Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... It would be interesting to measure, but thank God I don't have one sitting around here. Still, the 1KC square wave test is a hell of a good qualitative measurement. You get to see any stability issues and any frequency response variations very quickly on the scope. So when you've actually done it, get back to us. MrT. |
#162
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Peter Larsen wrote: Eeyore wrote: You can tune most instruments to these scales. Unless they have to play with tempered instruments. Then it's the instruments with the equal temperament that are excluded from such performances. Graham |
#163
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
John Larkin wrote: Robert Latest wrote: ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] Original groups replaced Eeyore wrote: The idea that you can 'get away' with sloppy circuitry for replay because the source was in some way 'impaired' is totally false. I don't think anybody proposed "sloppy" circuitry for replay. The point is that studio audio gear is just solid, reliable, conventional good audio stuff (none of that high-end low-oxygen power cord crap). Plenty of opamps, plenty of NFB, plenty of digital processing, plenty of all the things that high-enders loathe. Since the recording studio already did 90% of the work of completely destroying the audio signal beyond repair, it doesn't matter how much your home audio gear adds to that. Sometimes when I hear the golden earers talk I'm surprised that I can make out any music at all when listening with my Cantons fed from an old Sony amp through particularly oxygen-rich cables. Designing audio playback gear that has PPM distortion levels, and noise so low it's dominated by the source material and room background, is now so easy it's not worth discussing. Simply not true. But seemingly believed by some people who should know better and who apparently foolishly think audio is entirely trivial these days. Power amplifiers in particular still regularly have THD levels as high as 1000 ppm (and more sometimes). And that's normally measured at full power which is a relatively easy figure to obtain. THD @ real listening levels of around the 100mW to 1W mark may be considerably higher. Just grab some National appnotes and opamp datasheets. Because it's so easy to make measurable noise and distortion vanishingly small, What's the ppm THD of a National IC power amplifier ? Certainly not in the single digits ppm ! the audiophools have had to move on to debating the unmeasurable, in long threads with no content. More uninformed ignorance. The difference between the audiophools who argue for such nonsense voodoo as cryogenically treated and 'broken in' cables and the like is quite different from this discussion which is based in sound science. Graham |
#164
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
news Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... isw wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote: The spectrum is important, in fact it is critical. In many cases, 2nd order distortion is hard to hear, particularly when listening to solo instruments. This is due to concurrent spectral masking in the human ear. Higher order harmonics are not so well masked as 2nd, so the ear can pick them out, even when they are relatively small. The audibility of harmonic distortion might also depend on tuning. In a system using whole-number ratios, harmonic distortion of all orders might be less audible than in a tempered system. Most instruments produce overtones as well as -- or instead of -- harmonics. They don't fall directly on multiples of the fundamental no matter what tuning is used. The technical definition of an overtone is no different from a harmonic other than its number. 1st overtone = 2nd harmonic etc. Overtones are a superset of the set of harmonics: Wikipedia: Overtone: An overtone is a sinusoidal component of a waveform, of greater frequency (usually an integer number multiple) than its fundamental frequency. The term is usually used in music, rather than wave physics. (see standing wave) I disagree with this. An overtone is the natural resonances of a sound source. ....above the fundamental, although the term "first overtone" is in use. That is, the natural modes of vibration. I disagree that the definition has anything to do with integral multiples of a fundamental. The set of tones that are "..of greater frequency.." includes both harmonic and inharmonic tones. Natural resonances of a sound source may be harmonic or inharmonic, depending on the source. It just so happens that overtones are often quite close to harmonics. For example, the 2nd overtone of a drum is 2.4 times its fundamental (given by the roots of Jo, the Bessel function). Probably not a happenstance. Some objects vibrate quite nonlinearly, and thus produce inharmonic overtones. Percussion instruments seem to be more prone to this sort of thing. For example, even guitar "harmonics" are not harmonics. The string does not vibrate exactly at a length set by the nut and bridge. The string does not move until it is a little away from its fulcrums. This is aproximinatly a fixed length, that depends on the string thichness/mass density/stiffness. A first order correction to this is to angle the bridge so that the thinner strings are shorter than the thicker strings. The net effect is that string overtones are not integral multiples of a fundamental as halving the string length, does not half the actual vibration length. If you're describing what different strings do, then this is different than vibrating bodies that product harmonic and inharmonic tones. |
#165
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Arny Krueger wrote:
Probably not a happenstance. Some objects vibrate quite nonlinearly, and thus produce inharmonic overtones. Percussion instruments seem to be more prone to this sort of thing. This issue is most interestingly explained in a 1981 +/- one or two years issue of Scientific American on piano tuning For example, even guitar "harmonics" are not harmonics. The string does not vibrate exactly at a length set by the nut and bridge. The string does not move until it is a little away from its fulcrums. This is aproximinatly a fixed length, that depends on the string thichness/mass density/stiffness. A first order correction to this is to angle the bridge so that the thinner strings are shorter than the thicker strings. The net effect is that string overtones are not integral multiples of a fundamental as halving the string length, does not half the actual vibration length. If you're describing what different strings do, then this is different than vibrating bodies that product harmonic and inharmonic tones. What strings do depend on what their anchor points do. See the literature reference above. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#166
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Peter Larsen wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: Probably not a happenstance. Some objects vibrate quite nonlinearly, and thus produce inharmonic overtones. Percussion instruments seem to be more prone to this sort of thing. This issue is most interestingly explained in a 1981 +/- one or two years issue of Scientific American on piano tuning For example, even guitar "harmonics" are not harmonics. The string does not vibrate exactly at a length set by the nut and bridge. The string does not move until it is a little away from its fulcrums. This is aproximinatly a fixed length, that depends on the string thichness/mass density/stiffness. A first order correction to this is to angle the bridge so that the thinner strings are shorter than the thicker strings. The net effect is that string overtones are not integral multiples of a fundamental as halving the string length, does not half the actual vibration length. If you're describing what different strings do, then this is different than vibrating bodies that product harmonic and inharmonic tones. What strings do depend on what their anchor points do. See the literature reference above. That's a bit too generalized. It also depends on the rest of the physical swinging system. Unless counting all beneath strings as anchor, mounting the same set of strings, tuners, nut, bridge on a solid steel railway chunk, an acoustic, an electric solidbody and a archtop jazz guitar yeilds different string movements. Sorry, no references I can remember. And a bit OT to the discussion. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#167
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:48:28 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Eeyore wrote: You can tune most instruments to these scales. Unless they have to play with tempered instruments. Then it's the instruments with the equal temperament that are excluded from such performances. Yeah, ha ha, but temper and temperament are in entirely different ballparks. In High School, I broke my collarbone while horsing around. When I got home from getting it set, my sister asked, "Did you break your well- tempered clavicle?" ;-) We all laugued politely. :-) Thanks, Rich |
#168
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Eeyore wrote:
There was part of a thread a while back about how adding negative feedback can create higher order harmonic distortion products than exist open-loop in an amplifier stage. This made me think about the application of op-amps in audio generally. Negative feedback is used primarily to linearise the transfer function and is used in huge quantites as much as 80dB @ 1 kHz for example. Since this amount of NFB is not required to provide an accurate gain setting, it struck me that it's somewhat counter productive. If instead the open-loop transfer characteritic was made more linear by degeneration of the open-loop gain for example, when NFB is applied, the overall result should be largely similar (i.e. no worse) but would presumably also suffer less from the creation of these new distortion products . Comments ? Graham Maybe useful to the discussion on harmonics, YMMV.. it's some graphs of audibility for different harmonics: http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/opa.htm -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#169
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mogens V." wrote in
message . dk Maybe useful to the discussion on harmonics, YMMV.. it's some graphs of audibility for different harmonics: http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/opa.htm Figure one seems to be highly speculative. Where did it come? |
#170
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote in message . dk Maybe useful to the discussion on harmonics, YMMV.. it's some graphs of audibility for different harmonics: http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/opa.htm Figure one seems to be highly speculative. Where did it come? I really can't say.. I stumbled over this from some audiophile forum while searching for references to peoples experiences with opamps. The article has a nof links to some modified 'board' seemingly in some CD/SACD player, the make and model of which I can't make out, which seems to be the basis for the tests. Right above Fig 1 this 'board' seemingly used for measurements are mentioned, indicating they did measure out those opamps - or maybe the player was measured as a whole. But you're right, the way it's written, Fig 1 could be based on some measurements coupled with a mix of theory, experiences and speculations (or superstition, it you will). The article has a link to Part 1 somewhere near the top. Both papers have a nof subjective listening comments, so YMMV.. The reason I put some faith in the papers is that most all comments on subjective sonic performance seems to fit with what I read elsewhere, which of cause doesn't nessesarily make it technically valid. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#171
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mogens V." wrote in
message . dk Arny Krueger wrote: "Mogens V." wrote in message . dk Maybe useful to the discussion on harmonics, YMMV.. it's some graphs of audibility for different harmonics: http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/opa.htm Figure one seems to be highly speculative. Where did it come? I really can't say.. I stumbled over this from some audiophile forum while searching for references to peoples experiences with opamps. The article has a nof links to some modified 'board' seemingly in some CD/SACD player, the make and model of which I can't make out, which seems to be the basis for the tests. The tests they allude to seem to, er lack rigor. Right above Fig 1 this 'board' seemingly used for measurements are mentioned, indicating they did measure out those opamps - or maybe the player was measured as a whole. The analog domain circuitry in a CD player is basically a stereo DAC, a pair of op amps, and maybe an analog switch for muting. But you're right, the way it's written, Fig 1 could be based on some measurements coupled with a mix of theory, experiences and speculations (or superstition, it you will). I'm thinking it has a lot of the latter, because the thresholds shown are below the generally agreed-upon state of the human ear, and by several orders of magnitude. The article has a link to Part 1 somewhere near the top. Both papers have a nof subjective listening comments, so YMMV.. Exactly. It's highly speculative stuff. If someone said that they took the current understandings of the sensitivity of the ear, and added 2-3 orders of magnitude "safety factor", I might understand. The reason I put some faith in the papers is that most all comments on subjective sonic performance seems to fit with what I read elsewhere, which of cause doesn't nessesarily make it technically valid. There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. |
#172
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote Right above Fig 1 this 'board' seemingly used for measurements are mentioned, indicating they did measure out those opamps - or maybe the player was measured as a whole. The analog domain circuitry in a CD player is basically a stereo DAC, a pair of op amps, and maybe an analog switch for muting. Basically, yes. Sometimes I wonder about all that electronics in some devices. The reference thingy (an SACD, it seems) in said article seems to be loaded with electronics. YMMV.. The reason I put some faith in the papers is that most all comments on subjective sonic performance seems to fit with what I read elsewhere, which of cause doesn't nessesarily make it technically valid. There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. Nod. As I said, I was searching for tonal references more than tech facts. It's for modding the analog part of guitar processors, where a nof devices will all serve equally well, from a tech POW. Not having the time nor the test gear, I was going more for a matching range of subjective sonic comments. The tonal/sonic 'findings' in the referred article mostly seem to match what's been commented in here, so at least subjectively, it's not totally off. I fully agree with your comments on scale et al.., though Haven't completely lost my ability to think and read between lines.. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#173
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mogens V." wrote in
message . dk Arny Krueger wrote: "Mogens V." wrote Right above Fig 1 this 'board' seemingly used for measurements are mentioned, indicating they did measure out those opamps - or maybe the player was measured as a whole. The analog domain circuitry in a CD player is basically a stereo DAC, a pair of op amps, and maybe an analog switch for muting. Basically, yes. Sometimes I wonder about all that electronics in some devices. The reference thingy (an SACD, it seems) in said article seems to be loaded with electronics. YMMV.. This is ironic, because one of the alleged benfits of DSD is supposed to be a simplified player. However, there are two other explanations for the apparently complexity of a SACD player: (1) It's a high end audio product, and the oversized collection of hardware is supposed to convey perceived value. (2) It's a low-volume or early production design, and has very few of the advantages of component integration, which requires more development time, and/or technology and expenses that only high volumes can make economically justified. The reason I put some faith in the papers is that most all comments on subjective sonic performance seems to fit with what I read elsewhere, which of cause doesn't nessesarily make it technically valid. There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. Nod. As I said, I was searching for tonal references more than tech facts. It's for modding the analog part of guitar processors, where a nof devices will all serve equally well, from a tech POW. Regrettably, the meaning of the previous paragraph seems to be hindered by a few misspellings. Not having the time nor the test gear, I was going more for a matching range of subjective sonic comments. Subjective comments are like - individual and subjective. The tonal/sonic 'findings' in the referred article mostly seem to match what's been commented in here, so at least subjectively, it's not totally off. I fully agree with your comments on scale et al.., though Haven't completely lost my ability to think and read between lines.. Just trying to throw a flag on a play that seems to be way out of bounds... Good luck with your project. |
#174
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. I believe there is a fundamental emotional problem some people have with audio equipment in that they believe that simple, easy, common, and cheap means it cannot also be good. But that is exactly what advances in technology (like negative feedback) strive for. With today's technology, a simple, cheap, common, easy to design in op-amp can indeed be VERY good. I think it is a stoicism thing. Mark |
#175
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mark" wrote in message
ups.com There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. I believe there is a fundamental emotional problem some people have with audio equipment in that they believe that simple, easy, common, and cheap means it cannot also be good. Agreed, and there are plenty of people who are attempting to profit by fanning these kinds of fears. But that is exactly what advances in technology (like negative feedback) strive for. With today's technology, a simple, cheap, common, easy to design in op-amp can indeed be VERY good. Again agreed. BTW, after looking at http://members.cox.net/alexhardware/opa.htm Then I noticed a reference to the author's previous article: http://tangentsoft.net/audio/opamps.html In this article, a wide selection of audio op amps that are generally designed to drive normal line level circuitry were evaluated as headphone amplifiers. !!!!. The tests involved loads as low as 33 ohms. The apparent test criteria was the power supply voltage required to deliver signals on the order of 0.5 volts into 33 ohm loads. head shaking. I'm not knocking the need, but I've got a lot of questions about the approach to testing, and the choice of parts tested for the stated purpose. There are such thing as op-amp chips that are very appropriate for driving headphones, none of which I see being tried. I think it is a stoicism thing. When I started out in audio, it took a half-a rack or so of epxensive equipment (based on octal tubes) with a farily thick power cord to do a what then passed for a high quality job of recording two tracks from condenser microphones. Today, a Microtrak fits in my hand, runs off a built-in battery for an hour or more, and does a far better technical job of doing the same basic thing - recording and playing audio. Not everybody seems to be able to get their head around such dramatic changes. |
#176
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote in message . dk Arny Krueger wrote: "Mogens V." wrote The reason I put some faith in the papers is that most all comments on subjective sonic performance seems to fit with what I read elsewhere, which of cause doesn't nessesarily make it technically valid. There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. Nod. As I said, I was searching for tonal references more than tech facts. It's for modding the analog part of guitar processors, where a nof devices will all serve equally well, from a tech POW. Regrettably, the meaning of the previous paragraph seems to be hindered by a few misspellings. Que? not sure I understand.. Good luck with your project. Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#177
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mogens V." wrote in
message . dk Arny Krueger wrote: "Mogens V." wrote in message . dk Arny Krueger wrote: "Mogens V." wrote The reason I put some faith in the papers is that most all comments on subjective sonic performance seems to fit with what I read elsewhere, which of cause doesn't nessesarily make it technically valid. There's a lot of people who say this kind of stuff, and it appears to rock their cradle. Doesn't make it the least bit true. Nod. As I said, I was searching for tonal references more than tech facts. It's for modding the analog part of guitar processors, where a nof devices will all serve equally well, from a tech POW. Regrettably, the meaning of the previous paragraph seems to be hindered by a few misspellings. Que? not sure I understand.. Good luck with your project. Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. The NE570 variable gain element seems to be far more likely to create audible effects than even just a fair op amps. You might want to check That Corp semiconductor for their latest-greatest VCA chips. http://www.thatcorp.com/vcas.html |
#178
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mogens V." wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: Good luck with your project. Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. The NE570 and 572 are fairly poor performers designed originally for telephony IIRC. Have you looked at using dedicated high quality audio VCAs ? Graham |
#179
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Eeyore wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: Good luck with your project. Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. The NE570 and 572 are fairly poor performers designed originally for telephony IIRC. Have you looked at using dedicated high quality audio VCAs ? Or using the gain-control grid on a 6BE6! You need two of them out of phase to deal with the linearity issues, but you need to do that with the NE570, anyway. THAT makes some nice VCA chips that are available from Mouser and are good performers, with no need to parallel them and totem-pole them like with the NE570. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#180
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. Breathing effects are all about the attack and decay rates and overall amount of compression ( not the particular op amp or VCA). For ham radio applications consider two compressors in cascade, first a slow AGC with 15 dB compression that acts to keep the overall level correct. Follow that with a fast limiter or clipper with 6 dB clipping or limiting (consider even a simple clipper here) that chops off the peaks so you can increase the average. This was the standard setup in radio stations, a slow AGC follwed by a fast limiter. The slow AGC makes up for board (bored) operator errors so that the limiter sees about the same input all the time and the limiter does the dirty work to make audio louder by clipping or limiting the peaks. Since you are looking for communications quality and your SSB transmitter probably has several % distortion anyway..., the choice of VCA is not important. You gotta get the time constants and ratios etc correct however. Have fun. Mark |
#181
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Eeyore wrote: "Mogens V." wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: Good luck with your project. Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. The NE570 and 572 are fairly poor performers designed originally for telephony IIRC. Have you looked at using dedicated high quality audio VCAs ? So true! The 572 part is a bit to the better side of things. Nope, haven't yet looked at alternatives. Just started looking into things to improve on; the crappy compressor is first on the list. Or using the gain-control grid on a 6BE6! You need two of them out of phase to deal with the linearity issues Yes, I've thought about a tube-based solution. One (more) problem is there's no space for additional tubes in the box, so I'd have to house them externally with signals and controlwires in and out. but you need to do that with the NE570, anyway. Uh oh, hadn't realized the linearity problem.. That the NE570 is hooked up for a max 30:1 ratio doesn't exactly help on liniarity and breathing THAT makes some nice VCA chips that are available from Mouser and are good performers, with no need to parallel them and totem-pole them like with the NE570. --scott I'm looking at the That; thanks both for mentioning it. Actually, for guitars, I have more use of a sustain function, operating at levels lower than, and after, the initial natural attack. The above mentioned max 30:1 compression ratio really is useless, and only serves to completely demolish a guitar's attack and definition, even for the heaviest metal. Further, it makes using an envelope follower to control parameters in proceeding effects less accurate. It's interesting to observe that many metal players, as they grow in musical understanding and playing capabilities, tends to drift away from the overcompressed tone, playing with much more expression and effects liven up, even when severe distortion is used. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#182
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Mark wrote:
Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. Breathing effects are all about the attack and decay rates and overall amount of compression ( not the particular op amp or VCA).. Yup, and WRT this, the NE570 wasn't exactly too controlable for music processing. Since you are looking for communications quality and your SSB transmitter probably has several % distortion anyway..., the choice of VCA is not important. Ehm, nope, not for SSB apps.. it's just that NE57x was very widely used in music applications of ye olde times, in this case a guitar processor. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#183
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
On Aug 27, 4:40 pm, "Mogens V."
wrote: Mark wrote: Don't worry, I'm not about substiting all opamps just because I _think_ I can get better tone. It's mostly for things like programmable compressors build on a NE570+TL082, to be substitutd for a NE572+NE5534. I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts, though I'd have to expect facing some problems integrating it into this existing programmable design. Wouldn't mind references to a good sideband compressor, though.. Breathing effects are all about the attack and decay rates and overall amount of compression ( not the particular op amp or VCA).. Yup, and WRT this, the NE570 wasn't exactly too controlable for music processing. Since you are looking for communications quality and your SSB transmitter probably has several % distortion anyway..., the choice of VCA is not important. Ehm, nope, not for SSB apps.. it's just that NE57x was very widely used in music applications of ye olde times, in this case a guitar processor. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. OK I'm sorry I mis-understood you then... What did you mean by _sideband_ here.... "I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts....." Mark |
#184
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mark" wrote in message ups.com... OK I'm sorry I mis-understood you then... What did you mean by _sideband_ here.... "I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts....." I would guess he actually meant side-chain. I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about amateur radio anyway :-) MrT. |
#185
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
Mr.T wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message ups.com... OK I'm sorry I mis-understood you then... What did you mean by _sideband_ here.... "I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts....." I would guess he actually meant side-chain. I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about amateur radio anyway :-) MrT. yup, maybe I used the wrong description, so to be more verbal: I mean a compressor not directly in the signal path, but rather where the compressed part is summed onto the direct signal, leaving the original dynamics untouched, so the compressed part 'blends in' only after the initial attact/decay part, thus effectively acting as a sustain function. This is very much needed when creating guitar sound. Maybe mostly OT in this discussion, but still.. AFAIU, many 'normal' in-line (guitar) solid state compressors tend to create third harmonic distortion at the somewhat fast attack times mostly used for guitars, plus some breathing/pumping (design problem). At least for my own taste, I'd prefer using and preserving the natural dynamic envelope of the instrument, coupled with the ability to prolong the sustain part of the envelope, with a somehat natural release. It allows for a much more expressive playing style. Of cause I could use some external ADSR-based device for more control, but this doesn't really fit with my otherwise programmable rack - at least it won't fit my finances hense my attempt to rework it. My preamp only has comp.ratio, threshold and level parameters, so this is what I'm left with for another design. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#186
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "Mark" wrote in message ups.com... OK I'm sorry I mis-understood you then... What did you mean by _sideband_ here.... "I'd like to adopt a better, more natural sounding (sideband) compressor design without breathing artefacts....." I would guess he actually meant side-chain. That was my interpretation. |
#187
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps.
I would guess he actually meant side-chain. I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about amateur radio anyway :-) MrT. yup, maybe I used the wrong description, so to be more verbal: I mean a compressor not directly in the signal path, but rather where the compressed part is summed onto the direct signal, leaving the original dynamics untouched, so the compressed part 'blends in' only after the initial attact/decay part, thus effectively acting as a sustain function. ... OK that's not sidechain either.... sidechain is when one audio signal is applied to the control part of the compressor and is used to controal another audio signal. i.e announcers voice used to lower the gain of (or duck) the music is the usual example. What you are asking for is done with an ordinary compresser and then use an ordinary mixer to combine the wet (compressed) and dry (original uncompressed) signal. You can use the two faders of the mixer channels to vary the amount of wet / dry to your taste. Mark |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Feedback in audio esp wrt op-amps. | Pro Audio | |||
Feedback on Profile amps please | Car Audio | |||
Need Advise on Feedback / Feedback Eliminators | Pro Audio | |||
TacT Audio RCS... any (recent) feedback? | Audio Opinions | |||
Need Feedback on opening a Car Audio shop | Car Audio |