[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dear VR, This reply to your post above is a bit off topic, but I think you'll enjoy it. Regarding detection and adjustment of VTA, azumith, anti-skate and other parameters... The easiest way I found to detect distortions caused by VTA being less than optimum is as follows. Keep in mind that if one's stylus were more or less conical in profile, VTA adjustment is MUCH less critical than it is if your stylus is a line contact profile. I'm sure the reasons will be instantly obvious to you if you think about it for a second. In any event, being the OCD type A type guy that I am, I had to have everything adjusted JUST RIGHT for every record. Really, some parameters should be re-adjusted for every track, but I digress. Before the output of your cartridge goes to your pre-amp, install a DPDT switch wired is such a way so that in one position, everything is normal and when thrown in the opposite position, it reverses the polarity of one of the channels and adds left and right together. Once you do this, what you will hear left in the signal are largly distortion products. Put on your headphones and adjust VTA while playing your record. You will easily be able to hear distortions caused by mis-adjusted VTA, anti-skate, etc. Adjust for minimum distortions, reduce the gain back to normal, and then un oops the cartridge wiring back to normal. You will then enjoy the cleanest vinyl playback you've ever heard. Next time we can chat about running phono input out of phase through your amp from beginning to end, then swapping the phase of one of your speakers at the output. All inter-channel crosstalk products will be canceled out and the dynamic range of your amp will be increased. Example, as a loud bass note (typically present on both channels) goes through the system, one channel will be pulling the power supply rail up while the other channel will be pulling the supply rail down. The cheaper the amp, the better this technique works. Cheers!

Interesting, I can do all that in software with the Diamond Cut DC6 forensic audio software I have.

I'll give it a try.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Of note that in both cases, the challenging amplifier could only be treated as a “black box” and could not even have its lid removed. Nevertheless, Bob, using null difference testing, successfully copied the sound of the target amplifier and won the challenge. The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment, and in their own listening room. He marketed “t” versions of his amplifiers incorporating the sound of the Mark Levinson and Conrad Johnson designs which caused him some criticism by those who failed to understand the true nature of the challenge — that it was possible to duplicate an audio amplifier's sound in two completely dissimilar designs.

That's basically what I'm talking about. I can remember when there were conical "feet" sold for CD players that were supposed to improve the sound. Not to mention "stabilizing rings" for CD's and whole host of other, to my mind, whacky things.

Frankly, I suspect that Carver didn't do anything at all to his amps, it would be interesting to know if anyone actually watched him work.

I seem to have lost it, but I used to have a "Sonic Holography" test disk that came as a tearout in Audio magazine in the early 80's when I was a subscriber.

Sonic Holography was a technique developed by Carver to create a sense of depth and soundstage while listening to speakers. I set up my speakers as recommended in the accompanying article and was impressed with the results when playing the incredibly cheap and flexible little demo record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_holography

Quote:

What it is about is at least partially cancelling out the sound of the right hand speaker in the left ear and the sound of the left hand speaker in the right ear. It does that by sending a filtered and delayed signal to the left ear that cancels out the sound from the right ear into the left one. And vise-versa for the other channel. Note that both filtering and time delays are both required to compensate for the fact that the head's acoustic shadow varies with frequency so that different frequency ranges require different amounts of delay and signal strength. It thus removes some of the crosstalk between the two speakers, and extends the stereophonic image. Setup of the loudspeaker and listening positions is very critical, but when everything is set up just right, the soundstage spreads far to the left and right of the speakers themselves. Sounds sent only to the right speaker can sound like they are coming from the listener's far left even though the speakers are relatively close together in front of the listener. Back when the sonic hologram was introduced, Julian Hirsch said in a review that it wasn't very noticeable when it was switched in, but that when he switched it out the stereo image abruptly collapsed into the area between the two loudspeakers. On the recordings Carver selected for demonstration, Hirsch said that what it did was primarily let you hear the space in which the recording was made.

 

[hiisinux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif There absolutely are 100% concrete, measurable, indisputable reasons why a B-52 sounds different than a Tomahawk. The problem, as we've seen 100 times over on this site, is that skeptics will not accept them, or will tell us that these differences are meaningless, or will demand DBT to prove that they are detectable. FWIW, I'm all for exploring technical differences between componets, but our experience here shows that they just don't matter to flat-earthers like the OP in this thread.

this excatly shows why they demand "Scientific proof" and not some subjective listening test where flat-earthers&friends Belive hearing differences are completly different thing from actually hearing difference in double-blind abx test. if you can't hear difference between two signals in abx test you just can't end of story. member of flat-earth society would claim after test that he Can hear difference but not in supervised abx etc yada yada... in non-blind test's theres room for imagination. imagination is our greatest strength and weakness.

this leads to audionihilism = meaningless to get system better than you can for sure perceive difference in it.


now i would be rather intresting actually about our current situation with recording&mixing since we got already ability to record like hmm 130db dynamic range... and yet 95% or more of recordings are made with less than 40db dynamic range

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiisinux /img/forum/go_quote.gif now i would be rather intresting actually about our current situation with recording&mixing since we got already ability to record like hmm 130db dynamic range... and yet 95% or more of recordings are made with less than 40db dynamic range

Yes, it's rather like killing mosquitoes with a howitzer..

The only music that can really use such a huge dynamic range is classical. At least music of which I'm aware.

The very best vinyl records have a dynamic range of 55 dB or so. My recording system has a noise level of ~ -82 dB below clipping, so I have no problem capturing all the range possible on vinyl records.

 

[markl]

In re-reading my posts from last night in bright light of morning, I can see how they would read as exactly the kind of thing I often complain about WRT flat-earthers-- namely a drive-by thread crap. I let my frustration with the way Head-Fi is changing philosophically and demographically get the better of me for a moment. I took it out on this thread and the OP even though my disappointment isn't just with this thread but with what I see as the general trend on the site that I think is unhealthy. But all that has no place here.

So, I would like to apologize and will cease and desist in my OT ranting.

Carry on!

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif In re-reading my posts from last night in bright light of morning, I can see how they would read as exactly the kind of thing I often complain about WRT flat-earthers-- namely a drive-by thread crap. I let my frustration with the way Head-Fi is changing philosophically and demographically get the better of me for a moment. I took it out on this thread and the OP even though my disappointment isn't just with this thread but with what I see as the general trend on the site that I think is unhealthy. But all that has no place here. So, I would like to apologize and will cease and desist in my OT ranting. Carry on!

You have an opinion and are free to express it as you wish.

What you say doesn't bother me at all and I welcome your "off topic ranting".

I'm here to learn as well as well as impart my own views, people learn best from their mistakes and not what they do right. If I'm shown that I am wrong, I'll admit it and correct the error of my ways.

One point I would like to make though is that it is "flat earthers" who dispute scientific observation, not the other way around.

As you can see, I have a black belt in thread drift myself.

 

[kwkarth]

VR,
In your first post, you mentioned that noise and distortion are about -80db down in a typical modern amplifier.

You imply that masking effect is responsible for people not being able to detect distortion in amplifiers.

This goes along with something I alluded to in my first post in this thread.

The human ear/brain system is far more sensitive to some types of distortion than it is to others. Most people are far more sensitive to odd order than to even order harmonic distortions.

For some reasons I don't fully understand, I myself am keenly sensitive to modulation distortions to the point that many piano recordings today are almost unlistenable to me because the microphone placement technique used by the recording engineer allows the higher notes to be acoustically modulated by the lower string notes in the piano itself. It drives me up a wall to listen to such recordings. It sounds very much like the flutter produced by a cheesy turntable or lousy analog tape transport.

Anyway, back to my original thought... Those distortion levels that you mentioned in your original post may be spec'd at -80db, but that's -80 below MAXIMUM output level. Nobody listens at maximum output level, therefore actual distortion levels are more likely to be found lurking at only -30 to -40db below typical LISTENING levels. Masking effect or no, that is quite audible, particularly to a trained ear used to hearing the real thing in the flesh.

About Bob Carver... He was very innovative in many of the things he did with amplifier design, things which are used by all amp manufacturers today.
WRT transfer function. I suspect he was able to identify some prominent characteristic in a given amp and then capitalize on that characteristic by voicing his amp similarly, perhaps even slightly exaggerating that character that he had identified in the amp whose sound he was copying.

Whan it comes down to truly duplicating certain aspects of an amplifier design, which do translate into real world performance, well, one does get what one pays for and one can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[slwiser]

Again I was just web surfing on this web site and I find many interesting observations.

Here is one especially interesting observation by one of our top DYI individuals on this site that builds both SS and tube amps. He comments in this post about how similar SS amps sound.

The last line is copied here: "Another thing to note is that all solid state amps sound more or less the same, but tube amps can sound dramatically different from each other. It's a bigger world."
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showpo...3&postcount=22

Does this qualify him as a "half-a-flat-earther"?

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for the distortion on the Tracy Chapman piece, some people complained of that, but then some others could hear the difference between the undistorted and distorted versions down to -45 dB and even lower, given the odd distribution of scores. This leads me to think that the undistorted version doesn't have as much distortion as those complaining of it think it has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif VR, In your first post, you mentioned that noise and distortion are about -80db down in a typical modern amplifier. You imply that masking effect is responsible for people not being able to detect distortion in amplifiers. This goes along with something I alluded to in my first post in this thread. The human ear/brain system is far more sensitive to some types of distortion than it is to others. Most people are far more sensitive to odd order than to even order harmonic distortions. For some reasons I don't fully understand, I myself am keenly sensitive to modulation distortions to the point that many piano recordings today are almost unlistenable to me because the microphone placement technique used by the recording engineer allows the higher notes to be acoustically modulated by the lower string notes in the piano itself. It drives me up a wall to listen to such recordings. It sounds very much like the flutter produced by a cheesy turntable or lousy analog tape transport. Anyway, back to my original thought... Those distortion levels that you mentioned in your original post may be spec'd at -80db, but that's -80 below MAXIMUM output level. Nobody listens at maximum output level, therefore actual distortion levels are more likely to be found lurking at only -30 to -40db below typical LISTENING levels. Masking effect or no, that is quite audible, particularly to a trained ear used to hearing the real thing in the flesh.

Firstly, I would split the comments/clarify on Tracy Chapman. The 'Fast Car' sample sounded compressed (please note I did not say distorted), flat& dead, typical of frequency limited material. I would be very interested in the frequency spectra for the samples used in the test and that of the original CD. For my ears I find the that the lack of HF acts as a mask, maybe some people would be able to detect to a lower db level if 'all' the information is presented rather than a compressed sample. The vocal only sample is clearly distorted compared to the original CD and I assumed this was a side-effect of the compression in the sample. This also acted as a mask as I was distracted by it. Even 'simple' acoustic music is complex in colour, nuance and atmosphere acoustically. It is difficult to hear the whole presentation. I often find that on each listen my ear is drawn to different audible cues. I guess my ear is not trained or disciplined enough, maybe with practice you can improve your scores on this type of testing?

On the other tests is was obvious that my ear was more sensitive to certain distortion types than others.

I would agree that the distribution of results on some of the tests are indeed 'odd' or at the the very least prompt further testing. I tended to find that I could run down each test to what turned out to be my limit (without a mistake) and once this was reached became unreliable in putting down a series of consistent results. There are often ways to cheat tests.....

It would take further designed experiments to determine validity of the data collected. For my own interest I will repeat some of the tests with different transducers to see if my scores change.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even 'simple' acoustic music is complex in colour, nuance and atmosphere acoustically. It is difficult to hear the whole presentation. I often find that on each listen my ear is drawn to different audible cues. I guess my ear is not trained or disciplined enough, maybe with practice you can improve your scores on this type of testing?

It's actually quite difficult to record acoustic music compared to more electrically amplified forms. I learned that during my "career" recording local artists with a four track cassette portastudio.

Quote:

On the other tests is was obvious that my ear was more sensitive to certain distortion types than others. I would agree that the distribution of results on some of the tests are indeed 'odd' or at the the very least prompt further testing. I tended to find that I could run down each test to what turned out to be my limit (without a mistake) and once this was reached became unreliable in putting down a series of consistent results. There are often ways to cheat tests..... It would take further designed experiments to determine validity of the data collected. For my own interest I will repeat some of the tests with different transducers to see if my scores change.

I read the entire website and the test is a good deal more sophisticated than it appears on the surface. I asked my wife to take the test, knowing that although she likes music she is anything but an audiophile. I routinely compress music to put in her Blackberry Pearl phone/mp3 player to 64 kbps and she thinks it sound fine.

Anyway, my wife blew the test very early on and yet the protocol allowed her to go on and eventually get to -15 dB on the default program material over relatively inexpensive computer speakers. There were some headfi'ers with expensive cans who couldn't do any better.

In other words the test allows for learning during the course of a single test. In fact the site states that experience will make you a better listener in the sense of being able to detect distortion at lower levels.

I got to -36 dB myself on the first try, default program material with the same computer speakers and my hearing above 8 kHz is essentially gone unless I turn the volume up really loud.

The "odd" distribution of test scores was explained by another poster to an old thread whom I quoted somewhere far upthread.

What you are seeing at the far right end of the graph is all those who can hear to -45 dB and also all those that can hear even further down than that. This is the reason for the peak at the far right end of the graph.

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif VR, In your first post, you mentioned that noise and distortion are about -80db down in a typical modern amplifier. You imply that masking effect is responsible for people not being able to detect distortion in amplifiers. This goes along with something I alluded to in my first post in this thread. The human ear/brain system is far more sensitive to some types of distortion than it is to others. Most people are far more sensitive to odd order than to even order harmonic distortions. For some reasons I don't fully understand, I myself am keenly sensitive to modulation distortions to the point that many piano recordings today are almost unlistenable to me because the microphone placement technique used by the recording engineer allows the higher notes to be acoustically modulated by the lower string notes in the piano itself. It drives me up a wall to listen to such recordings. It sounds very much like the flutter produced by a cheesy turntable or lousy analog tape transport.

I have heard that kind of effect myself, with the low notes modulating the high ones.

At the present time, recording is as much an art as a science. The technology of modern recording tends to make people complacent to some extent I think. They figure that their sound recording and reproduction gear is so sophisticated that things like which mike to use and where to put it are relatively unimportant.

My brother is a master woodworker and has a three thousand square foot shop jam packed with tools and exotic woods, all the way from ash to zebrawood.

But give him an old tablesaw and a chunk of heart pine and he can turn out a beautiful piece of furniture while someone without his skills could go into his shop and make nothing but sawdust.

As it is with my brother and wood so it is with someone skilled with recording and sound. Give a true artist an old cassette portastudio and a couple of Radio Shack boundary layer mics and they can turn out a work of art.

http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pzm/

Quote:

Anyway, back to my original thought... Those distortion levels that you mentioned in your original post may be spec'd at -80db, but that's -80 below MAXIMUM output level. Nobody listens at maximum output level, therefore actual distortion levels are more likely to be found lurking at only -30 to -40db below typical LISTENING levels. Masking effect or no, that is quite audible, particularly to a trained ear used to hearing the real thing in the flesh.

Good point.. However, the distortion spec is at maximum output and distortion tends to drop at least somewhat with decreased output.

Quote:

About Bob Carver... He was very innovative in many of the things he did with amplifier design, things which are used by all amp manufacturers today. WRT transfer function. I suspect he was able to identify some prominent characteristic in a given amp and then capitalize on that characteristic by voicing his amp similarly, perhaps even slightly exaggerating that character that he had identified in the amp whose sound he was copying. Whan it comes down to truly duplicating certain aspects of an amplifier design, which do translate into real world performance, well, one does get what one pays for and one can not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

To an extent that is true.

It's been my experience that cost doesn't really equate one to one with performance in just about anything at which I've tried my hand.

Yes, more expensive is generally better, but often and particularly in America, much of the hype is driven by marketing and not true performance.

Does a ten thousand dollar turntable sound ten times better than a one thousand dollar one?

Not to my ears..

 

[plywood99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, more expensive is generally better, but often and particularly in America, much of the hype is driven by marketing and not true performance. Does a ten thousand dollar turntable sound ten times better than a one thousand dollar one? Not to my ears..

QFT!!! I did a "marketing" job for two weeks. It was more like lying to people while wearing a smile on my face. Just not my cup of tea...


PLy

 

[TheVinylRipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plywood99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif QFT!!! I did a "marketing" job for two weeks. It was more like lying to people while wearing a smile on my face. Just not my cup of tea... PLy

I'd go broke with the Sno Cone concession in Hell..

My wife on the other hand could sell Habanero peppers there..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habanero

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have heard that kind of effect myself, with the low notes modulating the high ones. At the present time, recording is as much an art as a science. The technology of modern recording tends to make people complacent to some extent I think. They figure that their sound recording and reproduction gear is so sophisticated that things like which mike to use and where to put it are relatively unimportant.

Seems to be the way things have gone, yes.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif My brother is a master woodworker and has a three thousand square foot shop jam packed with tools and exotic woods, all the way from ash to zebrawood. But give him an old tablesaw and a chunk of heart pine and he can turn out a beautiful piece of furniture while someone without his skills could go into his shop and make nothing but sawdust. As it is with my brother and wood so it is with someone skilled with recording and sound. Give a true artist an old cassette portastudio and a couple of Radio Shack boundary layer mics and they can turn out a work of art.

I totally agree.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pzm/ http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pzm/pzm1.jpg[/IMG[/i] [/td] [/tr] [/table] I've used a lot of PZM's in my day! Quote: [table] [tr] [td] Originally Posted by [b]TheVinylRipper[/b] [url=/forum/post/3167575][img]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/url] Good point.. However, the distortion spec is at maximum output and distortion tends to drop at least somewhat with decreased output.

Things like zero crossing error in AB amps don't change, and other non-linearities, but actually become a much larger part of the signal as the masking effect of the amplified signal diminishes. While TIM, HD, and the like tend to spike when an amp is pushed close to the rail, they stay at a pretty constant level below that shelf. Most amps are spec'd for distortions well below maximum output.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif To an extent that is true. It's been my experience that cost doesn't really equate one to one with performance in just about anything at which I've tried my hand. Yes, more expensive is generally better, but often and particularly in America, much of the hype is driven by marketing and not true performance. Does a ten thousand dollar turntable sound ten times better than a one thousand dollar one? Not to my ears..

I totally agree, the knee in the threshold of diminishing returns is pretty low on that scale and you have to really pay the piper for incremental improvements. To many it's worth the price, even though it's far from a linear function.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd go broke with the Sno Cone concession in Hell..

Your operating costs for refrigeration would be reeeeely high!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheVinylRipper /img/forum/go_quote.gif My wife on the other hand could sell Habanero peppers there..

Well, they say that hot food helps cool things off in hot climes. That's why spicy food is most popular in the hottest climates.