Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
So here we go: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, what we see is that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played amplified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode clipping amplify odd order harmonics. This is science. Therefore, we know for a fact, that any note played on a physical single string of a guitar (or any other single stringed instrument), has the fundamental and then even and odd ordered harmonics as part of the sonic audible wave that travels through atmosphere. The wave is at least 3 dimensional. Now, we can go to how Western Tonal music is ordered, because you seem to like to use that as the criteria by which you internally understand sound. A scientist will have a different language to describe sonic vibration than the instrumentalist; it doesn't prevent each from learning the descriptive language of the other. Nor should prioritization of one form of language or standard take priority over all others in all cases. If I give you a bunch a frequencies to play while you're on stage, unless you have a translator, you may be in trouble. To continue, if I take a single tone from a single sine wave generated by, in this case, the software synth Native Instruments Massive, I find that there are many ways of manipulating the single "note." For instance, without changing pitch I can manipulate the modulation of the note, or create a high pass or low pass filter for the sign wave which changes the sound by allowing harmonics of certain bandwidths of frequencies to pass while others don't. I can change the Q parameter of the note with resonance, similar to a wah pedal. Thus, when the Western Tonal Music by which you wish to define everything says play an A, as a performer with free will, I will decide what type of A I want to play when I want to play it. It may be A = 110Hz, it may be that what I call A is actually Hendrix's Ab-- SUDDENLY everything is relative to the Tonal Center I define. Because I have free will and choose to define it that way. Originally I said there were more than two ways of looking at a tonal center. Therefore a key center was at least binary, and I could think of at least seven other patterns not defined by Major or Minor thirds, therefore I said that a Tonic is n-dimensional, in that n= every way that a player can use the data. Though Nicolas Slonimsky describes the ordering ofWestern Tonal Music with Major and Minor thirds, frequencies can also be ordered in Fourths, they can be ordered as micro-tonal ragas, and thus there at least n-number of ways to consider the Tonic. You are limited as a player only by your lack of imagination, never by your supposed technique. Every mistake is an opportunity. If anyone wants to do a quick Wiki study on electricity, electromagnetism, inductance, impedance, and sound, please go ahead.... See if what I have told you is false. As I said, just my two cents. But please quit trying to pigeon hole us with your ignorance and assumptions and need for us only to speak in ways you can understand, because that is the exact opposite of learning. ... to amplify the bass note (my edit: within the chord) with is nearly equivalent to the decision of whether or not to use even or odd ordered harmonics when amplifying sound ... |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
On 07/11/2014 16:44, Luxey wrote:
So here we go: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, what we see is that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played amplified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode clipping amplify odd order harmonics. This is science. Not quite true, though. All amplifiers amplify all frequencies more or less equally. In the olden days, valve (Tube to the Americans) amplifiers added mostly even harmonic distortion, where the first note in the distortion products that wasn't related musically to the fundamental was high enough in frequency not to be audible to most listeners on most systems. The mostly odd harmonic distortion added by early solid state systems had much lower frequencies for the first dissonant frequency, so their distortion was both more unpleasant and more audible. This is why the audiophiles and some musicians were and are reluctant to give up their valve amplifiers. Exceptions existed to both rules, of course. In Western Music, tone intervals were originally decided by what sounded best, and that in turn was governed by the psychological, neurophysical and neurological characteristics of the listener. Equal temperament was introduced as a compromise caused by the difficulty of retuning keyboard instruments for each song. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
Luxey wrote:
So here we go: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tona= l Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the= Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, what we see i= s that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played ampl= ified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power= amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode = clipping amplify odd order harmonics. Please keep this sort of garbage in rec.audio.opinion where it belongs. I see too much of this already without seeing it here too... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
John Williamson wrote:
On 07/11/2014 16:44, Luxey wrote: So here we go: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, what we see is that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played amplified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode clipping amplify odd order harmonics. This is science. Not quite true, though. All amplifiers amplify all frequencies more or less equally. Not so much. You'd think that, but it's not exactly true. Some amps are linear, some are not. Most really linear amps have negative feedback. There is a heresy in amp design - exemplified by Nelson Pass - that thinks that negative feedback isn't all it's cracked up to be. I honestly have no real idea who is right; it is just interesting. I think the Pass argument is that distortion in amps is analogous to entropy in digital clocks. You can recover a clock but you can't eliminate the basic entropy of a clocked system. He/his prefer to select parts at high precision and use simpler designs. But since this doesn't scale, it'll never be a mass-market idea. In the olden days, valve (Tube to the Americans) amplifiers added mostly even harmonic distortion, where the first note in the distortion products that wasn't related musically to the fundamental was high enough in frequency not to be audible to most listeners on most systems. This is true, and it is not true. I have a fully solid state dirt pedal that can be measured to add even harmonics in a very controlled fashion. The iron, the caps, it all adds up. It's not so much worth getting all cork-sniffer about it but it all adds up. The mostly odd harmonic distortion added by early solid state systems had much lower frequencies for the first dissonant frequency, f(3rd harmonic) f(second harmonic), so... there was a long learning curve among electrincs designers for solid state. By the time Moog designed the Gibson Lab Series amps, solid state was pretty good... Fender solid state amps have a decent sound... so their distortion was both more unpleasant and more audible. .... but *the* canonical way to get dirt is pedals into a clean amp. This is why the audiophiles and some musicians were and are reluctant to give up their valve amplifiers. An amp is an amp is an amp. A Twin sounds one way; a Deluxe another. This is dynamic, so it's hard to model, but I bet I could pick one out over the other, all other things being equal. Exceptions existed to both rules, of course. In Western Music, tone intervals were originally decided by what sounded best, and that in turn was governed by the psychological, neurophysical and neurological characteristics of the listener. Music was originally a cult - Pythagoreanism. Equal temperament was introduced as a compromise caused by the difficulty of retuning keyboard instruments for each song. Nothing is ever actually in tune unless you use digital waveform synthesis. Then it's just annoying. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0662340/ -- Les Cargill |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
John Williamson wrote:
On 07/11/2014 16:44, Luxey wrote: So here we go: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, what we see is that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played amplified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode clipping amplify odd order harmonics. This is science. Not quite true, though. Well, that's an understatement. The original poster is first of all mixing up two things called "harmonics" that aren't the same, then he is mixing up amplification devices with topologies and distortion mechanisms. In fact, it's pretty much just an incoherent word salad from somebody who likes throwing technical terms together without understanding anything about the concepts behind them. This is a very typical thing in the high end audio community and I have to deal with it on a regular basis much to my great pain. Responding to this sort of thing isn't worth your time or mine. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
Luxey wrote:
So here we go: Not really. This is so full of non-sequiters and obfuscating generalities that it's almost painful to read. A few examples: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, When did "Western Tonal Theory" define "the amplification of notes", or the amplification of anything for that matter? and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, Equal temperament is not in opposition to single string harmonics. It's unrelated in other ways as well. what we see is that single tube power amplifiers amplify even harmonics of a played amplified acoustic note, whereas a push-pull power amplifier, solid state power amplifiers, and distortion created with solid state devices through diode clipping amplify odd order harmonics. This is completely unrelated to the preface of the paragraph. Furthermore, power amplifiers amplify all of the harmonics, regardless of whether they're tubed or transistor. They just do so in ways that are dependent on the design. When poorly designed amplifiers are driven to distortion, one variation between the types is in the ability to reproduce and amplify odd order harmonics. So what? When NOT driven to distortion, only the poorest of them may be audibly distinct solely on that factor. Therfore, why drive them to distortion, unless distorted amplification is the goal? If distortion IS the goal, then the rest of the discussion is moot. -- best regards, Neil |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
I hoped to provide you a good laugh, nothing more.
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
"Luxey" skrev i en meddelelse
... I hoped to provide you a good laugh, nothing more. Did you consider the Droit Morale aspect of reposting? Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
субота, 08. новембар 2014. 01.01.38 UTC+1, Peter Larsen је написао/ла:
"Luxey" skrev i en meddelelse ... I hoped to provide you a good laugh, nothing more. Did you consider the Droit Morale aspect of reposting? Kind regards Peter Larsen Actually, no! For a fraction of second I considered morality of the deed, as in "is it OK to laugh at someone", with obvious result, but never I considered the text as something with authorship to take care about. Afterall, it was posted to public forum by author. Once there ..., is there some regulation about it, the law prohibiting reposting of posts from one public forum to another? Obviously, within same forum it is allowed and expected, therefore "quote" function and so on ... |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
Here's from one forum's legal stuff, but before I post, should I consider their moral rights? Don't think so, after reading this:
"By uploading, emailing, posting, publishing or otherwise transmitting content to any Forum or submitting any content, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) a perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, transmit and distribute such content on in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed. In addition, you warrant that all so-called moral rights in the content have been waived." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
On 8/11/2014 12:09 p.m., Luxey wrote:
I hoped to provide you a good laugh, nothing more. I thought you were trying to make excuses for something ! geoff |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
"Luxey" skrev i en meddelelse
... Here's from one forum's legal stuff, but before I post, should I consider their moral rights? Don't think so, after reading this: Droit morale is a universal right in copyright with no temporal limitation. You ARE an audio professional, aren't you? Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
субота, 08. новембар 2014. 08.03.56 UTC+1, Peter Larsen је написао/ла:
"Luxey" skrev i en meddelelse ... Here's from one forum's legal stuff, but before I post, should I consider their moral rights? Don't think so, after reading this: Droit morale is a universal right in copyright with no temporal limitation. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
субота, 08. новембар 2014. 07.09.04 UTC+1, geoff је написао/ла:
On 8/11/2014 12:09 p.m., Luxey wrote: I hoped to provide you a good laugh, nothing more. I thought you were trying to make excuses for something ! geoff Sorry, have no idea what you are trying to say?! |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
On 07/11/2014 16:44, Luxey wrote:
So here we go: When we speak about the amplification of notes, as defined by Western Tonal Theory, and the contemporary equal temperament of the keyboard versus the Pythagorean multiples which make up single string harmonics, Just to be clear: harmonics they may be (sometimes stretched...), but Pythagorean they are most certainly not! Richard Dobson |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote: Most really linear amps have negative feedback. There is a heresy in amp design - exemplified by Nelson Pass - that thinks that negative feedback isn't all it's cracked up to be. This basically is a reaction to the 1970s obsession with high feedback levels as a solution for everything. Since there are distortion types such as the dead band caused by crossover distortion which cannot be fixed with negative feedback, this caused feedback to get a bad reputation in some parts of the high end community. I honestly have no real idea who is right; it is just interesting. I think the Pass argument is that distortion in amps is analogous to entropy in digital clocks. You can recover a clock but you can't eliminate the basic entropy of a clocked system. Pass is right in that the amp designer needs to start out with a system that is as linear as possible. Once that is done, feedback can be used to make it better. I highly recommend Doug Self's discussion about feedback in his book on power amplifier design. He also discusses having multiple feedback loops and loops with multiple compensation poles, both of which may have some use. He/his prefer to select parts at high precision and use simpler designs. But since this doesn't scale, it'll never be a mass-market idea. I think this is a good plan, BUT by the same token I think that it can be used along with moderate feedback. Note that one of the thing Nelson Pass is really good at is minimizing the number of devices that require high precision in a design. In the olden days, valve (Tube to the Americans) amplifiers added mostly even harmonic distortion, where the first note in the distortion products that wasn't related musically to the fundamental was high enough in frequency not to be audible to most listeners on most systems. This is true, and it is not true. I have a fully solid state dirt pedal that can be measured to add even harmonics in a very controlled fashion. It's not really true, because the whole push-pull thing nearly eliminates even harmonics... so all you have left is that which is due to the output transformer, and classic tube amps were almost all push-pull designs for that reason. If you look at the Citation II at 2 watts output, the distortion spectrum looks almost nothing like the spectrum at 60 watts output. So which one is characteristic of a tube amp? They both are. (And both of them are due almost completely to he output transformer). As far as inharmonic distortion goes, that's a different issue altogether and plenty of output transformers have IMD that can result in it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Had to let you know .... A quote from one guitar forum
Les Cargill wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote: Les Cargill wrote: John Williamson wrote: snip He/his prefer to select parts at high precision and use simpler designs. But since this doesn't scale, it'll never be a mass-market idea. I think this is a good plan, BUT by the same token I think that it can be used along with moderate feedback. Note that one of the thing Nelson Pass is really good at is minimizing the number of devices that require high precision in a design. This makes sense, but a lot of his writing is about part selection - not part *number* selection but selection of specific parts from bins. This is the downside of trying to use current-technology semiconductors, especially FETs, without feedback. Pick two MOSFETs off the line and the curves will be wildly different. You can hand select or you can pay On Semi to do the selection for you. Feedback lets you get away with different curves and different gains and still get reasonable performnce without individual tweaking of circuit parameters with hand-selection and trimmers. It's not really true, because the whole push-pull thing nearly eliminates even harmonics... so all you have left is that which is due to the output transformer, and classic tube amps were almost all push-pull designs for that reason. But there's a fetish for "single ended" as well. That is a very modern thing. In the fifties, sixties, and seventies, single-ended output stages were relegated to table radios and classroom phonographs, but then the Japanese went berserk over the idea in the nineties and now there are a lot of people selling very highly colored and less than sonically optimal products at high costs. Go figure. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
quote | Car Audio | |||
A quote | Audio Opinions | |||
Excellent forum for guitar players! | Pro Audio | |||
Quote: Wikpedia | Audio Opinions | |||
Geekslutz forum - A forum for techie geekie nerds! | Pro Audio |