Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Survey Article Amplifier Testing and Audibility
Ran across this on another forum (can't even remember where) but you can
read it here. The author is a nuclear instrumentation engineer who is a lifelong audiophile. It is his thesis from MIT, done in 2001. http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/...er/cheever.pdf Like many college grads today, he doesn't write particularly well and is downright sloppy in places, which detracts from the work. Nonetheless, it doesn't necessarily invalidate it and what he is attempting to do should be of interest to many here -- attempting to cross audiometric information with electrical testing to come up with a way of correlating distortion with subjective sound quality. -- |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Survey Article Amplifier Testing and Audibility
Harry Lavo wrote:
Ran across this on another forum (can't even remember where) but you can read it here. The author is a nuclear instrumentation engineer who is a lifelong audiophile. It is his thesis from MIT, done in 2001. http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/...er/cheever.pdf Well, Harry, read carefully. That's a thesis for the MSEE degree from University of New Hampshire. Not quite MIT. Like many college grads today, he doesn't write particularly well and is downright sloppy in places, which detracts from the work. Nonetheless, it doesn't necessarily invalidate it and what he is attempting to do should be of interest to many here -- attempting to cross audiometric information with electrical testing to come up with a way of correlating distortion with subjective sound quality. The paper is poorly written, often stating opinions as facts. For instance: "These amplifers (SET's) are clearly superior in most of the important areas of sound reproduction". No evidence anywhere to support that, except from some hi-fi reviewer who happened to like a particular SET amp. And then he brings in highly subjectively and poorly defined terms like "harmonic envelope". Sorry, Harry, what he did is simply substandard work in an effort to find something of redeeming value for the SET topology. Even for a MSEE degree from University of New Hampshire. -- |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Survey Article Amplifier Testing and Audibility
Harry Lavo wrote:
Ran across this on another forum (can't even remember where) but you can read it here. The author is a nuclear instrumentation engineer who is a lifelong audiophile. It is his thesis from MIT, done in 2001. http://www.next-power.net/next-tube/...er/cheever.pdf Like many college grads today, he doesn't write particularly well and is downright sloppy in places, which detracts from the work. Nonetheless, it doesn't necessarily invalidate it and what he is attempting to do should be of interest to many here -- attempting to cross audiometric information with electrical testing to come up with a way of correlating distortion with subjective sound quality. To a great extent Earl Geddes, following in the footsteps of some earlier (1970s?) work has managed to do just this... I'm not a disciple of Dr. Geddes but his work here does begin to explain what so many people have been saying for so long - which has been generally dismissed by the "objectivist" community as impossible. _-_-bear -- |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Survey Article Amplifier Testing and Audibility
chung wrote:
And then he brings in highly subjectively and poorly defined terms like "harmonic envelope". Not that this absolves the poor writing et al, but, for whatever it's worth, "harmonic envelope" is a much more meaningful term than 90% of the descriptive [sic] phrases used by TAS, Stereophile... and quite a few contributors to this newsgroup. It, pretty much by definition, refers to the amplitude-over-time of upper partials. -- |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Survey Article Amplifier Testing and Audibility
Buster Mudd wrote:
chung wrote: And then he brings in highly subjectively and poorly defined terms like "harmonic envelope". Did singing telegrams come in harmonic envelopes? Bill -- |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting Survey Article Amplifier Testing and Audibility
On 24 May 2006 03:34:16 GMT, chung wrote:
Sorry, Harry, what he did is simply substandard work in an effort to find something of redeeming value for the SET topology. Even for a MSEE degree from University of New Hampshire. It certainly doesn't speak well of the Universty of New Hampshire - or at least their EE program. |