Re: Bypassing caps? How about with wire?

[Phil Allison]

"Monte McGuire"
> "Phil Allison"
>
> > > > > > Be careful about loading, though; the TL07x has an insipid
output
> > > > > > stage, and it hates driving anything under 10k (don't forget to
> > > > > > include the feedback network when you calculate total load).
It's
> > > > > > really happiest with a 50k load or higher.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ** The TL072 in fact drives loads down to around 2 kohms with 0.001
%
> > THD.
> > >
> > > If you think that's good enough, then have at it. Chips like the
> > OPA2132 can do a lot better and the end result sounds that way too.
> >
> >
> > ** Got DBT results to prove that ??
> >
> > Thought not.
>
>
> I've got an AP2322. I find that an FFT of a distortion analyzer
> residual tells me a lot more about the hows and whys of a circuit than a
> listening test, DBT or not, could ever tell me.


** That was **NOT** what I asked nor even on the same point. YOU simply
made the claim about audibility without any grounds. It is just another
idiotic audiophool mantra that whatever can be measured can be heard.


>
> > > Also check the THD at something other than 1KHz. It's not so pretty
as
> > > you go further up.
> >
> >
> > ** 0.003% at 10 kHz with a 3.3k ohms load sure aint ugly.

>
> Well, it's 20-30dB more than you need to take. You choose.


** So you have no case - yet again.


> BTW, I'm quoting the level of spurs directly, not THD+N. You need an
FFT of the
> residual to do any meaningful tests of amps these days.


** But you have NEVER established that there is any meaning to the test.


> The spurs should be (and usually are) way better than .003% - most of
that .003%
> is probably noise.


** The full audio band noise from a TL072 with 5 times gain would be well
below that figure at about -117 dB ( rel 5 volts out) or 0.0003%.




............. Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison
> > >>>>
> > > > > Ignore me, please. [Monte]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ** You bet I will - but I will also try to make sure that
others do
> > the same.
> > >
> > > Phil, you're really silly and I continue to faithfully read your posts
> > > for amusement, but you've really topped yourself this time. This is
> > > the funniest thing you've written yet.
> >
> >
> > ** Why is it funny to you Mike ???
> >
> > Does it amuse you to see me outing another of RAP's resident
charlatans
> > ??
> >
> > You must explain what the joke is - we all need a good laugh.
>
>
> You've become the joke of the newsgroup, Phil. People will continue to
> listen to people like Monte for a long time because he has a good
> track record of credibility, accuracy, and most important, patience
> with those who don't fully see his point and ask intelligent
> questions.


** Monty is simply another pseudo-technical fraud - just the same as you
Mr Rivers.


> It will be a long time before you have that level of
> credibility by doing little other than challanging the statements of
> others and declaring them patently false.


** People who cannot and will not back up their claims have NO credibility.

The opinion one charlatan has of another is less than worthless.




............. Phil

[Phil Allison]

"David Morgan (MAMS)"
>
> "Phil Allison"
>
> > ** What a pile of drivel - you clearly have no interest in basic
facts
> > about audio or human hearing.
>
> > ** But that is both utterly implausible and you have no proof.
>
> > ** So you have no case - yet again.
>
> > ** So you cannot read ?
>
> > ** Monty - you are just another audiophool, made even more dangerous
by
> > using test gear.
>
> > ** Where did you get the ridiculous idea that anyone can hear 0.003%
THD
> > of any signal ????
>
>
> Do you have any facts to offer up here,


** Monty is NOT interested in the facts and neither are you - asshole .


> or is this rhetorical bull**** all we are ever going to get from you?


** Is snipping posts to shreds and posting mindless abuse all we are going
to see from you ???

The answer to that is already clear.



............ Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <
> Phil Allison <:
> >> TonyP <
> >
> >> >
> >> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
and
> >ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash". :-)
> >>
> >> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
> >> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
> >
> >** Do tell us what speaker has 0.003 % THD and IM at 10 kHz at say
100dB
> >SPL ???
>
> If you measure THD with a 20 KHz bandwidth filter, the way the FTC says
> you're supposed to do, nearly every speaker does, because the second
> harmonic falls right on the edge of the bandpass and none of the higher
> harmonics are measured at all.


** Nonsense - the filter is not a brick wall.


> I didn't mention IMD at all, you will note.


** You said "hash" - which alludes to all and any undesirable output.

No we *know* you were lying - as per usual.



.......... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"
Phil Allison
>
> > You might like to look up the results of "ABX" tests done on
commercial
> > amplifiers or even the famous public demonstrations done by the Quad
company
> > of the UK in the mid 1980s. The results showed inconvertibly that TIM
> > simply does not exist in practice and that so called "amplifier sound"
is a
> > purely a myth.
>
> Do I have to do the research? Gimme a link.


** You must surely have seen this one already :

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/index.htm


Info about the Quad public demonstatrations and other tests was published
in Wireless World and several UK hi-fi magazines at the time.

All of it would go straight over the head of a know nothing imbecile like
you Rivers.


> At least I'll read it (as opposed to you who wants it extracted and spoon
fed like baby food).


** No point having a brain dead , lying charlatan like Rivers read
anything.



............. Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> TonyP > wrote:
>> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that, and
>ears
>> >that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash". :-)
>>
>> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
>> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
>
>I like your use of the term "probably". What you mean is you have no idea,
>and no proof that ANY speaker can get any where near that figure.

As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
measuring device. This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook
the numbers.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> TonyP <

> >> >Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
and
> >ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash". :-)
> >>
> >> My speakers probably have no more hash than that in the top octave.
> >> They have a whole hell of a lot more of it in the bottom octave.
>
> >I like your use of the term "probably". What you mean is you have no
idea,
> >and no proof that ANY speaker can get any where near that figure.
>
>
> As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
> top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
> of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
> measuring device.


** That is just another of Dorsey's pig ignorant and blatant stinking lies
!!!!!

He claimed above that his own speakers had no more "hash" than an op-amp
that measures 0.003 % THD at 10 kHz. That op-amp was measured with an Audio
Precision analyser that like virtually *any* other includes harmonics to the
5th and beyond even at 20 kHz.

THIS is ***standard measurement procedure***.


> This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook the numbers.


** That is another damn lie - but what ***is*** very common for Scott
Dorsey to cook his putrid posts before serving them up with lashings of pure
bull****.

Even with a upper frequency limitation of say 30kHz due to the microphone
used for speaker testing, the second harmonic of 10 kHz would be
*unattenuated* and the third harmonic only attenuated by a few dB.

As always, Dorsey will not and cannot give any credible back up to wild
fictions.





............. Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"TonyP" > wrote in message
u
>> "Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it
>>> really is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of
>>> signals like I originally proposed. You choose... it's your number.
>>
>> Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
>> and ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash". :-)
>
>The threshold for hearing hash is generally somwhere just below 0.1%.

Again it depends on what the original source is and whart sort of hash it
is. On a 1 KC tone being clipped (say, with a diode clipper) most folks
can't hear anything until distortion reaches 2% to 3%. On a musical signal,
much lower clipping levels are audible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

On 9 Aug 2004 13:03:31 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>"TonyP" > wrote in message
u
>>> "Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it
>>>> really is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of
>>>> signals like I originally proposed. You choose... it's your number.
>>>
>>> Now if I could just find some speakers with less "hash" than that,
>>> and ears that could actually hear all that 0.003% "hash". :-)
>>
>>The threshold for hearing hash is generally somwhere just below 0.1%.
>
>Again it depends on what the original source is and whart sort of hash it
>is. On a 1 KC tone being clipped (say, with a diode clipper) most folks
>can't hear anything until distortion reaches 2% to 3%. On a musical signal,
>much lower clipping levels are audible.
>--scott

That can't be right - I find 0.5% readily and repeatably audible on a
sine wave, and I'm pretty sure my ears aren't in the least golden.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[TonyP]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
> top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
> of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
> measuring device. This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook
> the numbers.

Who, apart from you, mentioned only measuring the 10k-20k band. It is very
selective to choose ONE octave and ignore the other NINE. Treble starts
below 10kHz in my book.

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"TonyP" > wrote in message


> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...

>> As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
>> top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because
>> all of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of
>> the measuring device.

Agreed. The third harmonic of 7.4 KHz and up, as well as the second
harmonic of 11.1 KHz and up get lost in the reconstruction filter, if not
the anti-aliasing filter.

> This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook the numbers.

Agreed, but people who want to accurately characterize nonlinearities can
uncook the books in the same context with multitone measurements.

One of the most flexible tests I know of is what I call an empty well test.
One drives the UUT with a multitone (or music) that has groups of missing
tones or filter notches that create empty wells. The wells will start
filling up in the presence of a wide variety of different kinds of
nonlinearities. Nevertheless, not all kinds of nonlinear distortion will add
significantly to the wells - see below.

> Who, apart from you, mentioned only measuring the 10k-20k band. It is
> very selective to choose ONE octave and ignore the other NINE. Treble
> starts below 10kHz in my book.

Focus on the top octave is, IME not about misapprehensions.

(1) Audio gear tends to be more nonlinear as frequency goes up - in the
analog domain open loop gain goes down, and digital filters are more prone
to clipping near the stop band.

(2) Over the years musical program material seems to have tended towards
stronger content in the top octave(s).

(3) Because of Fletcher-Munson effects and masking, signals in the top
octave are less likely to be heard. This means that they are less likely to
distract listeners from any cross-modulation effects they stimulate when it
intermodulates down into the lower octaves.

When I talk about reliably hearing 0.1 % nonlinear distortion, I'm
specifically thinking of natural sounds with lots of energy in the top
octave, and less, little or no energy in the range where the ear is most
sensitive - 2-6 KHz. If there are common kinds of audible nonlinearity in
the upper octave, it will be heard with this test. This is especially true
of clipping - relatively tiny amounts of clipping can be heard under these
conditions.

Since I'm flogging Doppler distortion in another thread another group, I'm
compelled to point out that all of the *wonderful* tests I've described are
pretty much blind to Doppler distortion. The good news is that while Doppler
distortion is real and present in loudspeakers, it's also almost always
quite a bit less than the AM distortion that generally dumps quite a bit of
energy at exactly the same frequencies. This AM distortion is generally
heard and measured with the listening and technical tests I've been talking
about.

[William Sommerwerck]

> One of the most flexible tests I know of is what I call an "empty-well"
> test. One drives the UUT with a multitone (or music) that has groups
> of missing tones or filter notches that create empty wells. The wells
> will start filling up in the presence of a wide variety of different kinds
> of nonlinearities.

I've been arguing in favor of such testing for a long time -- it's a good way to
spot anharmonic distortion IN ACTUAL PROGRAM MATERIAL (as opposed to test
tones). But no one wants to listen.


> Nevertheless, not all kinds of nonlinear distortion
> will add significantly to the wells - see below.

Haven't had my Wheaties yet. I didn't see anything below that described what
sorts of distortions did and did not "fill the wells." Could you expand?

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message

>> One of the most flexible tests I know of is what I call an
>> "empty-well" test. One drives the UUT with a multitone (or music)
>> that has groups of missing tones or filter notches that create empty
>> wells. The wells will start filling up in the presence of a wide
>> variety of different kinds of nonlinearities.

> I've been arguing in favor of such testing for a long time -- it's a
> good way to spot anharmonic distortion IN ACTUAL PROGRAM MATERIAL (as
> opposed to test tones). But no one wants to listen.

Not exactly no-one:

http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/products/files/ms06ptf.doc

This paper about the PTF system is kinda skimpy on the details, but I can
tell you that the maximum SPL test is based on an empty well test. People
have been talking about doing this sort of thing for decades, but its one of
those things that AFAIK never seemed to show up in print or as part of a
standard.

BTW, The PTF system is a big seller, relatively speaking in Detroit. At
least two of the big 3 car makers have figured out that a $40,000 SUV with a
broken or substandard radio and CD player is a broken SUV from the
perspective of many buyers. Due to production changes, model proliferation,
changeover years and etc. some project engineers end up designing upwards of
12 multichannel speaker systems per year. An effective automated tool that
correlates well with the responses of trained listeners and general
consumers has a market in Detroit. Some of the audio systems that rank most
highly in Powers consumer satisfaction surveys uhh, err, emm, ahem, do well
in PTF tests, if you catch my drift.

BTW, empty well test results are IME significant with perceptual coders.

>> Nevertheless, not all kinds of nonlinear distortion
>> will add significantly to the wells - see below.

> Haven't had my Wheaties yet. I didn't see anything below that
> described what sorts of distortions did and did not "fill the wells."
> Could you expand?

Yes - Doppler distortion creates sidebands that are very close to the
components of the program material. They don't spill appreciably into the
empty wells.

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> As I pointed out to Phil, it's entirely possible to get insanely low
>> top octave THD values with standard measurement procedures because all
>> of the harmonics being generated are outside of the passband of the
>> measuring device. This is a very common way for manufacturers to cook
>> the numbers.
>
>Who, apart from you, mentioned only measuring the 10k-20k band. It is very
>selective to choose ONE octave and ignore the other NINE. Treble starts
>below 10kHz in my book.

Nobody did. One person was talking about getting really good numbers.
I gave an example of how to get really good numbers. If you want nice
numbers and you don't care how they correlate with actual sound quality,
there are all sorts of wonderful things you can do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> Not exactly no-one:

> http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/products/files/ms06ptf.doc

Do you have another source for this? It's completely illegible on my screen.


> BTW, empty well test results are IME significant with perceptual coders.

Not at all surprising.


> Yes - Doppler distortion creates sidebands that are very close to the
> components of the program material. They don't spill appreciably into the
> empty wells.

It is also true that you can't generate sidebands for signals that have been
removed.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message

>> Not exactly no-one:
>
>> http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/products/files/ms06ptf.doc

> Do you have another source for this? It's completely illegible on my
> screen.

It seems to improve if you cut and paste it into some other text editing
program.

Here's the relevant paragraph:

"The maximum SPL test uses a specific test signal and analysis to determine
the maximum acoustic output of a sound system. Ultimately, a single SPL
number is read from a calibrated microphone.

"The test signal is noise-like with a defined spectrum and a defined crest
factor. Both mimic highly compressed and slightly clipped broad-band music.
The acoustic output is analyzed for compression in any 1/3 octave band and
for distortion products created by non-linearities in the audio system. The
system gain is increased until a defined limit for either is reached. SPL
at that time is taken and reported as maximum SPL.

>> BTW, empty well test results are IME significant with perceptual
>> coders.
>
> Not at all surprising.

>> Yes - Doppler distortion creates sidebands that are very close to the
>> components of the program material. They don't spill appreciably
>> into the empty wells.

> It is also true that you can't generate sidebands for signals that have
been removed.

Generally not a problem if the wells are reasonably narrow. Nonlinearity is
generally not isolated. If something is nonlinear at 20 KHz, its usaully
still somewhat nonlinear at 15 KHz. If something is nonlinear at 20 Hz, its
usually still somewhat nonlinear at 50 Hz.

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
>** Yes YOU did by claiming your own speakers had less high frequency
>"hash" than a TL071.

I was pointing out that the measurement being cited was meaningless. Do
you agree with me that it is meaningless or not? Or are you going to change
the subject again?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:

> "Monte McGuire"
>
> > I usually use a measurement bandwidth for THD+N that allows for
> > harmonics above 20KHz, since nonlinearities up there could also manifest
> > themselves as IMD, not just as harmonics that are inaudible. So, that's
> > why I suggested that your .003% number might be mostly noise.
>
>
> ** Do a test - see that it is not.

OK, so your TL07x produces a lot more distortion when handling very
simple pure tones of low frequency than other more modern amps produce.
Great. We agree now; wasn't that my original contention? I wonder what
all of the huffing and puffing is about. Do you have to disagree at all
costs, even when we actually agree? Why is that?

> > But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it really
> > is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of signals
> > like I originally proposed.
>
>
> ** Where did you get the ridiculous idea that anyone can hear 0.003% THD
> of any signal ????

I don't particularly care about that _specifically_, but I do know that
unless a device makes less distortion than another device, it cannot be
considered cleaner than the other device. In other words, even though
we may not be able to hear the errors that were directly measured, there
may be other errors of a much larger magnitude (and are thus audible)
that are generated with real world signals that arise from the same
mechanisms that created the errors observed when handling the test
signals.

Sure, the .0000whatever percent distortion handling a pure tone may not
be audible. What happens with real music and complex sounds? You
cannot honestly say, and for some reason that I do not understand, you
DBT folks like to assure that your equipment is proven to be as close to
mediocre as possible with all the test signals you care to listen to.

Why not have a little extra performance in your system? What would be
so bad about that? It might actually sound better in some situation
that you didn't have the time or foresight to construct a DBT to
specifically screen against. I'm honestly trying to find out exactly
what the savings are of having optimally bad performing gear, stuff that
has weaknesses, but which are just below our threshold of perception.
Can you assure that all possible combinations of such gear still have
shortcomings that are still inaudible? Again, what's the big savings?
And how do you know that in every situation, your gear isn't causing
audible problems? Do you ever listen in an uncontrolled manner, or is
everything a DBT???


Monte McGuire

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:19:45 GMT, Monte McGuire
> wrote:

> Do you ever listen in an uncontrolled manner, or is
>everything a DBT?

And "manner of listening" is the grizzly bear sitting over
in the corner. Speak softly...

Chris Hornbeck

[Phil Allison]

"Monte McGuire".
> "Phil Allison"
> >
> > > I usually use a measurement bandwidth for THD+N that allows for
> > > harmonics above 20KHz, since nonlinearities up there could also
manifest
> > > themselves as IMD, not just as harmonics that are inaudible. So,
that's
> > > why I suggested that your .003% number might be mostly noise.
> >
> > ** Do a test - see that it is not.
>
> OK, so your TL07x produces a lot more distortion when handling very
> simple pure tones of low frequency than other more modern amps produce.
> Great. We agree now; wasn't that my original contention?


** It was one of them - but not the one I disputed.

Better go back and re- read the thread.


>
> > > But, if .003% is specified with a tight bandwidth, then maybe it
really
> > > is all distortion and the TL072 really does make hash out of signals
> > > like I originally proposed.
> >
> >
> > ** Where did you get the ridiculous idea that anyone can hear 0.003%
THD
> > of any signal ????
>
>
> I don't particularly care about that _specifically_, but I do know that
> unless a device makes less distortion than another device, it cannot be
> considered cleaner than the other device. In other words, even though
> we may not be able to hear the errors that were directly measured, there
> may be other errors of a much larger magnitude (and are thus audible)
> that are generated with real world signals that arise from the same
> mechanisms that created the errors observed when handling the test
> signals.


** More audiophool mantras .........

" I think it might exist - ergo it does.... "


>
> Sure, the .0000whatever percent distortion handling a pure tone may not
> be audible. What happens with real music and complex sounds?


** Nothing unexpected.


> You cannot honestly say,


** No point in answering your questions if you intend to answer them all for
me.


>
> Why not have a little extra performance in your system?


** Fine with me.

But it is not correct to say to others that it will sound better.



> It might actually sound better in some situation
> that you didn't have the time or foresight to construct a DBT to
> specifically screen against.


** Another audiophool mantra - the paranoid mantra.


> honestly trying to find out exactly
> what the savings are of having optimally bad performing gear, stuff that
> has weaknesses, but which are just below our threshold of perception.


** Since when is 0.003% THD @ 10 kHz and 5 volts rms into 3 kohms load just
below perception ?




............. Phil

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:17:36 +1000, "TonyP" >
wrote:

>> ** Since when is 0.003% THD @ 10 kHz and 5 volts rms into 3 kohms load
>just below perception ?
>
>At least he now admits it IS below perception. Apparently the hash was
>audible before.

Some proof of perception and audibility thresholds for music
listening need to come before the chest thumping.

Please reread once before quoting "DBT" to me.

Chris Hornbeck

[Arny Krueger]

"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Phil Allison" > wrote:

>> ** Where did you get the ridiculous idea that anyone can hear
>> 0.003% THD of any signal ????

> I don't particularly care about that _specifically_,

Well you shouldn't, since the threshold of audiblity is closer to 0.1%
Note, there's a 33:1 ratio between 0.1 and 0.003 .

> but I do know
> that unless a device makes less distortion than another device, it
> cannot be considered cleaner than the other device.

This leads to an endless search for smaller numbers for the sake of smaller
numbers.

> In other words,
> even though we may not be able to hear the errors that were directly
> measured, there may be other errors of a much larger magnitude (and
> are thus audible) that are generated with real world signals that
> arise from the same mechanisms that created the errors observed when
> handling the test signals.

That's why we don't try to build equipment with as close to 0.1% distortion
as possible.


> Sure, the .0000whatever percent distortion handling a pure tone may
> not be audible. What happens with real music and complex sounds?

That's knowable and known. Depends on which music and which complex sounds.
But, with an approximate 33:1 safety margin...

> You cannot honestly say,

Sure we can. We can do technical tests and listening tests and see what
happens.

>and for some reason that I do not understand, you
> DBT folks like to assure that your equipment is proven to be as close
> to mediocre as possible with all the test signals you care to listen to.

I wouldn't call 33:1 safety margin "as close to mediocre as possible". Why
would you do that?

> Why not have a little extra performance in your system?

Isn't 33:1 enough extra performance?

> What would be so bad about that?

What is so bad about having a 33:1 margin for error?

> It might actually sound better in some situation
> that you didn't have the time or foresight to construct a DBT to
> specifically screen against.

At some point, enough is enough. 0.003% is not the modern limit, the modern
limit is more like 0.00015%. That's another 20x safety margin for a total of
660:1. Apparently, that's still not enough for you, Monte!

> I'm honestly trying to find out exactly
> what the savings are of having optimally bad performing gear, stuff
> that has weaknesses, but which are just below our threshold of
> perception.

Since when is 33:1 or 660:1 reserve performance "just below our threshold of
perception"?

>Can you assure that all possible combinations of such
> gear still have shortcomings that are still inaudible?

If you're talking 33:1 or 660:1 reserve performance, the answer has to be
yes.

> Again, what's the big savings?

What's wrong with recognizing that we play that DAC with 0.00015% THD
through speakers with 0.1 to 1.0 to 10% THD, depending on what frequency in
the audio range you are talking about, and instead throwing our efforts into
fixing that speaker with 10% THD?

>And how do you know that in every situation, your
> gear isn't causing audible problems?

Which gear? In this corner I have a DAC with 0.00015% THD, and in this
corner I have a speaker with 10% THD, both within the 20-20 KHz range. Monte
seems to be saying "forget the speaker and continue to spend time and money
improving that DAC".

>Do you ever listen in an uncontrolled manner, or is everything a DBT???

What's so sacred about listening in an uncontrolled manner? Isn't it true
that uncontrolled listening got us into this sitatuion where Monte McGuire
is ranting and raving about 0.003% distortion being "just below our
threshold of perception", while his speakers still have 10% THD?

If 0.003% distortion is "just below our threshold of perception", what is
10% distortion? Your monitoring system has both. Which should be fixed
first?

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger"
> "Monte McGuire"
>
> >Do you ever listen in an uncontrolled manner, or is everything a DBT???
>
> What's so sacred about listening in an uncontrolled manner? Isn't it true
> that uncontrolled listening got us into this sitatuion where Monte McGuire
> is ranting and raving about 0.003% distortion being "just below our
> threshold of perception", while his speakers still have 10% THD?
>
> If 0.003% distortion is "just below our threshold of perception", what is
> 10% distortion? Your monitoring system has both. Which should be fixed
> first?



** Watch out Arny - Scott Dorsey has a pair of speakers with better than
0.003 % distortion.

But the sod will not say what make and model they are.




............ Phil

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:

> "Monte McGuire".
>
> > honestly trying to find out exactly
> > what the savings are of having optimally bad performing gear, stuff that
> > has weaknesses, but which are just below our threshold of perception.
>
>
> ** Since when is 0.003% THD @ 10 kHz and 5 volts rms into 3 kohms load just
> below perception ?

I didn't claim that. You claim that it's below the threshold of
perception. I claim that a device exhibiting such performance in a
THD+N test might not sound completely transparent given all possible
musical signals.

The reason I introduced the concept of "optimally bad performing gear"
is that if you use something like DBT to qualify each and every piece of
gear, you don't know whether the performance is just barely
satisfactory, or if it's good enough to remain inaudible with several
such devices chained together. You can't know unless you test each and
every combination explicitly.

For the work I do, I prefer to have a signal chain that is as good as
possible. I make recordings through this chain, and the end of my
signal path is the beginning of the listener's path. I'm not concerned
with the cost so much. It's cheaper for me to use a $3 op amp rather
than a $.50 op amp if it'll possibly give me better results. Not that
it's only about money either; oddly enough, certain kinds of $.50 op
amps work better than much more expensive op amps, and I choose those in
those situations.

What I can't do is run every recording session twice (or five times or
whatever) in order to construct rigorous listening tests. I only have
one shot at it, so I try to find out what gear has the best chance of
working well and then use that. I suspect that people who do a lot of
testing really can't get much real work done. If so, then I'd love to
know how, but the only other option is to test things that are theorized
to be relevant and make extrapolations from there to the actual work.
How is that any more rigorous than using test equipment? It's still a
leap, since it never refers to a completely realistic situation.


Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"TonyP" > wrote:

> "Phil Allison" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ** Since when is 0.003% THD @ 10 kHz and 5 volts rms into 3 kohms load
> just
> > below perception ?
>
> At least he now admits it IS below perception. Apparently the hash was
> audible before.

Pay attention. Phil mistakenly thought I said that and you're both
wrong.

Monte McGuire

[Arny Krueger]

"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message


> In article >,

> "Phil Allison" > wrote:
>
>> "Monte McGuire".
>>
>>> honestly trying to find out exactly
>>> what the savings are of having optimally bad performing gear, stuff
>>> that has weaknesses, but which are just below our threshold of
>>> perception.
>>

>> ** Since when is 0.003% THD @ 10 kHz and 5 volts rms into 3 kohms
>> load just below perception ?

> I didn't claim that. You claim that it's below the threshold of
> perception. I claim that a device exhibiting such performance in a
> THD+N test might not sound completely transparent given all possible
> musical signals.

That has to be true for a number of reasons. One is that it says nothing
about frequency response, and another is relates to band-limted
measurements. However, both of these issuses beggar the question because we
all know all these things well enough to not be confused by them. It's like
saying that top speed is not the only measure of a racing car.


> The reason I introduced the concept of "optimally bad performing gear"
> is that if you use something like DBT to qualify each and every piece
> of gear, you don't know whether the performance is just barely
> satisfactory, or if it's good enough to remain inaudible with several
> such devices chained together.

You simply do a test of a number of such devices chained together, such as
tests I've done of 20 TL074 stages chained together. I've also demonstrated
another way to solve this problem at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm .

> You can't know unless you test each and every combination explicitly.

That's true of any test, including the *sacred* unmatched sighted
evaluation. If you wish to cut your own figurative throat Monte, be my
guest.

> For the work I do, I prefer to have a signal chain that is as good as
> possible.

Preferences are fine. However, I submit Monte that you rarely if ever even
come close to doing this.

> I make recordings through this chain, and the end of my
> signal path is the beginning of the listener's path. I'm not
> concerned with the cost so much. It's cheaper for me to use a $3 op
> amp rather than a $.50 op amp if it'll possibly give me better
> results. Not that it's only about money either; oddly enough,
> certain kinds of $.50 op amps work better than much more expensive op
> amps, and I choose those in those situations.

If you apply this thinking to a high end recording chain and run the
numbers you end up putting recording out of just about everybody's reach,
including your own. And as I've pointed out elsewhere you've ignored the law
of diminishing returns, the law of the weakest link, and the iron law of the
cosmic-sized flaws that are inherent in all modern loudspeakers and rooms.

> What I can't do is run every recording session twice (or five times or
> whatever) in order to construct rigorous listening tests.

What about the tests you use to evaluate and recommend equipment on RAP?

> I only have
> one shot at it, so I try to find out what gear has the best chance of
> working well and then use that. I suspect that people who do a lot of
> testing really can't get much real work done. If so, then I'd love to
> know how, but the only other option is to test things that are
> theorized to be relevant and make extrapolations from there to the
> actual work. How is that any more rigorous than using test equipment?
> It's still a leap, since it never refers to a completely realistic
> situation.

The problem is largely a matter of priorities and epistemology.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:24:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>What's so sacred about listening in an uncontrolled manner? Isn't it true
>that uncontrolled listening got us into this sitatuion where Monte McGuire
>is ranting and raving about 0.003% distortion being "just below our
>threshold of perception", while his speakers still have 10% THD?

An "uncontrolled manner" is how we listen to music.

In order to so casually dismiss someone else's observations, you
should first show the relevance of your tests to those observations.
This has not been done.

Ranting and raving?

The map is not the world. To dismiss observations that conflict
with one's model is a Procrustean bed, and historically short
sighted.

Chris Hornbeck

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Again, what's the big savings?
>
> What's wrong with recognizing that we play that DAC with 0.00015% THD
> through speakers with 0.1 to 1.0 to 10% THD, depending on what frequency in
> the audio range you are talking about, and instead throwing our efforts into
> fixing that speaker with 10% THD?

For starters, I don't sell the output of my speakers. I use the output
of my speakers to influence the content of the audio signals that people
pay me to produce.

Secondly, why do you think my speakers are low resolution junk? They're
Quad ESL 63. They have pretty low distortion actually. No crossover
either. Have you ever heard or used them? The resolution is actually a
problem for a lot of people, as it influences how they hear the effects
used in a mix. I keep some computer speakers around to provide a
contrast, since most people tend to underuse effects when they're
presented at high resolution.

> What's so sacred about listening in an uncontrolled manner? Isn't it true
> that uncontrolled listening got us into this sitatuion where Monte McGuire
> is ranting and raving about 0.003% distortion being "just below our
> threshold of perception", while his speakers still have 10% THD?

I never claimed any of this, nor do my speakers have 10% distortion when
used in my studio. Why do you make these statements? What help is it
to you to distort my position? Does it make you feel good to cuddle up
to a bully troll while I'm trying to honestly talk about audio?


Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:

>
> ** Watch out Arny - Scott Dorsey has a pair of speakers with better than
> 0.003 % distortion.
>
> But the sod will not say what make and model they are.

Scott uses Magnepans and I use Quad ESL 63. Both are pretty high
resolution compared to typical cone speakers.

I never bothered to measure the distortion numbers of the speakers. If
I would do that, what mike should I use? What mike did you use when you
measured your speakers?


Monte McGuire

[Arny Krueger]

"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message


> In article >,
> "Phil Allison" > wrote:

>> ** Watch out Arny - Scott Dorsey has a pair of speakers with
>> better than
>> 0.003 % distortion.

>> But the sod will not say what make and model they are.

> Scott uses Magnepans and I use Quad ESL 63. Both are pretty high
> resolution compared to typical cone speakers.

You're stepping into Phil's parlor with those ESL 63s.

> I never bothered to measure the distortion numbers of the speakers.

Might be worth it, no?

> If I would do that, what mike should I use?

ECM 8000s haul the mail when moderate noise and response > 20 KHz isn't an
issue.

> What mike did you use when you measured your speakers?

I'll leave that to Phil to answer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:24:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> What's so sacred about listening in an uncontrolled manner? Isn't it
>> true that uncontrolled listening got us into this sitatuion where
>> Monte McGuire is ranting and raving about 0.003% distortion being
>> "just below our threshold of perception", while his speakers still
>> have 10% THD?

> An "uncontrolled manner" is how we listen to music.

But this isn't about just listening to music for enjoyment. And, its not
about audio production. It's about evaluating critical tools. It's about
resolving a controversy in a reliable and fair way.

> In order to so casually dismiss someone else's observations, you
> should first show the relevance of your tests to those observations.

Been there done that.

> This has not been done.

Really? What are you looking for? I think that history shows that I've made
many contributions to the reliable audio testing *blood bank*. A few people
have even found them helpful. ;-)

> Ranting and raving?

Not at all. Calling 'em like they are.

> The map is not the world. To dismiss observations that conflict
> with one's model is a Procrustean bed, and historically short
> sighted.

What, another spirited defense of ureliable, poorly-structured listening
tests?

[Arny Krueger]

"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Again, what's the big savings?
>>
>> What's wrong with recognizing that we play that DAC with 0.00015% THD
>> through speakers with 0.1 to 1.0 to 10% THD, depending on what
>> frequency in the audio range you are talking about, and instead
>> throwing our efforts into fixing that speaker with 10% THD?

> For starters, I don't sell the output of my speakers.

Not directly, but indirectly.

> I use the
> output of my speakers to influence the content of the audio signals
> that people pay me to produce.

Exactly.

> Secondly, why do you think my speakers are low resolution junk?

I never said that they are low resolution junk compared to other speakers.
I'm saying that *all* speakers are low resolution junk compared to even
mediocre electronics.

> They're Quad ESL 63. They have pretty low distortion actually. No
> crossover either. Have you ever heard or used them?

You bet. Other than the kinda limited dynamic range...

Then there's the biggie - we listen to them in rooms.

> The resolution is actually a problem for a lot of people, as it
influences how they
> hear the effects used in a mix.

Ditto for good headphones, but that is a different discussion.

> I keep some computer speakers around
> to provide a contrast, since most people tend to underuse effects
> when they're presented at high resolution.

OK.

>> What's so sacred about listening in an uncontrolled manner? Isn't it
>> true that uncontrolled listening got us into this situation where
>> Monte McGuire is ranting and raving about 0.003% distortion being
>> "just below our threshold of perception", while his speakers still
>> have 10% THD?

> I never claimed any of this, nor do my speakers have 10% distortion
> when used in my studio.

Given what you've got, and if you use them within their limits...

BTW, why not stop speculating and give reality a spin? You've seen my
crappy little test speakers wrung out at
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/doppler/ . The software is freeware demo
for 30 days and the mics cost less than $50. You've got mic preamps and some
kind of pretty fair audio interface, right? The measurements have taken me
less than an hour a day for maybe 3 days. Surely not beyond your means?

> Why do you make these statements?

I think they are true and relevant.

> What help is it to you to distort my position?

I don't think I'm intentionally distorting your position any more than you
are intentionally distorting my position. That's not to say that I think
you've got my position close to right.

> Does it make you feel good to
> cuddle up to a bully troll while I'm trying to honestly talk about
> audio?

Look, I've got my own issues with Phil if you haven't noticed. He's sworn an
oath against me by name in the past day or so.

I think it might be helpful if Phil saw people work their agreements like
civilized men. I think part of that is looking at the relevant facts.
>
>
> Monte McGuire
>

[Scott Dorsey]

Monte McGuire > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Phil Allison" > wrote:
>
>>
>> ** Watch out Arny - Scott Dorsey has a pair of speakers with better than
>> 0.003 % distortion.
>>
>> But the sod will not say what make and model they are.
>
>Scott uses Magnepans and I use Quad ESL 63. Both are pretty high
>resolution compared to typical cone speakers.

BUT, the two of them have very different distortion spectra, with even
harmonics dominating on the Maggies because of the asymmetric magnet
designs. The Quads are very different and probably lower distortion
overall (to the point where on the earlier Quads, the step-up transformer
was a measurable percentage of the total speaker distortion).

Even so, I can give you 0% distortion on a pair of full-range Bogen speakers
with open voice coils. No matter what you put into them, you get zero
harmonic output. You don't get any signal on the output either, but
if all you want are good numbers that's not a problem.

>I never bothered to measure the distortion numbers of the speakers. If
>I would do that, what mike should I use? What mike did you use when you
>measured your speakers?

You would use an IEC Type I measurement mike with a known distortion spectrum,
then subtract the microphone distortion spectrum from the measurement. But
even if you did have a clean speaker distortion plot, Phil would still be
running on at the mouth about meaningless numbers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
>
>ECM 8000s haul the mail when moderate noise and response > 20 KHz isn't an
>issue.

Those have some very interesting distortion modes. Juha Backman wrote a
paper about five years ago that was presented at one of the AES conferences,
on distortion effects due to compressibility of air in very small diaphragm
mike designs, and the capsule he was using for demonstration purposes was
the same basic Japanese design that the Chinese manufacturer of the ECM 8000
capsule copied. Note that the FET used in those isn't very linear either.
Not exactly a B&K mike here.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:09:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> An "uncontrolled manner" is how we listen to music.
>
>But this isn't about just listening to music for enjoyment. And, its not
>about audio production. It's about evaluating critical tools. It's about
>resolving a controversy in a reliable and fair way.

Certainly. I would only modify that to "reliable, fair and relevant".

>> This has not been done.
>
>Really? What are you looking for?

The unstated and unproved assumption of DBT is that our listening
mechanisms work the same way when in an "uncontrolled manner" as
when engaged in "testing".

Given the vast gulf of our ignorance about listening and about
our wetware in general, I think the assumption at least premature
and very likely wrong.

>What, another spirited defense of ureliable, poorly-structured listening
>tests?

An adult lifetime's experience may seem poorly structured and may
indeed prove unreliable, but these are not automatically true.

And a test regimen whose results conflict with a careful observer's
experience raises issues of relevance.

The map is not the world.

Chris Hornbeck

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Preferences are fine. However, I submit Monte that you rarely if ever even
> come close to doing this.
>
> > I make recordings through this chain, and the end of my
> > signal path is the beginning of the listener's path. I'm not
> > concerned with the cost so much. It's cheaper for me to use a $3 op
> > amp rather than a $.50 op amp if it'll possibly give me better
> > results. Not that it's only about money either; oddly enough,
> > certain kinds of $.50 op amps work better than much more expensive op
> > amps, and I choose those in those situations.
>
> If you apply this thinking to a high end recording chain and run the
> numbers you end up putting recording out of just about everybody's reach,
> including your own.

Not at all. As long as the number of channels required to function
simultaneously is reasonable, it's not out of the question to use better
chips. When you're doing a 96-channel board, that's a whole 'nother
question.

<<And as I've pointed out elsewhere you've ignored the law
> of diminishing returns, the law of the weakest link, and the iron law of
the
> cosmic-sized flaws that are inherent in all modern loudspeakers and rooms.

The law of the weakest link is only valid where (a) the weakest link is
massively worse than the rest, and (b) the weaknesses are similar. So
dealing with (a), for example, if you have five electronic stages, and one
is a little worse than the others, the amount of degradation will not be
that of the worst stage, but worse. Information theory says that degradation
is cumulative. Real-world practice bears this out; amplifiers fed a signal
with distortion products present (HD or IM) produce distortion products of
the distortion products, higher-end. An example, not double-blind, but
persuasive enough for my ears: I've built a few microphone preamps over the
years; the two best designs have been published. One is solid-state, op-amp
based; the other is vacuum-tube based (6SN7s). Both are transformer-coupled,
taking that factor out of the comparison. Noise levels are similar. Both are
designed to be clean; the tubed unit isn't a "toob-distortion" generator
when properly used. I did listening tests on them; the solid-state one was
an earlier incarnation of the published version, using 5534 opamps rather
than the OPA604 and LT1028 of the latter.

Listened to on their own (straight into the monitor amps), the two preamps
sound quite similar; I find it very difficult to tell them apart. Back when
I used to record a lot of analog tape, I found the preamps were easier to
distinguish; the tubed one was smoother, without as much edge on top. When I
began using digital, in the early 90s when digital stuff didn't sound so
great, I found the preamps sounded a *lot* different on the recordings. In
fact, I'd call the difference between them pretty close to night-and-day,
with the tubed preamp making a very clean-sounding recording, while the
solid-state one sounded like it added crispy stuff up top. (I was recording
through a Sony DTC75ES then.)

As digital stuff has gotten better, the preamps have begun sounding more
similar, to the point where I'm again hard-pressed to hear the difference
between the two units. It's not my ears; I can still go back and listen to
the old recordings and hear the difference clearly, or run signals through
the still-functioning 75ES.

I hypothesize, with no evidence, that what's going on is that distortion
products produced by the solid-state unit went into the recorder (analog or
early digital) and generated further distortion, and that it was audible on
a level that the preamp's distortion was not on its own.

> The problem is largely a matter of priorities and epistemology.

Precisely. And I suspect Monte has run into the same situations in his work,
and chooses to minimize the degradation introduced by each piece of gear for
similar reasons to mine; the listening tests discussed above -- not DBT;
Arny and I are of different religions -- persuaded me to upgrade the
solid-state preamp, with the results being the published version. Obviously
one has to take cost into account, but it's quite possible to achieve a good
deal of improvement without breaking the bank.

Oh, and as for all those low THD figures...Arny, you yourself agreed with me
that distortion test are only maps, and they don't necessarily reflect what
an electronic circuit does in the real world. Without looking at individual
harmonics, and the behavior of the harmonic spectrum at various levels, a
harmonic distortion test on electronic equipment is essentially meaningless,
as has been noted for some 50 years, going back to Norman Crowhurst. IM
tests are more likely to tell you something useful.

Peace,
Paul

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"

>
> Phil's appreciation of music seems to be as tightly focused as his
> knowledge of electronics.


** **** off you demented, stinking parrot.


Or I will tell everyone there is a pic of you in the shower on the net.



............. Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers"
>
>>
>> Phil's appreciation of music seems to be as tightly focused as his
>> knowledge of electronics.
>
>** **** off you demented, stinking parrot.
>
>Or I will tell everyone there is a pic of you in the shower on the net.

I hope anyone who reads this group already knows it. And yes, I'm in
the next picture down.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ** **** off you demented, stinking parrot.
> Or I will tell everyone there is a pic of you in the shower on the net.

Go ahead. Where's YOUR picture on the net?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >"Mike Rivers"
> >
> >>
> >> Phil's appreciation of music seems to be as tightly focused as his
> >> knowledge of electronics.
> >
> >** **** off you demented, stinking parrot.
> >
> >Or I will tell everyone there is a pic of you in the shower on the net.
>
> I hope anyone who reads this group already knows it. And yes, I'm in
> the next picture down.



** Should get the award for bad taste porn.




.......... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >"Mike Rivers"
> >
> >>
> >> Phil's appreciation of music seems to be as tightly focused as his
> >> knowledge of electronics.
> >
> >** **** off you demented, stinking parrot.
> >
> >Or I will tell everyone there is a pic of you in the shower on the net.
>
> I hope anyone who reads this group already knows it. And yes, I'm in
> the next picture down.



** Should get the award for bad taste porn.




.......... Phil

[TonyP]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Even so, I can give you 0% distortion on a pair of full-range Bogen
speakers
> with open voice coils. No matter what you put into them, you get zero
> harmonic output. You don't get any signal on the output either, but
> if all you want are good numbers that's not a problem.

What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
that "logic"!
The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Even so, I can give you 0% distortion on a pair of full-range Bogen
speakers
> with open voice coils. No matter what you put into them, you get zero
> harmonic output. You don't get any signal on the output either, but
> if all you want are good numbers that's not a problem.

What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
that "logic"!
The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".

TonyP.

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote:
>> Even so, I can give you 0% distortion on a pair of full-range Bogen
>speakers
>> with open voice coils. No matter what you put into them, you get zero
>> harmonic output. You don't get any signal on the output either, but
>> if all you want are good numbers that's not a problem.
>
>What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
>that "logic"!
>The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".

Of _course_ it is a crock of ****. That is the game that marketing people
play. They find new ways to sell old ****.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote:
>> Even so, I can give you 0% distortion on a pair of full-range Bogen
>speakers
>> with open voice coils. No matter what you put into them, you get zero
>> harmonic output. You don't get any signal on the output either, but
>> if all you want are good numbers that's not a problem.
>
>What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
>that "logic"!
>The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".

Of _course_ it is a crock of ****. That is the game that marketing people
play. They find new ways to sell old ****.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <

> Of _course_ it is a crock of ****.


** Right on - its a crock of **** because *Scott Dorsey* the failed
tape recorder mechanic and the NG parrot's little buddy posted it.


Simple !!



............... Phil

[Phil Allison]

"Scott Dorsey" <

> Of _course_ it is a crock of ****.


** Right on - its a crock of **** because *Scott Dorsey* the failed
tape recorder mechanic and the NG parrot's little buddy posted it.


Simple !!



............... Phil

[TonyP]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> TonyP > wrote:
> >What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
> >that "logic"!
> >The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".

> Of _course_ it is a crock of ****. That is the game that marketing people
> play. They find new ways to sell old ****.

Yes, but what are YOU marketing then?

TonyP.

[Phil Allison]

"TonyP"
"Scott Dorsey"
> > >What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100%
by
> > >that "logic"!
> > >
> > >The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".
>
> > Of _course_ it is a crock of ****. That is the game that marketing
people
> > play. They find new ways to sell old ****.
>
> Yes, but what are YOU marketing then?
>


** Obviously today's special - Crocks.

Not just any old Crocks - but very *special* Crocks.

These Crocks are brim full of Scott Dorsey's putrid excrement.

Cheaper by the dozen - and signed by Mike Rivers as a bonus.





............. Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> TonyP > wrote:
>> >What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
>> >that "logic"!
>> >The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".
>
>> Of _course_ it is a crock of ****. That is the game that marketing people
>> play. They find new ways to sell old ****.
>
>Yes, but what are YOU marketing then?

What I am selling is the notion that measurements are only valuable if you
specifically design them to measure something that is audibly significant,
and that there are plenty of people out there designing measurements to
specifically avoid measuring something audibly significant. And that
therefore you can't believe random measurements quoted by some guy over the
internet without investigating where they came from and what was done to
find them.

Look at microphone data sheets, and you will see noise figures measured in
half a dozen different ways, each one designed to make a given microphone
look good, and each of them impossible to compare with any of the others.
It's great to quote noise figures, but without specifically saying how
they were measured and with which weighting, they aren't useful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Stephen Sank]

A totally classic example of this is headphones. For the last 30 or more years, there has been
an argument going on about how to measure the frequency response of headphones. Some makers
advocating the B&K artificial ear, some advocating a competing device, and on & on. To this
day, there is NO settled standard for how to measure headphone frequency response, so headphone
makers can literally invent response figures for their phones(when was the last time you saw a
response quote that wasn't at least 20Hz-20kHz?). The buyer has absolutely no way to judge
anything about the quality of any headphones but for subjective listening. This is, no doubt,
exactly how most manufacturers like it. I thus nominate headphone freq. response as the king
of all meaningless specs.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ...
> TonyP > wrote:
> >"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> >> TonyP > wrote:
> >> >What a crock of ****. The distortion could equally be said to be 100% by
> >> >that "logic"!
> >> >The fact is that NO numbers cannot be said to be "good numbers".
> >
> >> Of _course_ it is a crock of ****. That is the game that marketing people
> >> play. They find new ways to sell old ****.
> >
> >Yes, but what are YOU marketing then?
>
> What I am selling is the notion that measurements are only valuable if you
> specifically design them to measure something that is audibly significant,
> and that there are plenty of people out there designing measurements to
> specifically avoid measuring something audibly significant. And that
> therefore you can't believe random measurements quoted by some guy over the
> internet without investigating where they came from and what was done to
> find them.
>
> Look at microphone data sheets, and you will see noise figures measured in
> half a dozen different ways, each one designed to make a given microphone
> look good, and each of them impossible to compare with any of the others.
> It's great to quote noise figures, but without specifically saying how
> they were measured and with which weighting, they aren't useful.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[TonyP]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> What I am selling is the notion that measurements are only valuable if you
> specifically design them to measure something that is audibly significant,
> and that there are plenty of people out there designing measurements to
> specifically avoid measuring something audibly significant. And that
> therefore you can't believe random measurements quoted by some guy over
the
> internet without investigating where they came from and what was done to
> find them.

All quite true very often, but your other statement was just a waste of
bits.

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"Stephen Sank" > wrote in message
...
> A totally classic example of this is headphones. For the last 30 or more
years, there has been
> an argument going on about how to measure the frequency response of
headphones. Some makers
> advocating the B&K artificial ear, some advocating a competing device, and
on & on. To this
> day, there is NO settled standard for how to measure headphone frequency
response, so headphone
> makers can literally invent response figures for their phones(when was the
last time you saw a
> response quote that wasn't at least 20Hz-20kHz?). The buyer has
absolutely no way to judge
> anything about the quality of any headphones but for subjective listening.
This is, no doubt,
> exactly how most manufacturers like it. I thus nominate headphone freq.
response as the king
> of all meaningless specs.

Not true. I believe most headphones will readily do 20Hz-20kHz if no dB
limits are stated, as they usually aren't.
And loudspeakers are far worse IMO.

TonyP.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I believe most headphones will readily do 20Hz-20kHz if no dB
> limits are stated, as they usually aren't.

Which makes them at best incomplete and at worst, meaningless. So will
microphones. But few people are able to confirm the frequency response
curve even of a microphone that come with its own individually
measured and plotted pedigree. And if the frequency response is
pre-printed on the spec sheet, forget it!



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Phil Allison]

"Mike Rivers"


> Which makes them at best incomplete and at worst, meaningless.


** Reads like any of the Rivers Parrot's posts here.





............ Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

Stephen Sank > wrote:
>A totally classic example of this is headphones. For the last 30 or more years, there has been
>an argument going on about how to measure the frequency response of headphones. Some makers
>advocating the B&K artificial ear, some advocating a competing device, and on & on. To this
>day, there is NO settled standard for how to measure headphone frequency response, so headphone
>makers can literally invent response figures for their phones(when was the last time you saw a
>response quote that wasn't at least 20Hz-20kHz?). The buyer has absolutely no way to judge
>anything about the quality of any headphones but for subjective listening. This is, no doubt,
>exactly how most manufacturers like it. I thus nominate headphone freq. response as the king
>of all meaningless specs.

It is even more meaningless than that, because if you actually put one of
those little 1/8" B&K mikes into the ear canal and measure the frequency
response of the headphone on real human beings, the bottom end differs
a lot from person to person due to the different shape of the ear canal.

So, even if everyone DID use the IEC standard ear (as sold by B&K and HEAD
and probably some other people), the actual response plot would not correlate
with the real response encountered in daily use.

To actually select it, you'd have to have a measurement system in the store
so the salesman could measure the volume of your ear canal and you could then
buy a pair of headphones sized for that ear, much like buying shoes. But
there is no Brannock Device for ears.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

TonyP > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> What I am selling is the notion that measurements are only valuable if you
>> specifically design them to measure something that is audibly significant,
>> and that there are plenty of people out there designing measurements to
>> specifically avoid measuring something audibly significant. And that
>> therefore you can't believe random measurements quoted by some guy over
>the
>> internet without investigating where they came from and what was done to
>> find them.
>
>All quite true very often, but your other statement was just a waste of
>bits.

Next time I will be sure to add <<<WARNING: CONTAINS SARCASM>>> to my posts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message



> It is even more meaningless than that, because if you actually put
> one of those little 1/8" B&K mikes into the ear canal and measure the
> frequency response of the headphone on real human beings, the bottom
> end differs a lot from person to person due to the different shape of
> the ear canal.

From what I hear and read, the differences aren't just in the bottom end.

> So, even if everyone DID use the IEC standard ear (as sold by B&K and
> HEAD and probably some other people), the actual response plot would
> not correlate with the real response encountered in daily use.

Bingo. Note that some of the portable players have equalizers.

> To actually select it, you'd have to have a measurement system in the
> store so the salesman could measure the volume of your ear canal and
> you could then buy a pair of headphones sized for that ear, much like
> buying shoes.

>But there is no Brannock Device for ears.

Again, from what I read, people who are trying to do a proper job of fitting
hearing aids have some technology on their sides.

[TonyP]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1092657676k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > I believe most headphones will readily do 20Hz-20kHz if no dB
> > limits are stated, as they usually aren't.
>
> Which makes them at best incomplete and at worst, meaningless. So will
> microphones. But few people are able to confirm the frequency response
> curve even of a microphone that come with its own individually
> measured and plotted pedigree. And if the frequency response is
> pre-printed on the spec sheet, forget it!

Which was my point. And how many speakers do you see with real, meaningful,
measured data?
At least the mics are usually a little better. Even an SM58 is a precision
instrument compared to the average speaker. Ditto for most headphones.

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Next time I will be sure to add <<<WARNING: CONTAINS SARCASM>>> to my
posts.

OK, I usually enjoy a good gag. I look forward to seeing one.

TonyP.