[gregorio]

Let the flame war commence...

Hmmm, it is tempting

Transistors can be arranged to have less of this effect, and there is an interesting paper on the simulation of these techniques: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/ Do not get put off by some of the terminology. The simulations back up the idea. I have tried some of these techniques with good results.

I had a brief scan of that document but my knowledge of electronic circuit design is not good enough to make an educated judgement. However, the few bits I did read, the listening tests in particular, rang some alarm bells. Sighted, with apparently more than a few audiophile myths and not corroborated by the null tests I’ve done or detailed measurements I’ve seen.

On the face of it, it looks like a typical audiophile solution to a non-existent or irrelevant problem but I’m not certain, so I’ll hang back on the flaming for now.

G

 

[GearMe]

To quote another humble genius: "sounds good, doesn't work."
Expertise and pedagogy are different things. Not only am I convinced that many very knowledgeable people can't make their knowledge easy and accessible to the layman person, but I'm also sure that many teachers are bad at it.
I sure wish it wasn't the case and that the Feynman technique was universally applied and fully effective, but it's just not what happens. There's a reason why said Feynman is a legend(at least to me he is) in term of explaining complex stuff to others. That's because not many people could do what he could.

Of course...we could always use more knowledgeable people that are willing/able to explain things in a simple fashion!

Does an Expert's lack of doing this indicate their inability to communicate in a simple, organized, coherent fashion? Or...does it indicate a laziness, or worse yet, an unwillingness to make the effort?

I'll grant that some Experts may legitimately 'struggle' to explain a concept simply as Gregorio said. But unfortunately, I believe that many more Experts fall into the second category of 'not been interested enough' that Gregorio also mentioned. This is a big miss and not beneficial to the human race as a whole.

I can’t really agree with that. Experts only need to have conversations with those they work with, which most commonly is other experts...

G

Personally...I'm so glad that some Experts make the effort to pass their knowledge along to those that are curious enough to take the journey that really starts with baby steps. prior to walking, and then running. Without them educating the next generation of Experts, we would not have the continuous stream of innovations that the world has benefited from and the growing knowledgebase that we do.

Question @gregorio ...why did you take 'a lot of time effort and thought' to bring your students along? My bet is that it wasn't just because you were paid to do so.



A personal story related to this concept...my Dad was a Nuclear Thermionic Engineer for NASA for most of his professional life (before he retired to teach at a PAC 10 university). He held multiple patents on some complex stuff.

When I asked him what he did, he always took the time to explain it in terms that I could understand...which changed over the years as my knowledgebase grew. Not surprising, that when he retired, he went on to teach!

BTW, why did he go into teaching after he retired with a nice pension? To give back and help the next generation of budding engineers become the group that would take what he and others had done so far...and build upon it!

 

[bigshot]

That said, an expert...should be able to have the conversation at any level, and ideally, encourage the learnings of others by providing those folks with an enticing path forward if they are interested in a deeper dive.

I share your frustration, but not all experts are good teachers or communicators. If you aren't an expert yourself, you either need to be able to parse all the technical terms and ignore all the footnotes that don't apply to the info you need.

I find that with some people here in sound science, the discussions spiral outwards instead of drilling down to make points. The focus on the pertinent facts gets blurred by a million sidelines into obscure, unlikely exceptions. Those exceptions are true and factual, but spending that much time on them makes them look more important than they actually are. Often the first couple of sentences in an answer to my question are what I'm looking for. I ignore the five paragraphs of worst case scenarios and one in a million exceptions that follow them. The other problem is ego. There can be a lot of pulling out rulers. That kind of stuff is a sign of insecurity. Usually the people who know the least are the most aggressive and competitive.

In college, I was taught to speak clearly and succinctly in an organized fashion, and to keep the focus on the main point. Not everyone was taught that. Some fields value all the i dotting and t crossing more than the subject itself, and the focus often shifts to details instead of the core point. I worked with a great film director who would give instructions and then at the end, he would say, "Am I clear?" That was my cue to quickly communicate back to him that I understood what he needed. Being able to transfer information is a valuable skill, and I find myself saying, "Am I clear?" to the students I teach.

 

[GearMe]

Not all experts are good teachers or communicators. If you aren't an expert yourself, you either need to be able to parse all the technical terms and ignore all the footnotes that don't apply to the info you need.

I find that with some people here in sound science, the discussions spiral outwards instead of drilling down to make points. The focus on the pertinent facts gets blurred by a million sidelines into obscure, unlikely exceptions. Those exceptions are true and factual, but spending that much time on them makes them look more important than they actually are. Often the first couple of sentences in an answer to my question are what I'm looking for. I ignore the five paragraphs of worst case scenarios and one in a million exceptions that follow them. The other problem is ego. There can be a lot of pulling out rulers. That kind of stuff is a sign of insecurity. Usually the people who know the least are the most aggressive and competitive.

In college, I was taught to speak clearly and succinctly in an organized fashion, and to keep the focus on the main point. Not everyone was taught that. Some fields value all the i dotting and t crossing more than the subject itself, and the focus often shifts to details instead of the core point.

Agreed...some by limitation (less than you'd imagine) and many by choice.

Can't imagine getting through college without a fundamental understanding of critical thinking, problem solving, and communicating effectively. Applying these skills and some hard work to almost any knowledge-driven pursuit will often take a person a long way to their own benefit as well as others around them (work associates, etc.).

 

[gregorio]

Question @gregorio ...why did you take 'a lot of time effort and thought' to bring your students along? My bet is that it wasn't just because you were paid to do so.

True but I can’t pretend it was completely altruistic either. There was some altruism but it was largely because I tend to set an inadvertently “high bar” for myself. It’s not a deliberate thing, it’s more like over achieving at not being bad. I was lucky enough to find myself, for a couple of quite long periods of my life, working with those who really were amongst the best in the world, so avoiding being bad at your job in that sort of company means you end up being pretty good compared to many others, which you don’t realise at the time. When I changed to being a lecturer, I don’t think I was an especially good lecturer but I did work hard at not being a bad one. Working hard at that though, typically results in slowly loosing the expertise in your original field, which is one of the reasons I gave it up after 6 years and went back into the profession.

IME, different experts are different people, with different motivations and different paths to their expertise. A very few do have the natural ability to converse and explain to those at a much lower levels. I changed my profession and had to really work at explaining it to others at a lower level. Most other experts don’t have that natural teaching/explaining ability, they spend their time maintaining and developing their expertise in their field, don’t change profession and therefore don’t develop that ability. That’s a good thing IMHO, we want dedicated experts.

The focus on the pertinent facts gets blurred by a million sidelines into obscure, unlikely exceptions. Those exceptions are true and factual, but spending that much time on them makes them look more important than they actually are.

But that’s often missing the point of science. As we discussed previously with ABX, the point of the ABX test is to falsify the null hypothesis. In other words, it’s to find that single exception which all on it’s own blows the null hypothesis out of the water.

Maybe that exception is not pertinent to you personally, which is fine of course or maybe it is pertinent and you unwisely or unwittingly dismiss it. But whichever, those single exceptions to the null hypothesis are the very foundation of science and this is the Sound Science forum. It’s not the personal forum of what one person thinks is pertinent to them, although of course we’re all perfectly free to ignore what isn’t pertinent to us personally.

G

 

[bigshot]

As I've said a gazillion times, my purpose here is to use scientific principles to improve the sound of my home audio rig. I'm not particularly interested in pure scientific theory. I am interested in applied science to achieve a goal.

GearMe, I teach for purely altruistic reasons. When I was starting out, I was very fortunate to have some very important people mentor me and share their knowledge and experience with me. I never could have paid them to do that. They were doing it for altruistic reasons, so I feel an obligation to pay that forward to the next generation. There's way too much selfishness in this world, and there's often more business in the business of education than there is education.

 

[gregorio]

As I've said a gazillion times, my purpose here is to use scientific principles to improve the sound of my home audio rig.

Why have you said it a gazillion times? Sure, that’s your purpose and you’re perfectly entitled to it but not everyone has your home rig, considers “improve the sound” as you do or even has a similar purpose. They might come here to learn the truth about a particular claim, to broaden their general understanding of sound/audio or for other reasons.

I'm not particularly interested in pure scientific theory.

Again, it’s of course up to you what you’re interested in but:

1. Whether you’re interested in a pure scientific theory or not, is irrelevant. You might not be interested in reading Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication but you’re using it every time you turn on your computer or play a digital audio file whether or not you’re interested in it or regardless of whether you’re even aware of it and the same goes for countless other pure scientific theories.

2. Science is almost entirely built on pure scientific theories. So how can we ban them in a Science forum? And ban them purely on the basis of whether you’re personally interested in them or not? If we did, how is that any different from say the cables forum banning DBT or effectively any science they’re not interested in (which is most of it)?

I am interested in applied science to achieve a goal.

How is it possible to discuss applied science, if you’re not allowed to discuss the scientific theories being applied? Again, same as the cables forum, perfectly fine to discuss the pseudo-science but you’re not allowed to discuss the science the pseudo-science is based on.

Rather than repeating your purpose a gazillion times, wouldn’t it be better to start your own forum, for example, “Bigshot’s Purpose” or “What bigshot is interested in”, instead of trying to turn this subforum into your purpose?

There's way too much selfishness in this world,

Yes but on the other hand, being focused and dedicated, even to the point of obsession, requires at least some, if not a great deal of selfishness and is the path to expertise for many.

and there's often more business in the business of education than there is education.

Now that I totally agree with and was the main reason I got out and went back to the profession.

G

 

[bigshot]

I let you know this because it’ll inform you on what I am looking to find out when I ask a question. I’m assuming you don’t speak entirely for your own benefit. If you were you could just do monologues and not answer questions. If you’re going to interact with people you need to take the intent of their questions into account. Otherwise, they’ll just take your answers as irrelevant, no matter how many facts they contain.

 

[jagwap]

Hmmm, it is tempting

I had a brief scan of that document but my knowledge of electronic circuit design is not good enough to make an educated judgement. However, the few bits I did read, the listening tests in particular, rang some alarm bells. Sighted, with apparently more than a few audiophile myths and not corroborated by the null tests I’ve done or detailed measurements I’ve seen.

On the face of it, it looks like a typical audiophile solution to a non-existent or irrelevant problem but I’m not certain, so I’ll hang back on the flaming for now.

G

I am grateful for your near restraint. Unusual.

Yes there is no listening proof. The work is incomplete. But the simulations show there is enough previously not widely know issues to look into. Many of these techniques are already adopted by the audio and instrumentation IC industry, but often for other beneficial reasons of sheer accuracy, which is also a benefit.


I think it is an indication as to one reason why not only tubes sound different, but also the highly acclaimed work of John Curl and Nelson Pass, who I believe pioneered the use of physically large silicon transistors where they weren't strictly needed like the input stage of power amps. Some have cited lower noise, but that can be achieved far cheaper with low Rbb small transistors.

 

[Dogmatrix]

Tubes do not have to be high distortion at line level. Give them light loading and a current source as a load and the THD will be low. Remember a single silicon transistor will distort like hell without a lot of help. Low THD transistor circuits need plenty of transistors to make them linear. "Plenty of tubes" is not physically or financially viable. However a tube version of Nelson Pass's JFET preamp will behave well too.

I suspect some of the attractive sound qualities to tubes is not just the low order distortion, and the graceful clipping, both of which can easily be emulated with transistors. It is their resilience to thermal changes. Once warmed up, tubes do not change temperature quickly, meaning their gain and bandwidth stays steady. Transistors are far lower thermal mass, and when the temperature changes their on voltage, gain, bandwidth, input capacitance, you name it, it varies with temperature. So if a transistor amp near clips, all of the signal path loads up trying to push harder. After that all of the transistors start recovering at different rates depending on their loading and mass, including the bias network and the input stage. If they are all on an IC, it does not help, as the output transistors now heat up everything with the varying signal. There has been decades of work overcoming that stuff, and the continuing improvements to opamps is testimony to the real work being done. I can now buy opamps for <$0.10 that can outperform ones I used to pay $10.

Transistors can be arranged to have less of this effect, and there is an interesting paper on the simulation of these techniques: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/ Do not get put off by some of the terminology. The simulations back up the idea. I have tried some of these techniques with good results.

Do NOT go to the brand's website for information. It seems in order to obscure what they are really doing they have described in sure a way it makes homeopathy seem plausible.

Let the flame war commence...

Flame on I suppose

Reading the linked text I found it lacked any level of credibility . I do not claim the technical knowledge to understand but right from the introduction it is a fail .
Listing three facts in the introduction of a technical paper is ok if they are facts these are not . Fact A and B are statements of little relevance , not verifiable as I would expect a fact to be and Fact C is just wrong
What interests me is why anyone would consider such a text with an introduction that would not make the grade for a high school science project to be a serious engineering discovery
What kind of filter do you apply when deciding if a claim is credible ?

 

[jagwap]

Flame on I suppose

Reading the linked text I found it lacked any level of credibility . I do not claim the technical knowledge to understand but right from the introduction it is a fail .
Listing three facts in the introduction of a technical paper is ok if they are facts these are not . Fact A and B are statements of little relevance , not verifiable as I would expect a fact to be and Fact C is just wrong
What interests me is why anyone would consider such a text with an introduction that would not make the grade for a high school science project to be a serious engineering discovery
What kind of filter do you apply when deciding if a claim is credible ?

A variety of things. The credibility of the original patent and it's source, the method of the simulation, and the fact when I tried some of the techniques in my amplifier designs they worked. Doubled our sales and reviews trounced the completion.

None of the above is good enough as proof required in this forum. So it is therefore presented as an audiophile idea to be torn down by the usual suspects. But it is an interesting theory which cannot be torn down by frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference. I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas.

I think it is good to have an open mind. If even one mind here opens to that notion, then I see that as an achievement.

 

[Dogmatrix]

A variety of things. The credibility of the original patent and it's source, the method of the simulation, and the fact when I tried some of the techniques in my amplifier designs they worked. Doubled our sales and reviews trounced the completion.

None of the above is good enough as proof required in this forum. So it is therefore presented as an audiophile idea to be torn down by the usual suspects. But it is an interesting theory which cannot be torn down by frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference. I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas.

I think it is good to have an open mind. If even one mind here opens to that notion, then I see that as an achievement.

An open mind is admirable but we must apply some limits to avoid the magic beans
A patent is a right to exclusivity and in itself does not endorse an invention
A forum is just a group discussion proof is not required but may be requested

As far as an audiophile idea goes my difficulty with it would largely concern magnitude , does the beauty of the destination justify the cost of the journey . For my money something that is not measurable or demonstrable is not sufficiently significant .

 

[bigshot]

Fact A and B are statements of little relevance , not verifiable as I would expect a fact to be and Fact C is just wrong

I agree. Formatting it as a scholarly paper and using dense language is fine, but starting out with logical fallacies stated as fact discourages me from reading any further as well. The point of the paper may or may not be correct. There's no way to tell when the person doing the study starts off that far from the mark.

 

[gregorio]

If you’re going to interact with people you need to take the intent of their questions into account.

To a certain extent maybe but:
1. It’s not always clear what their intent is.
2. You can’t remember everyone’s intent.
3. There’s the overriding intent of this subforum, namely, sound science.

If someone publicly posts in a science forum, the answer they should expect to get is hopefully one based on the science. If that wasn’t their intent, then they’ve posted in the wrong forum.

Otherwise, they’ll just take your answers as irrelevant, no matter how many facts they contain.

As they posted publicly, I’ll do my best, within my time constraints, to provide all the relevant facts. Some of those facts might not be relevant for them personally but might be for others reading the forum. If they want answers/facts ONLY relevant for them personally then they shouldn’t post their question/assertion publicly, they should send a PM or setup their own forum.

G

 

[gregorio]

But it is an interesting theory which cannot be torn down by frequency response, THD, noise and EMI interference. I present it to show there is potentially more to audio performance than the same old measurements trotted out to denounce ideas.

But they’re not “the same old measurements trotted out …” - They are mostly the same old specs that manufacturers typically trot out and are often enough by themselves to denounce ideas. But then I would expect most here to understand the difference between specs and measurements. In science and in this subforum we also trot out the same old DBT and I often trot out the same old null test measurement. What “more audio performance” will not be revealed by the same old null test? And, why wasn’t one provided to give objective evidence? I think I can guess but as I’m not absolutely certain I’ll keep my flame muted.

G