Yet another bold claim...

[So yes, the signal is so corrupt already that 'corrupting' it more may just undo some of whatever made it less realistic.]

No way... distortion is an additive process. You can't undo distortion with more distortion. Forget it.

The process is called CONVOLUTION.
 
BerylliumDust said:
You can't undo distortion with more distortion. Forget it.
Click to expand...

Umm.. yes you can actually.

An example would be balanced cabling. If there is distortion in the form of RFI introduced to the signal, by adding distortion of the exact opposite to the signal you are back where you started.

However, this convocation is very off topic now I feel. The point is an accurate amplifier is not always going to 'sound better', aka nicer. This is PROVED but the fact many people prefer valve amps. You say that 'real' (meaning as close to the original performance as possible) will sound better. But again this is PROVED to not always be true by the fact recordings have so much done to them in the studio in order to make them sound 'good' rather than 'real'.

EDIT: OOOoooh 300th post! It took me long enough!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well then, it obviosuly isn't subjective point that not everyone prefers an accurate amp to an inaccureate one.

Maybe it isn't proof as I haven't asked all people on the planet what they prefer, but I think it can be taken as red that some would rather listen to a valve amp than a more 'accurate' MOSFET or something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tenson said:
Umm.. yes you can actually.

An example would be balanced cabling. If there is distortion in the form of RFI introduced to the signal, by adding distortion of the exact opposite to the signal you are back where you started.

However, this convocation is very off topic now I feel. The point is an accurate amplifier is not always going to 'sound better', aka nicer. This is PROVED but the fact many people prefer valve amps. You say that 'real' (meaning as close to the original performance as possible) will sound better. But again this is PROVED to not always be true by the fact recordings have so much done to them in the studio in order to make them sound 'good' rather than 'real'.
Click to expand...


No Tenson... there is a minor difference in your example. The distortion from RFI is exactly the same (common mode) in both lines and when you take the signal difference betweeen them it will obviously cancel out. In this case you are not taking some kind of distortion and adding another kind of distortion to compensate for the first.

A cleaver example though...


As for accuracy doesn't necessarily sound good, you are right. But that doesn't invalidate the major goal, which is to have your voice reproduced as faithful as it can be. The vast majority of the records does sound better with better accuracy because you are extracting every bit of life in it.

Sounding nicer means you'll necessarilly loose the live sensation...

I don't read (nor I can) while I'm listening my true hi-fi, like it would happen in a live concert.
 
BerylliumDust said:
In this case you are not taking some kind of distortion and adding another kind of distortion to compensate for the first.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking you are, aren?t you? You take the first distortion and add another kind, the exact opposite (at least it is once it has gone though the balancing circuit). It is a different distortion because it is the opposite.
 
Tenson & BD,

You'd make much more progress in this argument if you stopped loosely using the word "distortion". You're really arguing over three things:

noise - is not a signal related component. (eg RFI on balanced cables).

distortion, is signal related (it's the thing you're distorting), and you can split distortion into linear and non-linear components:

Linear distortion, by it's very definition can be corrected - parametric and graphic equalizers are linear for instance, and most other (competantly designed) electronic devices are linear and minimum phase. So, if you don't like what the studio did with their parametric equalizer, then you can undo it with another equalizer.

Non-linear distortion (clipping of a signal, addition of harmonics etc) can not be generally undone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BerylliumDust said:
As for accuracy doesn't necessarily sound good, you are right.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you will now admit it :)

BerylliumDust said:
The vast majority of the records does sound better with better accuracy because you are extracting every bit of life in it.
Click to expand...

At least you happen to think so, and I agree.
 
Oedipus, you make a lot of sense ;)

I agree with all you have said except maybe the harmonics being non-linear. As with the parametric EQ.. if you knew what harmonics were added, could you not apply an inverse of those harmonics to the signal to remove them?

I'm not sure what we are arguing about now.. I just didn't like BD saying the Rotel IS better because it is more accurate the then Sim. He has now said an accurate amp doesn't always sound better. I'm happy :)

It is an interesting discussion though!
 
I dont think its a shame that manufacturers 'tweak' the sound to make products sound good - its a blessed relief.

Speakers for example that are engineered to have a flat response, DO sound boring IMHO. I wouldnt give them house room.

If my Meridian transport has a slight mid-band tweak and I prefer to listen to the result, why is that anything other than a good thing? Should I swap it for a more accurate product that I enjoy less to keep forum members happy?

Is 'tube dude's ' amplifier a valve amp by the way or solid state? I would be interested to know..
 
I don't know about this distortion thing, listening to musicians in the street, then listening to music on my system, something is missing, the richness of the brass, the vibrancy of the strings, I would partly blame the moving coil speaker, that' s just my beer gut instinct.
But just cos. it may measure ok doen'st mean there isn't something amiss, which my ears say so. Nothing may well have been added, but something has definately been taken away.

May I also remind some people, that live concerts are not really live.
They are put through mics, mic amps, compressors, power amplifiers, big ones, and p.a. loudspeakers, which are probably pretty inaccurate by most standards.
has bub mutated into BD? :D
 
Oedipus makes an interesting point regarding signal generated distortion.

As he will know, the Tact seems to indicate the presence of possible digital clipping in the software itself. I generally found the CD's that left the indicator on the majority of the time really did exhibit a nasty edge to them that was what most people refer to a digititis. Hard sounding and ugly. BTW this would encompass the majority of modern popular music releases.

Given that this exists on the recording (or more correctly the Cd itself), what is an accurate system going to do with it. The traditional setup tends to make these discs somewhat unpleasent to listen to, so you end up with a setup that sounds great with some well mastered music and rips your ears off with others. This is not neccessarily the ideal solution for a true music lover IMO.

And, because it's on the software, no amount of increased accuracy in the playback chain will make things better.
 
Hi all.

Just some thoughts from an amplifier designer.

When ever i take a given amplifier and 'tweak' it through listening tests to improve the sound, i always find that the measured perfomance has also increased, like wise if i 'tweak' the amp on the bench with the test equipment to improved measured performance the subjective quality also improves.

This i am happy with as a small minded engineer i can cope with it !!

I do have a problem though: sometimes I totally rip up my new design and try a new circuit configuration, this configuration still follows the same pattern as above, but i find that it may sound subjectively better and measure worse than the prievious design or measure better and sound worse.

This i do not understand !!

The only assumptions i can make is that either i'm measuring the wrong things, or that the distortion characteristics of the amp interacts with the distortion characteristics of the speakers and with some configurations they add and some they subtract.

Enough of my rambling thoughts - off to work to listen to some music - god i've got a nice job !!!

Chris
 
Tenson said:
I'm not sure what we are arguing about now.. I just didn't like BD saying the Rotel IS better because it is more accurate the then Sim. He has now said an accurate amp doesn't always sound better. I'm happy :)
Click to expand...

The Rotel is better because it is indeed more accurate than the Sim. Period.

Take the MF A1000 example, which with some records sounds very niceeeee... I have not found a single record of mine which I prefer listening through the A1000 than through the 1062, enough said?

As for the distortion thing... as Tube Dude put it: distortion is everything which is at the input and it isn't at the output.

If we think about negative feedback we are in fact compensating for the distortions in the output but not by adding another kind of distortion but simply by amplifying the difference signal (which is the distortion itself) between the input and the output and then feeding it back again. (The balanced line example is exactly this but taken to the extreme.)
 
Chris Jennings said:
Hi all.


I do have a problem though: sometimes I totally rip up my new design and try a new circuit configuration, this configuration still follows the same pattern as above, but i find that it may sound subjectively better and measure worse than the prievious design or measure better and sound worse.
Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,

This tends to happen with not just amplifiers sir :)
Could this possibly mean, we all like a little bit of 'Fruit' in the final mix? :eek:
 
BerylliumDust said:
As for the distortion thing... as Tube Dude put it: distortion is everything which is at the input and it isn't at the output.
Click to expand...

Surely you mean everything at the output which isn't at the input?

-- Ian
 
BerylliumDust said:
The Rotel is better because it is indeed more accurate than the Sim. Period.
Click to expand...

Given that we have established that you haven't even tested the Sim, what statement is not only the most ridiculous so far, but also somewhat defammatory to Sim Audio IMO.

Why is it that you choose to avoid answering any points that might contradict your own BD? What's the maximum SPL of the Yammies BTW? Is it potentially damaging?
 
bottleneck said:
Is 'tube dude's ' amplifier a valve amp by the way or solid state? I would be interested to know..
Click to expand...
Despite what his nickname might suggest, it is a solid state amp. 30wpc, bi-polar output devices.

Michael.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top