|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.236.25.80
In Reply to: RE: Disagree, you clearly do not understand measurement. posted by Tre' on August 30, 2015 at 09:42:52
Science keeps learning trying
to catch up to what we hear.
If you listen to what your ears tell you
then you will always keep
a couple steps ahead of science.
Science keeps leading us down a path
that later we discover is wrong.
SS over Tubes
FB to lower distortion
CDs over Vinyl
Wrong paths advocated by science.
DanL
Follow Ups:
Again, I don't know what you mean by "science"Facts told us that feedback increases the number of upper ordered distortion and that has been known for a long time.
"Norman Crowhurst wrote a fascinating analysis of feedback multiplying the order of harmonics, which has been reprinted in "Glass Audio," Vol 7-6, pp. 20 through 30. He starts with one tube generating only 2nd harmonic, adds a second tube in series (resulting in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), and then makes the whole thing push-pull (resulting in 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), and last but not least, adds feedback to the circuit, which creates a series of harmonics out to the 81st. All of this complexity from "ideal" tubes that only create 2nd harmonic!"
It's also been known for a long time that the higher the order of the HD the more objectionable it is. It was purposed decades ago to weight the HD by the square of the order so that the numbers would better represent the annoyance factor.
I beginning to think when you say science you mean "the marketing department". Higher power, lower THD, etc....... That wasn't the best of science. They knew better at the time but wanted to sell product not made good product.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 08/30/15 08/30/15
I consider science as those people
who are devotees of the technical who
consider it trumps any other influence.
Or the science establishment if you will.
Yes but decades before the Norman Crowhurst paper
feedback was decried as the marvelous "cure"
for all tube amp distortion problems.
Even after the paper it was largely ignored
and was considered a heresy against the norm.
Science really dislikes being wrong.
DanL
"Yes but decades before the Norman Crowhurst paper
feedback was decried as the marvelous "cure"
for all tube amp distortion problems."
Norman wrote that in 1959.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
OK so a decade after it was
decried as the cure all.
And how many decades before
it had any credence?
3 or 4 I would say.
Science establishment is slow
on any disruption of the norm.
DanL
OK then, let's put science aside and just stick with the facts.
Those facts won't help us if we don't try to understand how electronic circuits work.
So we need to be technical people if we want to achieve our goal.
Can I be technical in your eyes without being scientific? :-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I use science all the time.
BUT it does NOT trump what I hear.
I have a problem with -
If it measures bad, it is bad PERIOD
DanL
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: