Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3?
article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? -Bart |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
On Tue, 23 May 2006 01:16:29 -0400, bart wrote:
http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3? article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? snip Sounds sort of like the kind of horse**** you get form Amar Bose or Bob Carver. It's bunk. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
On Tue, 23 May 2006 01:16:29 -0400, bart wrote:
http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3? article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? -Bart I stopped at his opening paragraph. When one starts a paper with an axiom that is total ******** (plus the obligatory spelling error - accessed instead of assessed) there is really no point reading further. HIs wife must be so proud to have that dedicated to her. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTINGBASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
bart wrote:
http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3? article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. Try TinyURL to cut down the length of links, so they'll fit. Now, see: http://tinyurl.com/qu5pw I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? -Bart It's not a new idea. The Radiotron Designer's Handbook 4th ed mentions weighting THD figures to get a better representation of how listeners will judge the sound quality of an amplifier. He's amplifying (if you'll pardon the expression) on the concept. It's not a bad paper given the small sample size and the fact that he did it himself. I wouldn't have cited Stereophile, it's not a scholarly or scientific journal (to put it mildly). The spelling errors were probably caused by the fellows (native Russian speakers) who created the PDF file. But I'd note that even a dyslexic can write a master's thesis, so the mere prescence of spelling errors doesn't cancel out in toto the validity of what's written. -- Ned Carlson SW side of Chicago, USA www.tubezone.net |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
bart wrote
Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? It seems to be a reasonable introduction to some major issues. As Ned says, the conclusion is not a new idea, but a competent survey seems to be good enough for a masters. If you look at a few audio magazines, you will find various expressions of similar ideas in the way they measure and report on their tests. Perhaps they all add up to the same thing. One problem with weighting is how to arrive at an agreed standard, particularly when more than one number is the most that the majority of punters can cope with simultaneously. If you can't understand the maths, then how will it make any difference to you whether it is true or not? A problem of weighting that it is another step towards reducing the whole measurement thing to absurdity. If the author had not set out to justify a preconceived notion of weighted distortion, he may have drawn from all those authors any number of other important aspects of amplifier performance, and may have devised a whole heap of indicative measures. Analysis is, after all, a process of disassembly, and more is often not better. At the risk of upsetting the angry young technician, I suggest audio equipment should be specified and assessed in the same way as musical instruments. That has much more to do with the way real history has unfolded. cheers, Ian |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASEDON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
bart wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 23 May 2006 01:16:29 -0400, bart wrote: http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3? article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? snip Sounds sort of like the kind of horse**** you get form Amar Bose or Bob Carver. It's bunk. Did you read the PDF then? The author is described as having some very good credentials. How does one check up on what is claimed on a web- page? Sometimes one cannot know if the truth is being told at a website ( or in emails to a news group.) So where another website contradicts the first, and is convincing, then maybe either is right. The Internet was never designed so ONLY the truth could be ever posted since Truth Filters have yet to be designed. So one should always think that what one reads on the Net could be bull****e, ********, rubbish, garbage, idiocy, hot air, horse ****e, etc, etc, etc. But where a list of reasons and mathematical proofs are offered, and you doubt it it all, then you have to be able to unravel the proof mathematically by finding out where they may have said the equivalent of 2+2 = 6 and 4x7= 31.8 and dismiss other reasons given for their stance in a cold hard logical way to confirm your doubt. One thing is certain, bull****e is everywhere, and we need gumboots to stride the world. No matter how big a shovel and broom is that we take with us through life, there will always be piles of BS clear away, or avoid. Truth is elusive, often evaded by people taking the Egyption Solution, ie, they are in denial. Patrick Turner. -Bart |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
On Thu, 25 May 2006 03:14:18 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote: But where a list of reasons and mathematical proofs are offered, and you doubt it it all, then you have to be able to unravel the proof mathematically by finding out where they may have said the equivalent of 2+2 = 6 and 4x7= 31.8 snip In that "theorem" (and I use the term mockingly) I digested enough of the presented math to know that it is, indeed, "bull****e." Although the equations work, they correlate to absolutely nothing known in the field of acoustics. Bob Carver and Amar Bose both made huge fortunes promoting such bull****e. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
Patrick Turner wrote: Sometimes one cannot know if the truth is being told at a website ( or in emails to a news group.) One thing is certain, bull****e is everywhere, and we need gumboots to stride the world. No matter how big a shovel and broom is that we take with us through life, there will always be piles of BS clear away, or avoid. Truth is elusive, often evaded by people taking the Egyption Solution, ie, they are in denial. Well said Patrick. You're a man with big gumboots. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASEDON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
bart wrote: http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3? article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? Does this basically just boil down to saying that the audibilty of distortion depends on its order ? Which in turn is influenced by the choice of amplifying device? If so it's hardly news ! Graham |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
On Fri, 26 May 2006 02:38:44 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote: Does this basically just boil down to saying that the audibilty of distortion depends on its order ? Which in turn is influenced by the choice of amplifying device? If so it's hardly news ! Sure 'nuf. There's been some perhaps interesting quantitative work in the States, too, but I can't remember the authors' names. Some of the AES guys in r.a.p like Scott D. or Arny K. will know for sure. The thrust seems to have been on generalizing a weighting (for audibility) of terms from the harmonic sequence, hoping to make a more meaningful "THD" single number. Can't hurt, I'd guess. All good fortune, Chris Hornbeck |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASEDON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2006 02:38:44 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote: Does this basically just boil down to saying that the audibilty of distortion depends on its order ? Which in turn is influenced by the choice of amplifying device? If so it's hardly news ! Sure 'nuf. There's been some perhaps interesting quantitative work in the States, too, but I can't remember the authors' names. Some of the AES guys in r.a.p like Scott D. or Arny K. will know for sure. The thrust seems to have been on generalizing a weighting (for audibility) of terms from the harmonic sequence, hoping to make a more meaningful "THD" single number. Can't hurt, I'd guess. I can understand the desire to ennumerate this but I'm doubtful about it's usefulness. It won't make amps with different distortion spectra sound the same ! Maybe quoting the level of a specific harmonic would be more useful ? Analogue recording tape used 3rd harmonic to determine maximum output level and optimum biasing IIRC as interesting historical note. All good fortune, And yourself. Graham |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTING BASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
Pooh Bear wrote
bart wrote: http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/articles.php3? article=articles/Cheever/abstract_en.inc&sub_menu_item=99 Sorry for the lapped over URL, folks. The PDF on this page is quite interesting. I'm not endorsing it at this time as the math is way beyond me. Anybody here speak mathimatica? Does this basically just boil down to saying that the audibilty of distortion depends on its order ? Which in turn is influenced by the choice of amplifying device? If so it's hardly news ! Not quite. I think it is saying (and it would be sensible to say) that audibility in part depends on the level of each distortion product *relative to the others*. That seems to entail the idea that more can be less, in the sense that, perhaps, adding a bit of 2H could reduce the audibility of 3H, etc. A fixed weighting doesn't really reflect these organic relationships. You should read it, anyway. I suggest that this is all stock in trade for musical instrument makers. It's about "natural" sound. Beauty and all that stuff is about proportion. Arguably the best instruments were made before they started measuring them, BTW. cheers, Ian |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
A NEW METHODOLOGY FOR AUDIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER TESTINGBASED ON PSYCHOACOUSTIC DATA THAT BETTER CORRELATES WITH SOUND QUALITY
DeserTBoB wrote:
Although the equations work, they correlate to absolutely nothing known in the field of acoustics. It doesn't have anything to do with acoustics, it's an amplifier, not a speaker. The point of the article was to try to come up (it may be a Sisyphean task) with a measurable electronic merit figure for amplifiers that correlates with how listeners usually judge them in listening tests. The monkey wrench in the equation is speakers, of course. Switch speakers, and the figure of merit might not correlate so well. Bob Carver and Amar Bose both made huge fortunes promoting such bull****e. AFAIK, Mr Cheever, unlike Bose & Carver, isn't selling anything. It's a master's thesis, not a piece of sales lierature. He got his master's years ago, so complaining to his prof is probably a waste of time. -- Ned Carlson SW side of Chicago, USA www.tubezone.net |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
It's amazing what you can find when you look. | Audio Opinions | |||
Just for Ludovic | Audio Opinions | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio |