THD analyzers are good for getting you in the ball park. It will at least tell you if you have really bad distortion to deal with. However the problem is that they don't go far enough. IOW they are not capable of detecting small problems that occur at or near the fundamental [image] at the input.
Such problems slip well under the "THD" radar and go unnoticed.
If you examine the full spectrum which includes radio and light frequencies - you will see that only the audio portion of the spectrum requires the medium of air to exist (acoustically). Everything above that can exist in the vacuum of space. Therefore if you design an amplifier to be specifically used for audio then you must include the impact that the medium of air has within the design goals.
"Live" has a playback speed. That constant speed is what is recognized as the "live" indicator or marker to the brain. If you pass the sound as electrical data the does not take into consideration its exact speed - then you have stripped away the "live" marker. The brain defaults to "fake" instantly.
Since audio flows as a sound wave - you have to include the wave as part of the critical data needed by the brain to accept what it hears as "live".
The portion of an audio signal the has the embedded wave information is extremely small and exists right at the fundamental signal. Capturing the velocity of the wave data and using it as the speed governor for the outgoing signal is the trick.The brain is convinced that what it hears is "live" because the "live" marker still exists after the amplifying process is done.
This has already been done and it works perfectly.
Shadorne , I'm sure you already know, specifications shouldn't be used as an indicator on what sounds good. and you also know there is gear that have terrible measurements but sound spectacular. Plus you right, you can't measure musicality but you just know its there when you hear it.
If you find outstanding (better than anything else on the market or ever mass produced) measured performance to be a meaningless achievement then how do you propose to measure what you find important?
My ears and brain work together and outside of their limitations, I don't care because it's beyond my hearing and comprehension.
I think the idea that advancements have slowed to a crawl is right. One area of improvement is the bringing of better designs to lower price points. To the masses, if you will. And then of course, the "B" and "C" tier can be had for even less these days.
But after reading this tedious thread, another thing comes to mind. It doesn’t matter what the subject is, folks will push their agendas ad nauseam. Class D, class T, pro amps, etc., I guess the future’s so bright for them I gotta wear shades.
This reminds of of the fervour with with some people will push their new favourite brand, like they just discovered the world’s first speaker. It’s another pet peeve of mine on these forums, the cult-like fanboyism with which certain internet brands get pushed, like fanatics at the airport. No thanks, dude, I gave at the office, okay?!
My answer is "yes". But I approach it with three factors in mind: 1) is it organically musical; 2) is it transparent, and 3) is it reliable. I believe we essentially are there with at least some gear..
"I'm not sure what you're talking about as "speed" in a wave"
Sound waves travel at Mach One approx 750mph. Thats considerably slower than the speed of electricity / light.
After sound waves get converted into electricity it is the job of the amplifier [chain] to make a larger version of the input signal and pass it on only to be converted back to sound waves by your speakers. When this whole process of converting it one way and then back to the "original" way is examined we can see that the handling of the fragile "data" that is embedded in the signal has been compromised or corrupted. The degree of damage to the signal is not readily noticed because it is so slight. The problem is that the integrity of the payload (embedded image) has been modified by a composite of non-linear events no matter how small. This is like recording with an apple and playing back with an orange.
I wanted to make the electrical handling of the smallest detail the highest priority. This is why I refer to a cloning process because all the data is recovered at a "DNA" level and duplicated or repeated. When 100% of the signal is "cloned" then the copy at the output also contains the marker or cue that it is "live". This marker is the first thing to go in conventional amplifiers.
Aside from the obvious visual cues, a phenomenon at the concert hall tells your brain this is live. Your brain recognizes the medium of air because air does not distort. If you are trying to make your brain accept music fed through (any process other than air) then you better make sure it does not distort otherwise the "live" characteristic is not in the final conversion.
The real advances in preamps and amps in the future will involve metaphysics not physics. I'm afraid they've run out of options trying to somehow improve upon the current model. More designers must think outside the box. 🕋
"...most people feel that amps with extremely low distortion figures sound analytical and lifeless"
Therefore if you have an amp with no distortion it will sound bad? The answer is no. Those other amps that have low dist figures sound bad for a plethora of reasons - not because it measures low.
Hear is a simple formula: Live = no distortion therefore no distortion = Live
The live nature of a sound event is exposed by the stable speed at which it is flowing toward you (Mach One). The formula above breaks down as soon as you alter the speed or velocity of the delivery system. The electrical version of the event is the odd man out. You have to force the electrical representation to include the environment of the original venue. All you want to do is generate an air pattern in your listening room that is an exact copy of the air pattern at the hall. This air pattern is merely a log of 2 things. Instantaneous air pressure or amplitude (Vertical axis) and time (Horizontal axis) . If you alter either on of those properties - you have distortion.
Conventional amplifiers only deal with amplitude. Any work done to reduce its distortion is in the vertical axis and is a poor attempt at keep the timing right.
If on the other hand you maintain constant velocity in the amplifier then you have emulated one of the properties of air - mainly its velocity which is zero. A zero velocity medium guarantees that sound waves traveling through it are not artificially accelerated or de-accelerated. Remember the sound travels at Mach One. The medium is motionless. The sound appears the be live simply because of its stable "playback" speed.
If you find outstanding (better than anything else on the market or ever mass produced) measured performance to be a meaningless achievement then how do you propose to measure what you find important? I would put it to you and everyone here that if you can’t measure performance then there is no way to track improvement.
Perhaps this is the fundamental problem in the audiophile industry - it has become a fashion clothing industry that suits people’s tastes and follows trends with no goal to improve anything because "good enough" in clothing materials was achieved 30 years ago - so now it is about color and style in an endless circle of ever fluctuating fashionable trends.
Measurements and giving them high weighting, is the last refuge of people who don’t know anything and have no trust in who they are.
The negative side of that, is when the charlatan poses as the wise and tries to take advantage of those who don’t know anything...or is merely illiterate and does things that a charlatan might, in their ignorance. But it sells anyway, as the audience does not know any better.
...and the negative side of that, is when those who don’t know..deciding on how to be safe in the face of uncertainty... decides that all of them ---are charlatans. To throw them all down the same hole, when the gift of discrimination and intelligence in the given matter does not come to them.
Which kinda explains the nature of the divide and quandary we tend to drift into today.
You see it playing out on this board and all other audio boards -- thread, after thread, after thread, without relief.
As long as we seek, this will continue, without abatement.
Any form of of screeching, hating, throwing insults or rocks about will change nothing. This sort of written communication is about reflection, not transference.
As long as the given person seeks and can stand the heat...their contribution, either negative or positive in nature, that response pattern will likely not ever change.
Until they do.
Some part of them will change and then they will likely leave these boards, never to return.
To be replaced by the next given mouthpiece with attitude, be that attitude/expression harsh or kind and helpful.
The wheel never changes -only the fool nailed to it.
"
I'm afraid they've run out of options trying to somehow improve upon the current model. More designers must think outside the box."
That's whats happening for sure. There is only so much tweaking you can do to a given amp or preamp design. You have to go outside the box to get new ideas to try. Unfortunately most designers have given up looking for that "new" circuit that will give them the best results possible.
I saw a video of Robert Harley (TAS) interviewing a panel of the top audio designers at an audio show in 2015. It was very interesting but the last question had a response that honestly I did not expect. He (Harley) asked them "Do you think we will ever be able to reproduce the live experience in music?"
The answer from all members on the panel was the same - "no". This tells me that these designers have hit a brick wall in their designs - sort of like writers block.
This is why I felt it was necessary years ago to take a different approach. I needed to bypass that brick wall by simply using an entirely different approach. If you step back and take a look at the sound reproduction process and you had no idea where to begin - you have to boil it down to the least number of steps. First you want to capture the live acoustic event as performed in the hall. Then you want to release or playback the copy into your listening room. If it is a perfect copy (like a clone) it will transfer all of the attributes of the original performance including the belief that the performance is happening now (live)
The problem is that the best you can experience, or record, is a subtle loss of transient function, so... likened to a master tape copy.. slightly darker, slightly duller, slightly slower. light recording has the same issues, or of a similar type of issue. the eye has limits, the ear has limits the recording mediums and devices have limits.
They would have to be entirely non interactive to suffer no loss. Quantum function in a mass aggregate classical analysis, ie a temporal medium says... that losses of some sort are the best we can do. Thermodynamics and quantum function in the interactive says losses are the best you can do. Brownian motion in the mass aggregate and interactive is part of it, one might conclude.
If you find it is the same or more detail than that, then it’s a lie, a falsification. (And we don’t need another aphex aural exciter)
This is how we end up with screechy systems that drive people out of the room, with their ’detail’. Cringeworthy audio systems, they can be.
The only way I found I could help, is to re-write the rules and methods of electrical transfer, so as to avoid the pitfalls of complex impedance in AC systems and how this signal or intelligence interacts with the solids, the lattice network solidus matter.
To go to a conductive fluid medium at the true molecular level, which acts more like a gas and less like a fluid, when subjected to transient functions or high delta. We get a response characteristic that is more like a gas/plasma medium under those transient functions of signal interaction. (delta as mass, or how a tiny bullet can explode a brick--as it’s moving very fast..kinetics also enter the foray. Very messy math. We can idealize it but we can’t really calculate it)
Thus the signal and carrier are more like ’one’ (plasma) which is as ideal as it will ever get, when it comes to removing the losses and masking inherent in complex impedance, how such damages signal. the point is that in a plasma, the impedance is dynamic and is of the signal itself. The metallic fluid at the molecular level and audio signals...takes you there... not all the way...but..enough.
It’s not perfect but it is a magnitude beyond wire.
The loss of the noise, signal slurring, and masking of complex impedance when it (signal) interacts with wire, this makes some think the fluid metal is ’dark’ sounding with no detail, when all it is doing... is losing the additive/subtractive noise aspect that people have lived with (fundamental to their entire idea of hearing and audio) since the very dawn of wire based electrical technology.
Other people..they report gobs and gobs of detail they never heard before, but with warmth and speed, unrivaled speed and dynamic attack. Ie, previously obscured harmonic complexity tied to transient function, both delivered clearly. Read any of the reports and they will all say these exact things.
But it does not have the falsified detail that is inherent in all wire - which has inherent complex LCR issues in the transient domain (high delta).
We humans hear by transient function.... so this matters, this is everything, the whole enchilada.
This is about a reset at the base level of audio and how we’ve learned to hear. Some get it, some don’t.
A tough haul under the best of conditions and mindsets.
"To date humanity has invented a few variations on 2 basic gain devices and there's 3 ways you can use those gain devices. That gives you a limited number of basic topologies to arrange in some fashion"
This is true and pretty much sums up conventional thinking. This is exactly what I had to break away from. You see those devices and see their limitations. I see the same devices and I see unlimited uses. What if there was a fourth way to use them? Now that would be outside the box.
Microphones cannot 'hear' everything so those designers were right anyway - music can't even be recorded as performed let alone reproduced. And I think this is good. Let the chase continue forever.
"
music can't even be recorded as performed let alone reproduced"
It turns out this is not true. You have formed an opinion about the current and past recordings based on what? An admittedly poor reproduction system? If you take the distortion out of the playback electronics you would be shocked at how much captured detail and imaging data is embedded in the recording including cues that trigger the sensation that it is live.
I mean it cannot be fully recorded, I did not say that it cannot be recorded well except big orchestra opera and big choral pieces - this is especially tough. In any case, I believe that amps and wires without gain are already quite good, that is not a major problem. Turntable set-ups and open reel decks are quite good too. Problems are the recordings themselves and speakers. The beginning and the end, the middle is acceptable even if it may cost a fortune to be that.
Unfortunately amplifiers inherently shoot themselves in the foot. Too many large capacitors that produce phase shifts, too many big honking transformers that create large magnetic fields and vibration, too many capacitors and resistors that are placed arbitrarily without thought of directionality, fuses the same. Printed circuit boards that are strongly coupled (bolted) to the chassis and transformers that are bolted to the chassis. Give me a break! I got rid of my amplifiers last year. Or was it the year before? I also got rid of house AC and all the attendant issues thereof. I got rid of speaker cables and power cords and interconnects and digital cables. And fuses. And I don’t have to worry about room treatments since I’m strictly headphone oriented. I never looked back. Don’t look back, something might be gaining on you. 😬 If thy eye offend thee pluck it out. 👁
Nobody's gonna call TEO Audio out on his endless self promotion? He can spell the line of bull crap like no other! Well maybe not no other, there is a rock selling salesman who is very accomplished at that as well. Just to prevent some one from falling for his smooth lies I'll let you all know that I have tried his wire and his insanely expensive passive preamplifier and neither one is anything special. Trust me, it's not a reset of audio at the most basic level or whatever crap line he likes to throw out.
I have three of Roger Paul's new products. I have always been of the opinion that EE is an occupation not a science. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, I dropped my EE major and went into physics. Once at a RMAF presentation with two amps, the presenter showed that one amp had good THD in many circumstances and dismissed the other amp. I asked if we were going to hear the two amps, knowing full well that there were no speakers in the room. I was told no. I responded that perhaps the designer of the other amp thought THD was of little import. I left the room.
Roger Paul has dismissed THD and has gained realism. I have demonstrated my system to at least twelve audiophiles, including several manufacturers. Everyone hears the realism.
What they hear is not just the H-Cat equipment, but it is a vital part.
Probably if you are a EE, you will not like it and will persisted in 'knowing' that it cannot work, but if you are a scientist, you will hear the improvements.
Pretty sure the whole THD cat was out of the bag back in the late 70’s and early 80’s when relatively high THD tube amps crushed relatively low THD solid state amps in terms of sound quality. So, it’s not exactly news. The tube amps in question sported 0.05% THD vs solid state amps with "vanishingly low" THD around 0.001% or whatever. You know the amps I’m talikng about, the ones that’d rip your ears off.
"
What if I could power my amp with fairy dust? Oh crap! This is reality and asking "what if..." doesn't make a thing possible. There isn't a 4th way to use them so now what? Just design irrational circuits that do nothing? You see these unlimited uses. Tell me what they are exactly. And who are you exactly to left handedly insult people as to the quality of what they've heard? I can't stand the kind of pompous arrogance some folks like you wield around here, preaching down to the unwashed masses as if you've beheld divinity and know better than all
"
With all due respect - I was not playing the "what if" game. When you say "
There isn't a 4th way to use them so now what? " What you are saying is your not aware of a 4th way to use them.
kosst_amojan - "
And who are you exactly to left handedly insult people as to the quality of what they've heard?
When I told inna - "
You have formed an opinion about the current and past recordings based on what? An admittedly poor reproduction system? " I was stating 2 observations. The first sentence is accurate - he has formed an opinion as did most audiophiles. The second sentence was not to imply that he has an inferior playback system but that playback systems (in general) are not up to the task of exposing the degree of resolution that can be recovered from existing recordings.
kosst_amojan - "
I can't stand the kind of pompous arrogance some folks like you wield around here, preaching down to the unwashed masses as if you've beheld divinity and know better than all
"
On the contrary - I am humbled by the knowledge I have gained regarding methods of amplifying simply by being persistent and doing all the homework. If you look at the topic of this thread you will see why I decided to chime in with some good news. There are exciting advancements being made in the field of sound reproduction that audiophiles will benefit from.
If you read any of my posts anywhere you will see that I do not speak ill of any brand or designer. How can you have a civil dialog with the audiophile community when you get a post like yours that shows anger and frustration because you are certain that what I'm trying to share as legitimate progress is readily dismissed as nonsense?
Breakthroughs do happen if you stay positive and committed to a specific goal. My goal was to design an amplifier that does not distort. In order to do this I had to dig very deep into the route causes of distortion. I have had to approach this task by thinking outside the box.
When I said the other designers had "writers block" this was a compliment. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I could have said "they don't know how to do what I did." which is where we are at today.
You should not become angry at me for making progress that other designers have not been able to duplicate. Somebody has to move the ball forward. I remain humbled by the massive progress I have achieved.
I am using new methods of dealing with circuit weaknesses. I have made it a point to learn how active and passive devices "behave" when power and signals are applied. I have been at this for decades. I have gone through hundreds of circuit configurations to find one that works.
I have developed several new circuits that are able to produce gain from devices that are not meant to have gain. (The 4th way?).
I have found ways to cause a device to inherit a specific property from another device.(The 5th way?)
I have developed a detector circuit capable of extracting the velocity of a signal using current fragmentation. I can take a sample of pure current and cause a fragment (spin-off) to be used independently but with the same purity as the donor current. By converting the gauge of the current to a smaller size - it can be used to reveal far more detail buried in the music signal. (the 6th way?)
I can successfully monitor tiny changes along the time domain axis. This is where all forms of distortion are born. Remember that the significant data embedded in the recording that represents the sonic events is amplitude and time. This is the key to making distortion free amplifiers. All you need to do is make the output of a circuit provide a larger version of the input with the SAME relationship between amplitude and time.
This gives you a way to recover magnitudes more information.
This is not wishful thinking. I have this technology up and running.
phd geoffkait, that’s definately a different but interesting approach but how were you able to get rid of the house ac?
Batteries. No more ground issues. No more expensive power cords. No more bad power from the wall. No more big power supplies. No more teacher's dirty looks.
I used to use a headphone amp, a Woo Audio pure tube Class A headphone amp with WWII era tubes. Today I use a Walkman CD player and Walkman cassette player. With Grado SR 60 headphones and Sony Ultralight headphones and Radio Shack Pro 35 titanium headphones. I heard a quarter million dollar system the other day. It was much better. 😀
"
nobody actually building circuits talks in the cryptic code you do" Thank you - I like to think I am unique. It's probably because they are still building conventional circuits. BTW - what part is cryptic to you?
So without hearing the process I'm talking about - you have totally dismissed it as "snake oil". The one thing I like about these threads is there is a kind of paper trail that we can look back on and say "remember when they didn't believe it was possible to amplify without distortion?"
(Lets note the date)
This is why I don't spend much time on these threads because if you introduce any kind of new thinking to solve old problems - people freak out. The ones that complain the most are those with skin in the game. Is this technology somehow a threat to you or your business?
I don't know many people on this thread as far as what they do for a living. I know Ralph who I respect has his tube circuitry but never comes across as anything other than someone who enjoys what he does and is successful at it. I'm pretty sure Ralph does not see me as a threat. My hat is off to any designer that strives for the best. These threads are for the purpose of sharing all things audio. Lets leave out the snake oil please.
Perhaps someday you will get a chance to hear what I'm talking about.
I won't bother telling you about automatic focus - that doesn't seem go with sound reproduction either but I still use it.
Here is the simplified version: When a recording is made of a performance in the hall and the sound waves strike the microphone diaphragm 2 bits of data are saved.
1: what is the exact air pressure 2: what is the exact moment in time (for that air pressure reading)
This assumes 2 channel optimum mic placement. This allows you to triangulate the location of every instrument on stage. That's it - nothing more nothing less. If you do this correctly you have a piece of acoustic history captured.
Can we agree on that? Is there anyone reading this post that thinks otherwise?
If you can cause your speakers to produce the same air pressure changes along with the exact times - you have yourself an acoustic clone of that event and you will not be able to tell the difference between the live and the "copy".
When a recording is made of a performance in the hall and the sound waves strike the microphone diaphragm 2 bits of data are saved.
1: what is the exact air pressure 2: what is the exact moment in time (for that air pressure reading)
This assumes 2 channel optimum mic placement. This allows you to triangulate the location of every instrument on stage. That's it - nothing more nothing less. If you do this correctly you have a piece of acoustic history captured.
Can we agree on that? Is there anyone reading this post that thinks otherwise?
It's a well known fact that the Grateful Dead were pioneers in great sound. Their live recordings sound far better than any other bands recorded material. As to their mics, this is an excerpt from wikipedia:
The Wall of Sound acted as its own monitor system, and it was therefore assembled behind the band so the members could hear exactly what their audience was hearing. Because of this, Stanley and Alembic designed a special microphone system to prevent feedback. This placed matched pairs of condenser microphones spaced 60 mm apart and run out of phase. The vocalist sang into the top microphone, and the lower mic picked up whatever other sound was present in the stage environment. The signals were added together using a differential summing amp so that the sound common to both mics (the sound from the Wall) was canceled, and only the vocals were amplified.
"
You can get away with some quite high distortion and still have convincing playback so long as that distortion is low in order and complexity."
Yes this is a good point but under the conditions you just described you cannot pass the cue that it is live. It requires the distortion levels to be taken down by a massive amount so it can approach the distortion figure of air.
I also mentioned that - "
If you do this correctly you have a piece of acoustic history captured."
I will be making recordings using the same amplifying method. The interest by Hollywood is already there regarding 3D movies and recording with H-CAT mic preamps. It will save the studios mega bucks in post production because they will not have to manually move objects around the theater so the audience has some illusion of placement. (As in Atmos) This process will project an object back into mid air where it came from all by itself.
As far as mics and speakers well - here goes an explanation that I know is going to cause a riot...
What ever shortcomings a microphone has it is introducing a stable flaw. IOW it does not dynamically modulate the location information. The same holds true for speakers (wait for the riot...)
I know all the arguments already - no need to prove me wrong.
"speakers have a lot of distortion - how do you get around that?" "midrange info riding on the woofer will cause Doppler" "phase shift in the crossover will screw up the imaging"
All of those things are true but you need to pay attention to the difference between symmetrical and non-symmetrical phase errors.
It sounds like you have a great system and I'm sure you are happy with it. The only thing I can tell you is I had a level of purity that I never thought could get better - then the latest version of the process that has a much tighter auto focus system was put in and wow I ended up with quite a jump in the believably and ghost like imaging. My speakers disappeared completely and seemed to have nothing to do with what I was listening to.
Anyhow good luck to you perhaps you will have a chance down the road to hear H-CAT.
In fact if you don't mind - contact my web site or email me and let me know where you are located.
I was going to offer to send you a stripped down line stage that would have one input / one output and a manual volume control under no obligation to buy. It would be a fully functional stage with auto-focus. You can live with it for a week. I make this offer to skeptics who become believers within the first 10 seconds of listening.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
