[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
196.3.50.254
In Reply to: RE: But he did measure posted by jneutron on January 11, 2008 at 06:44:05
"The fact that the metric is not well understood is a moot point..the actual metric was a measure of difference in amplitude, and difference in time (phase, as it were). By reducing those entities, equality in audibility is achieved."
I got the impression that it was also the ratio of distortion components and not merely amplitude and/or phase.
I also don't agree that the fact that the metric is not well understood is a moot point because the lack of understanding renders the technique not generally applicable to amplifier design. One must already have a superb amplifier (however you would like to define this) against which this tuning can be carried out. There would be no way to use this "metric" (it is not really a quantitative metric in any real sense) in a vacuum so to speak. What if your idea of a reference amp is different from another designers? Then we are back to the same issue of amps sounding different from one another and not necessarily what would be the closest, psychoacoustically, to the real thing.
From the point of view of the test, you are right Bob had a specific goal and he apparently met it. The larger question that comes from this is how to make cheaper amps sound better (ie. more like expensive ones...assuming that they do sound better in the first place). Now I am all for that and have heard a few (relatively) inexpensive amps that do deliver great sound but not many. Bob's expertise is also a rare thing, how many other designers do you know that understand this stuff well enough to do what he did?
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]