because that is the final 'judge' that actually hears the result and can assess it usefully.
I knew him from 1968, and he stated to me verbally many of the advanced ideas that are in his "unpublished" articles, and actually got me started into looking at 'negative feedback' as a problem as much as a solution. Why would you think that I would deviate from the OP-AMP model, when it was so established, even in the late 1960's and onwards. Heck, why not just build a DISCRETE OP-AMP, if the IC's were not good enough?
What I found more than 40 years ago, was that the OP-AMP model, while useful for servos and myriad other applications, was sometimes problematic with audio quality. Why?
Well I'm sure that a multi-dimensional measurement espoused by Richard Heyser would find something, but even today's best test equipment will not find it, as it is just an extension of the earlier fixed level testing of yesteryear, for electronics anyway, so it does not give any added dimensionality to the test, and our EARS still have to be the final arbiter, because that is the final 'judge' that actually hears the result and can assess it usefully.
Completely true. Too bad that some feel the need to peek and can't actually trust their ears.
The gall of me also.
Actually, Mr Heyser is saying very strongly on the contrary, ie that all things can of course be measured, BUT this requires different forms of measurements, or at least different/extended forms of analysis.
IOW, thinking well beyond the time honoured simplistic measurement methodologies such as FR, THD, and IMD.
One major concept he relates is that of spectral time distortions...ie devices/systems having differing throughput delay versus signal frequency.
This signal throughput delay can have its own 'spectrum', and this delay spectrum can further be signal dependent dynamically modulated.
This behaviour sets up a whole cloud of ''IMD/modulation'' like behaviour, with new 'foreign' frequencies/signals consequently produced.
He also discusses other 'non traditional/not usually considered' modulation causes, each producing another 'set' of 'foreign' frequency/spectral resultants.
This is just touching on what he is on about....read Audio Magazine: proposed series Chapter 11 - Conclusion, and then read it again !.
Once that chapter is digested, read Chapters 1 through 10, and read them again also.
The whole lesson revolves around the concept of 'energy', and not just 'signals'...the two terms are not the same thing.
More later.
Dan.
Fine, no argument, but some things we can quanitfy and measure today were once unknown and unmeasurable. Then we learnt how to measure them. Ditto for Mr Heyser's view, I believe that's what it REALLY means, we can't measure them today, we need new methods, we will eventually learn how to and what is not measurable today will be measureable tomorrow.
That's progress, evolution, and that's how thing usually work in any field.
That did not prevent that Greek philosopher from dipping his feet in the warm Aegean sea and preaching about atoms. He had to wait for 23 centuries to be proven right. Helmholz was luckier, he waited only 100 years for Quad to prove huis theories right an viable. Heinlein, Sturgeon, Bester at al. were even luckier, the death ray they wrote about in the 50ies became reality in less than 30 years.
Ob the BUT side, that is also acknowledging that so far, we still cannot measure some things, and that means our measurements today are NOT sufficient to tell the whole story. AS opposed to some here who beieve our current measurements are quite enough.
The gall of me also
Actually, Mr Heyser is saying very strongly on the contrary, ie that all things can of course be measured, BUT this requires different forms of measurements, or at least different/extended forms of analysis.
IOW, thinking well beyond the time honoured simplistic measurement methodologies such as FR, THD, and IMD.
One major concept he relates is that of spectral time distortions...ie devices/systems having differing throughput delay versus signal frequency.
This signal throughput delay can have its own 'spectrum', and this delay spectrum can further be signal dependent dynamically modulated.
This behaviour sets up a whole cloud of ''IMD/modulation'' like behaviour, with new 'foreign' frequencies/signals consequently produced.
He also discusses other 'non traditional/not usually considered' modulation causes, each producing another 'set' of 'foreign' frequency/spectral resultants.
This is just touching on what he is on about....read Audio Magazine: proposed series Chapter 11 - Conclusion, and then read it again !.
Once that chapter is digested, read Chapters 1 through 10, and read them again also.
The whole lesson revolves around the concept of 'energy', and not just 'signals'...the two terms are not the same thing.
More later.
Dan.
Fine, no argument, but some things we can quanitfy and measure today were once unknown and unmeasurable. Then we learnt how to measure them. Ditto for Mr Heyser's view, I believe that's what it REALLY means, we can't measure them today, we need new methods, we will eventually learn how to and what is not measurable today will be measureable tomorrow.
That's progress, evolution, and that's how thing usually work in any field.
That did not prevent that Greek philosopher from dipping his feet in the warm Aegean sea and preaching about atoms. He had to wait for 23 centuries to be proven right. Helmholz was luckier, he waited only 100 years for Quad to prove huis theories right an viable. Heinlein, Sturgeon, Bester at al. were even luckier, the death ray they wrote about in the 50ies became reality in less than 30 years.
Ob the BUT side, that is also acknowledging that so far, we still cannot measure some things, and that means our measurements today are NOT sufficient to tell the whole story. As opposed to some here who beieve our current measurements are quite enough.
I would really talk about some of the more 'exotic' solutions implied by 'magic boxes, etc., etc. I have tried a number of these things, and I can neither say whether they work or not, by measurement. However, I do trust my ears, and IF something does something useful as far as I can tell, I will accept it. However, even if I never try some 'tweak' I do not condemn it just because it has no obvious explanation. I just put it on hold, but I take note of what others might think about it.
Years ago, I tried to 'get a handle' on these 'tweaks', bought lots of physics books, etc., but it just isn't in the text, and I can't understand the basic physics well enough to come up with my own hypothesis, so I have decided to go with what 'works' that comes my way, and to not put a final judgement on the rest. Of course, there is SOME fake stuff out there, but until I listen for myself, I have no strong opinion as to what is real and what is fake.
Years ago, I tried to 'get a handle' on these 'tweaks', bought lots of physics books, etc., but it just isn't in the text, and I can't understand the basic physics well enough to come up with my own hypothesis, so I have decided to go with what 'works' that comes my way, and to not put a final judgement on the rest. Of course, there is SOME fake stuff out there, but until I listen for myself, I have no strong opinion as to what is real and what is fake.
Last edited:
You can read the article at firstwatt.com, and I think it covers your question.
There are loudspeakers, particularly full-range types, that do pick up some
benefits, but you can be the judge.
Conceptually it has appeal because current translates directly to cone
acceleration, and for the pistonic region model where declining excursion with
frequency is cancelled by increasing acoustic resistance, this translates directly to
pressure.
But no, I don't currently run such a system at home.
Last edited:
He he, thanks a lot Nelson, just what i bet.
And i share your "Conceptually" ;-)
I was very amused by the links provided by AudioLapDance ( http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-3031.html#post4200672 ). Looking to this 'dedicated ?' tweeter witch, looking to his impedance curve, breaks obviouly at... 2KHz ;-)
You know, it is difficult and not much appreciated to make a step aside of the routine convention. I am trying to gather some listening experience, at least it is very interesting.
Current drive of speakers and speaker distortion
Current drive of speakers and speaker distortion
Attachments
Last edited:
I also do a lot of measurements and listening to the measured data to get a memory of what various distortions sound like..... it takes a while but eventually, you know what you are hearing.
It would seem that many do measurements and many do listening but not enough do both. Maybe due to lack of interest in one or the other or lack of funds and time. Or, all of the above. Those who do both, however, are in a unique position.
THx-RNMarsh
Some ABX cable entertainment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422327029&v=3UQDTZcpsDE&x-yt-cl=84838260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422327029&v=3UQDTZcpsDE&x-yt-cl=84838260
Thank you Scott for your generous offer.
Just after posting my message, I clicked eBay buttons and ordered a couple of SSM2019's, so you confirm my choice....so I'm all good.
Thanks again.
Dan.
Tom, this business of "invisible" speakers obviously fascinates me, and my current thinking is that when the source of the sound is sufficiently "misbehaving" then the audible artifacts, which have no spatial clues within themselves, interact with the listening space, giving the brain enough data to locate precisely the speaker - you can "see" the drivers working. But when the complete system works well enough the spatial signature of the recorded material dominates, masks the spatial evidence of the speaker, which is only due to the room in which you listen to it.
Thus, a single speaker, working well enough, will also be invisible - your brain will receive insufficient information to decode where the drivers are, the key data is "drowned out" by the spatial information within the recording.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.