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.



--

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.


--

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


--

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.


--

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


--

[Stuart Krivis]

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.