130.199.3.130
In Reply to: RE: But he did measure posted by morricab on January 11, 2008 at 08:26:33
I got the impression that it was also the ratio of distortion components and not merely amplitude and/or phase.
Ah, yes...I stand corrected. Distortion he of course, would have to duplicate. I made the assumption that the distortion was very low from the jump.
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.
If one were to start a design from scratch, I absolutely agree with you. But starting with a reference to duplicate removes the "need to know". Honestly, my preference is exactly that of yours. I wanna know why...:-)
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?
How can one answer the question??? I'm not even sure what exactly he did..:-(
But yah, mighty tall shoulders, eh?
Cheers, John
Follow Ups: