Unless you're a rich recording engineer who record and listen to your own stuff on high end equipment, I doubt anyone can claim their stuff is neutral. I get the feeling, if I were this guy, I'd be disappointed in the result. May be I'm wrong.
Neutral IS attainable...very much so; as a valid audio concept it is alive and well, even if only in a purely subjective sense. But, brightness, darkness or bass-heavy etc, are nothing more than frequency response issues and can be fully corrected as such. What cannot be corrected in that way are the effects of colorations. That is a different problem with a different solution. I’m not talking about just speaker boxes, although that is certainly part of it. What I’m talking about here are the colorations in the components, passive crossovers and the wiring - ALL of the wiring...power cords, IC’s, speaker, all the in-wall wiring, breaker box wiring - everything. Yes, it is about EMI/RFI and yes, it is about magnetic fields. (I happen to think Geoff was in the middle of making a very good and valid point about magnetic fields here originally before he was so shrewdly interrupted ;-)
But, be that as it may, there’s still such a thing as non-neutral gear, pro or audiophile. We’re all probably aware of the nature of, say, the amp market at around, say, $3k or less. ’Rogue’ amp designers trying to make a name for themselves by giving us "more" of some particular favored attribute when we really know that it really can’t happen that way without giving up some other still-desirable attribute in the design process. We know this is true because if they were able to give us more of the good stuff without ever sacrificing anything elsewhere, then everybody would be making amps that way...there would be only one way to go to get the best sound and clearly that’s not the case, is it? There is no free lunch. And then there are, just for example, all those low cost tube amps that are known (and even sought) for their colorations (yielding some ’tonal color’ to a degree and "sweetness")...whether those colorations predominantly belong to the tubes they are using or to their amp design. I don’t really want to take anything away from those folks who prefer going this route, it’s all good and perfectly valid...it’s just not my particular cuppa, but I respect it 100% but, that’s because I know there are so many more buying factors that go into those choices than what I can include here.
My prior amps were the little (but mighty) Monarchy SM-70 Pros (single-ended transistor design). Long on timbre, but short on good string sounds, but overall somewhat colored through the lower mids and to lesser extent up into the midrange. It took a long time for me to fully figure out why I could never get EQ to sound right, no matter how much I experimented, measured or listened. Sometimes it sounded FAR better than I would’ve thought it had a right to - and then suddenly it would sound ’off’ or unnatural on the next disc - or even on the next track. No amount of Alan Maher Designs electrical noise reduction gear could neutralize that. When I ’upgraded’ to the less expensive and pro-sound Crowns I’m using now, Bam - that problem disappeared entirely. EQ now is set it and forget it...no measuring needed.
I suspect, though, that for some audiophiles, there may be perhaps too much of this kind of gear available to sift through and because most audiophiles don’t start out with the experience level to avoid buying this kind of gear initially, manufacturers may interpret this as ’demand’ and may respond by making more. But, there may be a certain frustration level out there by those who are not finding the neutral kind of gear they’re looking for, so they may end up feeling they are forced to go the "natural" sound route, instead. Not necessary, maybe, but IMO understandable possibly, given the lay of the land.
As for solving colorations (the electrical ones, not physical), I was able to solve that with AMD gear...but, my components had to be inherently neutral enough as well.
I define ’neutral’ then as having no colorations, a sound that is equally adept at reproducing "lush", "sweet", "brash" and "shrill". (Also can be used to describe a sound stage that’s neither too far to the front or to far to the rear).
(I happen to think Geoff was in the middle of making a very good and
valid point about magnetic fields here originally before he was so
shrewdly interrupted ;-)
He got interrupted because he didn't understand how magnetic fields worked. This was around the issue of balanced line connections, which can be used to eliminate problems of cable construction and colorations as well as the effects of magnetic fields impinging the cable. BTW, this is not to say that EMI/RFI isn't a problem; Geoff was right about that); what I am saying is the if you run balanced lines and the equipment supports the balanced line standard then the cables will have almost no effect on the sound and it will get around the problem of EMI impinging the cable.
That’s so funny. We are not yet on the same page. No problem, I’m very patient. You on one hand are talking about RFI and EMI while I’m talking about magnetic fields. Think back, way back, to high school and the right hand rule. The right hand rule for determining the direction of the induced magnetic field produced by current traveling through a conductor. As I said previously RFI/EMI is light speed due to the photons involved whilst the other - magnetic field - is stationary. Apples and watermelons, my friend.
Geoff, its really obvious that you did not read any of the links to basic information about the nature of EMI and RFI. Don't worry about me, you still have to get 'yet on the same page' with some of those basic rules to which those links referred.
FWIW photons are a phenom normally associated with light, not RFI or EMI...
Our gear does not have problems with stray magnetic fields on account of the fact that its fully differential and thus a great deal of shielding is not required. Differential circuits, if laid out correctly, can reject noise from magnetic fields (EMI) just as they can Common Mode noise and for the same reason.
Hi, Atmosphere, sorry to abuse you of some of your beliefs but photons are the "carriers of the electromagnetic waves, which is what Radio Frequencies are. That’s why, as I already said at least three times, that radio waves travel at light speed, because it’s comprised of photons. Can you think of anything other than photons that travels at light speed? Actually, now that you bring it up, he music signal in cables and wires is also an electromagnetic wave and is also composed of, uh, photons. What about x-rays? Yup, photons. The ELF transmission at 75 Hz? Photons.
Atmasphere, the real ’good and valid point’ I felt Geoff to be making there (and I didn’t fully make this clear above) is simply that magnetic fields do have an adverse impact on sound. Who is right or not on the theoretical details I’m not really qualified to answer.
" This was around the issue of balanced line connections, which can be used to eliminate problems of cable construction and colorations as well as the effects of magnetic fields impinging the cable. BTW, this is not to say that EMI/RFI isn’t a problem; Geoff was right about that); what I am saying is the if you run balanced lines and the equipment supports the balanced line standard then the cables will have almost no effect on the sound and it will get around the problem of EMI impinging the cable."
This is technically true. However it is Wholly insufficient to fight either magnetics or EMI/RFI in the **system** - that is to say with its sonic performance overall. This is because they both have Sooo many other points of entry into the system and just protecting the IC’s alone can never, and will never, cut it.
My system uses balanced lines from source to amps. But, if that were anywhere near sufficient by itself, then the $10k’s worth of Alan Maher Designs gear I’ve bought over the last few years that is designed specifically to deal with both magnetics And EMI/RFI should have made no impact on the sound and that is plainly not the case at all. It makes a "night and day" difference...and yes, as in a ’whole new system’ level of difference. What I’m saying is that balanced lines, in the grand scheme, make no appreciable difference...**once you’ve caught on to just how bad the overall picture of magnetics/EM/RF vs system performance actually is**, that is.
However it also states that it is a form of EM radiation.
However the signal in a cable is not carried by photons. A better carrier would be the electron, although stated in those terms might be considered a gross oversimplification.
Ivan, if you had read the thread through (and I don't blame you for not doing so) you would see that I brought up the balanced line thing specifically with respect to the fact that if properly executed (and quite often in high end audio, the balanced line standard is pretty well ignored) then the cables at least will be immune to EMI (stray magnetic field) problems. If you do not hear that in your system then its likely that it is not supporting the balanced standard.
Understood. Last I checked, I believe my system was full differentially balanced, but since some of it is modified I should 'triple check' that, to be sure. But, to make clear for anyone else, I've certainly found balanced lines to make an audible difference in my systems (the degree of which depending on the gear) prior to using AMD. It's just that after doing so, switching out between single-ended and balanced has no longer made an audible difference, under my roof.
I never said a photon did have mass, or that it had an electrical charge or wasn’t stable. But electrons are carriers of *charge* not the audio signal. The electromagnetic wave that is the actual signal is made of photons. Just like (visible) light but with a different wavelength. Gamma rays, x-rays same thing - Photons with a different wavelength than visible light. The electromagnetic spectrum is extremely wide and includes obviously visible light which is obviously just a very small part of the whole thing. Electrons in the conductor are almost at a standstill, but the music signal is moving at near light speed (since it’s made of photons). That’s what I mean by carrier. The radio wave (RF) does not need a medium in which to propagate, obviously, since it will propagate in a vacuum. Just like a radio transmission to a satellite is comprised of photons. Or an ELF transmission.
Atmosphere also wrote,
"However it also states that it is a form of EM radiation."
Electromagnetic radiation. Now we’re getting somewhere! I am agreeing with that statement. That's what I’ve been saying, that light and radio waves are electromagnetic waves, radiated. The units of measurement for satellite communication transmission is surprise, surprise, EIRP, Effective Isotropic Radiated Power.
atmosphere also wrote,
"However the signal in a cable is not carried by photons. A better carrier would be the electron, although stated in those terms might be considered a gross oversimplification."
Electrons carry charge, whereas the music signal is an electromagnetic EM wave so it (the signal) must travel in a conductor at near lightspeed. In order to travel at that speed the wave must be, physically, photons, not electrons. The electrons in the conductor only travel what a meter an hour or something. If the audio signal wasn't light speed you would hear a pretty big delay for normal phone conversations, no?
switching out between single-ended and balanced has no longer made an audible difference, under my roof
This is an interesting observation which can mean one of two things. 1. You have very good gear with not too much of a problem with external interference.
2. You have arrived at a combination of gear that has masked the benefits or the "sounds" of either configuration.
I believe you can have both a neutral system and a natural system. After all - if your understanding of "neutral" means no top end or bottom end exaggerations or no coloration's etc., wouldn't the default term be "natural" as well - meaning that a system that can deliver a flawless performance in your listening room would have to be considered natural?
If two audiophiles went to a live concert - how would they describe the performance to each other? Would they use terms like "sweet top end" or "detailed mids" or "smooth" or "rich"?
No. They would say what non-audiophiles in the audience would say.. "It was awesome" "It was overwhelming" "It was thoroughly enjoyable music"
This is how audiophiles want their home systems to sound. Unfortunately they have to go through months and years of swapping this for that until they "bump into" the best compromise. Except now it is worse because if they upgrade one component that gives them truly better detail, it further exposes a harshness in some component up stream and they either have to get another replacement for it or put the first one back in so it is tolerable.
On most of these threads you see a pattern of some wisdom. When someone gets the bug be can't afford much, the old guys tell the newbees how to get the best sound for the buck. You simply get a "bright" sounding preamp to drive a "good" power amp with poor top end that emphasizes the mids and bottom end. This uses one component as pre-emphasis and a second for de-emphasis. You end up with the perfect mix of zig and zag and you save a lot of money. Yes? Well, it might be a good place to start but it will be quickly disappointing. It is hard to fool your ears with anything that contains distortion - even if it is the "good" kind.
"I believe you can have both a neutral system and a natural system. After all - if your understanding of "neutral" means no top end or bottom end exaggerations or no coloration's etc., wouldn't the default term be "natural" as well - meaning that a system that can deliver a flawless performance in your listening room would have to be considered natural?"
Generally speaking, I certainly believe that if you do have a neutral sound then the overall result will indeed be more natural overall, no question...and as far as that goes, I would add that there would also be more realism as well. At least, that's what I'd say I am experiencing here. But, the idea of neutrality as a separate issue was raised that way in the OP and that was the way I was responding to it...but, yes, I regard it as simply an integral part of the whole. But, if you ask me, I would think that trying to pursue realism and naturalism without neutrality might make for a little tougher sledding in the long run, but to each his own, I suppose.
"This is an interesting observation which can mean one of two things. 1. You have very good gear with not too much of a problem with external interference.
2. You have arrived at a combination of gear that has masked the benefits or the "sounds" of either configuration."
Yes, IME I find it's actually a rather striking observation (which is why I made the comment, really), but that has been one of the differences made by Alan Maher here. In truth, I would say I have moderate gear and a greatly reduced level of external interference...far below what is normally encountered. Again that's from the AMD here.
"Except now it is worse because if they upgrade one component that gives them truly better detail, it further exposes a harshness in some component up stream and they either have to get another replacement for it or put the first one back in so it is tolerable."
That is what the AMD here is really all about. It has eliminated that result for me. Instead, all I've had to consider all the technical aspects of system synergy. Reducing the noise in the system's environment wholesale has allowed me to consider a far wider range of equipment without ever running into the "harshness" conundrum. It even allowed me to use less expensive gear and get stellar results.
"When someone gets the bug be can't afford much, the old guys tell the newbees how to get the best sound for the buck. You simply get a "bright" sounding preamp to drive a "good" power amp with poor top end that emphasizes the mids and bottom end. This uses one component as pre-emphasis and a second for de-emphasis. You end up with the perfect mix of zig and zag and you save a lot of money. Yes? Well, it might be a good place to start but it will be quickly disappointing. It is hard to fool your ears with anything that contains distortion - even if it is the "good" kind."
Agreed, this is always worth avoiding...although to be fair, the old guys, whenever they may be handing out such advice, are usually up against the most severe budget restraints of newbees when they do so, but personally, I'm with you.
Electrons carry charge, whereas the music signal is an electromagnetic
EM wave so it (the signal) must travel in a conductor at near
lightspeed. In order to travel at that speed the wave must be,
physically, photons, not electrons. The electrons in the conductor only
travel what a meter an hour or something. If the audio signal wasn't
light speed you would hear a pretty big delay for normal phone
conversations, no?
Wow. Just wow.
So are you saying that there is no current flow in a vacuum tube or a transistor? That its all photons? or does the the photon flow turn into electron flow once it hits the tube? Wow.
The 'why' is I was simply dealing very directly with the statement you made which I quoted above so the context is very immediate. Here it is again:
Electrons carry charge, whereas the music signal is an electromagnetic
EM wave so it (the signal) must travel in a conductor at near
lightspeed. In order to travel at that speed the wave must be,
physically, photons, not electrons. The electrons in the conductor only
travel what a meter an hour or something. If the audio signal wasn't
light speed you would hear a pretty big delay for normal phone
conversations, no?
This suggests that you think the audio signal is traveling in the form of photons. Obviously to do that, eventually the signal has to arrive at a tube or a transistor, in order for a stereo amp or preamp to do its job; therefore the **only** logical conclusion one can draw from your statement is that you think the tube or transistor must have photon flow too!
I think you know that is not the case; giving you that benefit of the doubt how is it that you square the fact that tubes and transistors have current flow but somehow the wires that attach to them only have photon flow??
IOW, what's wrong with this picture?
You are correct that electrons don't flow very quickly in a conductor. The reason that the signal travels much faster is easily seen if you think of a hose filled with marbles- the hose representing the wire and the marbles representing the electrons. If you put a marble in the input of the hose another immediately (at light speed) pops out the other side. In practice not the same electron you put in but it does the same work.
IOW, signals do not propagate through any audio cable in the form of photons, unless that cable is a fiber optic. And the signal does indeed move much faster than the electrons.
The audio signal moves VERY rapidly. It moves at near light speed in a conductor.
What do we know of that can move at light speed in a vacuum and near light speed in a conductor? An electromagnetic wave. But an electromagnetic wave is not nothing. It must be made of something. We already know it’s not made of electrons since electrons don’t move very fast at all, a centimeter per minute or whatever. What else could it possibly be? Well, for one thing we know that ALL electromagnetic waves, including light (both visible and invisible), radio frequencies of all types, x-rays, gamma rays, and Extremely Low Frequency waves travel at light speed and must be made of SOMETHING. They can’t be made of nothing, right? Well, here we come to the grand finale. The only thing we know of that travels at light speed and near light speed depending on medium is drum roll, please.....photons! And the reason photons can travel at the speed of light is they have no mass, as you yourself pointed out. If a particle has mass it can never attain light speed.
So, the audio signal, the one that’s traveling at light speed is made of photons.
Electrons and teh signal in the wires do seem to work just like a Newton's Cradle.
Geoff your logic is fine. Problem is it is based on missing facts. Logic is pretty useless based on missing or incorrect facts. Write your book and fill us all in. Or save time and just publish a link to the proper reference.
Or if you really don't know don't act like you do.
It would appear that Geoff has opened a new branch of physics.
If you can slow down photons to the degree upon which he insists then its not necessary to get something going at the *full* speed of light to actually *go* the speed of light :) Doesn't it sound like that could have some impact on space travel?
Atmosphere, there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said they did travel at the speed of light in cables. Actually I went out of my way to explain the difference between the speed of an EM wave in a vacuum and one in cables. You might not remember that Einstein found the speed of light was constant - in a vacuum. I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I’m beginning to suspect your reading comprehension skill is quite possibly as rusty as your physics.
Electrons and teh signal in the wires do seem to work just like a Newton’s Cradle.
Geoff your logic is fine. Problem is it is based on missing facts. Logic is pretty useless based on missing or incorrect facts. Write your book and fill us all in. Or save time and just publish a link to the proper reference.
Or if you really don’t know don’t act like you do."
Uh, so you’re hanging your hat on a demonstration of the conservation of energy in some wild attempt to win the argument? In the first place you’re putting words in my mouth by claiming I believe photons work like Newton’s Cradle. I would probably not say that but give me a few days and I’ll get back to you. Let me guess. You’re an English major, right? No reason to get your panties in a twist over this. Try to lighten up.
I never said they did travel at the speed of light in cables.
Really? Wut up?:
As I said previously RFI/EMI is light speed due to the photons involved whilst the other - magnetic field - is stationary.
The audio signal moves VERY rapidly. It moves at near light speed in a conductor.
Sure looks like you said that to me.
I don't think you realize how much you've painted yourself into a corner- on the one hand you seem to get that magnetic fields can impinge themselves onto a cable, OTOH you say that a signal passes through a cable via photons (which won't be influenced by said magnetic fields). Ya can't have it both ways...
Atmosphere, please don’t tell me you think that "near light speed" means light speed? I just finished explaining for the umpteenth time that the velocity of light and any electromagnetic wave depends on the medium through which it travels. I’m having trouble deciding if you have a propensity for density or if you’re just pretending. ;-) Let me make myself a little clearer just in case my first three or four attempts were not clear enough. The speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum is what 186,000 miles per second, right? And in a conductor it is a large fraction of c, let’s say it’s 80% of c or about 150,000 miles per second. That’s close to c, and that’s why I refer to it as "near light speed." Follow?
I also did not say the electromagnetic wave in the cable can't be influenced by external magnetic fields. You are not only putting words in my mouth but you obviously *missed the whole point* of my discussion of the subject lo these past few days.
Pop Quiz: what’s the second fastest thing next to photons?
The speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum is what 186,000 miles per
second, right? And in a conductor it is a large fraction of c, let’s
say it’s 80% of c or about 150,000 miles per second. That’s close to c,
and that’s why I refer to it as "near light speed." Follow?
Well, the funny thing here is that you claim that the signal is in photon form. If so, its going at the speed of light 'cause that's how fast photons go on account of quantum. And if that's so, what can be inferred from that is all you have to do is put the signal through a cable and you can slow it down (on account of the dielectric and quantum). If that is so, it is further inferred that all you need is enough dielectric and you could get a person pedaling a bicycle to go at the speed of light. Then of course you could shed the dielectric and presto! the bicycle made it to Mars in only 30 minutes.
Of course, none of this is really possible, because signals **don't** travel in cables in the form of photons (which is of course ridiculous) and also not because of quantum :)! Of course I've been having some fun with this!
What’s this, the Frick and Frack routine? I think I am seeing why there haven't been too many Amish Nobel Prize winners in physics. :-). Just joking, Mopman.
"Of course, none of this is really possible, because signals **don't** travel in cables in the form of photons (which is of course ridiculous) and also not because of quantum :)! Of course I've been having some fun with this!"
" I doubt anyone can claim their stuff is neutral."
I can claim anything I want. Doesn't make it true.
How about we meet in the middle and just say some things are more neutral than others? Then we can all move on. i will go back to plowing my fields with the mules and working on that Nobel prize someday though I fear time is running out for me :^)
Made up words to justify printing magazines and blogs just don't cut it. I listen for emotion. That's all I need. You can blame the founding fathers of the critics set and magazine editors for making up words to describe noise.
Atmasphere...I thought audio waves moved at the speed of sound, and light waves moved at the speed of light? This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Just listen to the music, if it moves you, you have a great system.
I thought audio waves moved at the speed of sound, and light waves moved at the speed of light? This is the kind of crap I’m talking about.
At most frequencies, audio waves that are in the form of electrical signals travelling through cables travel at a substantial fraction (generally upwards of 100,000 miles per second) of the speed at which light moves through a vacuum (approximately 186,000 miles per second). The exact speed varies depending on the characteristics of the cable, especially what is known as the "dielectric constant" of its insulation.
An exception to that is audio at deep bass frequencies, which travel through cables more slowly but still at speeds of thousands of miles per second.
Audio waves that are in the form of sound travelling through air travel vastly more slowly, at roughly 0.2 miles per second, depending on the humidity and several other variables.
As mentioned, the speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 186,000 miles per second. It is somewhat slower in other media, such as glass, just as the speed of electrical signals is dependent on the characteristics of the cables that are conducting them.
I hope that addresses the concerns expressed in the second of the two sentences that I quoted from your post.
roguemodel – your statement cannot be more
accurate or appropriate…including your deduction.
Atmasphere...I
thought audio waves moved at the speed of sound, and light waves moved at the
speed of light? This is the kind of crap I'm talking about. Just listen to the
music, if it moves you, you have a great system.
If you will allow me to shed some light on this
topic. As it turns out I have probably more research into this very topic than
anyone. I can only say this because I have hard evidence that the way sound
reproduction systems operate is no longer a mystery but rather bound by
physical laws that are predictable. To correctly understand it is to be aware
of the basic requirements needed to achieve sound reproduction that is (not
realistic) but in fact, real.
Regarding the speed of an audio signal through
the electrical medium.
Atmosphere mentioned the example of the marble
filled hose. By adding one marble to the input side (A) – one marble exits on
the output side (B). The observed speed it took for the “energy” to travel from
point A to point B is virtually simultaneous. That speed is both very fast and more
importantly it is a fixed speed.
However -
The other speed to observe is the speed (rate)
that the marbles are loaded into (a).
At the other end (B) they will be exiting at
the same speed.
That speed can vary. (One marble per minute or
one marble per second) Whatever the rate is – it will be the same at both ends.
The understanding is that we can reference 2 separate speeds happening at the
same time depending on where and how you observe it.
Electricity travels at the (roughly) the speed
of light (no need to bicker over the exact number)
Sound waves travel a Mach One (approx. 750 mph
depending on environmental conditions).
It is important to realize that these are “observed”
or “apparent” speeds.
IOW you are not monitoring a single electron
entering a wire and making its way to the other end at the speed of light.
Instead it is the response time of the medium – in this case the wire quickly
drops off an electron (not the same one added) at the output end.
Here is the difference. (In an excerpt from
the white paper on distortion.)
Observing
the sonic event from the beginning…
I
will use a live orchestra performance as an example here because it is rich
with many instruments and is among the most difficult sound events to reproduce
properly. We see the live performance as a sound event in which there are
natural “sound waves” traveling away from the stage. These waves flow freely
because they are traveling in medium of air. The music enjoyed by a live
audience member seated in the 10th row center comes to him or her by a delivery
system which includes the air present in the auditorium. The air serves as the
perfect medium allowing the sound vibrations generated by the various
instruments on the stage to “travel” as waves uninterrupted. The speed at which
it flows is known as Mach One. These waves ultimately arrive and enter the
listener’s ear canals (still at Mach One). What really happened just then?
Everything that was vibrating on the stage simply increased or decreased the
instantaneous air pressure as a result of squeezing (compression) or stretching
(rarefaction) the local air pressure surrounding the instruments. This is
nothing new. However, what was propelled toward the listener was only the
result or influence impressed upon, and carried by the medium (a wave of
sound). When we say the “sound” has arrived we are really verifying that the
result or influence has arrived. We call it a “sound wave” because it is in a
medium that allows sound waves to exist and flow freely. For the local listener
in the audience, it is “mission accomplished”. Music from the stage was
delivered or “streamed” directly to the listener’s ear canals using sound waves
to communicate the event through the medium of air. The local air molecules
surrounding the (violin string) are still there. They never left the stage.
Only the exact disturbances in pressure have arrived, to be decoded by the
ear-brain system and recognized as a real live event.
So the only thing that “traveled” was the WAVE
– not the original air molecules pushed away from the violin string.
Sticking with the actual attendance of a live
concert – audience members sitting many rows back from the stage will hear the
same music that the people in the first
row hear. (allowing for delay and distance cues such as the slight roll off of highs due
to the drop in energy level. The SPL will be weaker but not slowed down.
Can the person in the first row claim that
what they are hearing is more live than the person many rows back because it
gets to them first?. Of course not. The same way that the person in the back is
hearing more of a slice of “history” due to the offset (travel) it time. To
them it is just as live.
The only way to destroy the “live” nature of
the music is to tamper with one of the properties associated with sound.
Sound has two properties:
1)
Pressure
2)
Time.
That’s it. If you maintain both those properties
– they will equal live.
If you look on an oscilloscope at a musical
signal and you see the jagged lines (vertically) that represent a violin or
percussion instrument – this is the instantaneous “pressure” measurement.
If you look at the horizontal reference line most
of you know that this represents time. A soon as one of those two properties is
altered it is no longer perceived as live. The medium of air is constant and
will not alter either one. The ear-brain system is intimately familiar with the
properties of air. It is how sounds are “fed” to us.
An electrical medium that is not constant will
never transfer the true “feeling” of live.
The emphasis in the amplifier business has
been all about the vertical axis “pressure” with not enough attention paid to
what it takes to nail down the timing issues. This is where my research has
taken me. The constant speed or velocity of a sound wave has to be included in the
amplifying process.
Just listen to the
music, if it moves you, you have a great system.
roguemodel - you are right. If it moves you (like a feeling of live) then you do have a more accurate system.
If you can deliver accurate pressure and timing of sound waves, what you get
back is 100% live.
Electricity is most commonly conducted in a copper wire. Copper has a density of 8.94 g/cm3, and an atomic weight of 63.546 g/mol, so there are 140685.5 mol/m3. In one mole of any element there are 6.02×1023 atoms (Avogadro’s constant). Therefore in 1 m3 of copper there are about 8.5×1028 atoms (6.02×1023 × 140685.5 mol/m3). Copper has one free electron per atom, so n is equal to 8.5×1028 electrons per cubic metre.
Assume a current I = 3 amperes, and a wire of 1 mm diameter (radius = 0.0005 m). This wire has a cross sectional area of 7.85×10−7 m2 (A = π × (0.0005 m)2). The charge of one electron is q = −1.6×10−19 C. The drift velocity therefore can be calculated:
TBS
Dimensional analysis:
TBS
Therefore in this wire the electrons are flowing at the rate of −0.00028 m/s.
By comparison, the Fermi flow velocity of these electrons (which, at room temperature, can be thought of as their approximate velocity in the absence of electric current) is around 1570 km/s.[2]
In the case of alternating current, the direction of electron drift switches with the frequency of the current. In the example above, if the current were to alternate with the frequency of F = 60 Hz, drift velocity would likewise vary in a sine-wave pattern, and electrons would fluctuate about their initial positions with the amplitude of:
2.1 x 10-6 meter
To summarize, the electrons are moving so slowly it’s almost as if they’re standing still. And in the case of alternating current they are moving back and forth so actually they are standing still. So, ye olde fire hose analogy doesn't uh hold water.
Roger that all sounds fine and good. You nicely summarized the differences between live sound waves and the waves that result in devices that conduct electricity used to reproduce live events.
So all designers tackle the same problem in different ways. Are you doing something different or unique? Would love to know. Is the result more "neutral" than the others?
I don't need to crack the text books to know that if I push a cup off a table that the next thing it will do is hit the floor.
This reminds me of Thomas Edison's Light Bulb Test
Thomas Edison, the inventor of the incandescent bulb, was an incessant inventor. When he needed to expand his staff, he employed an unusual technique for interviewing the engineers for positions on his staff. Every prospective applicant who came in for an interview was handed a light bulb. Edison then asked the engineer to determine the exact amount of water the bulb could hold.
Edison knew very well that there were two basic ways an applicant could determine the correct answer to his question.
The first, was to apply several engineering gauges and mathematical protractors to each of the complex angles of the glass bulb. Then, using a slide ruler and applying basic logarithmic formulas, the applicant could calculate the inside surface area of the light bulb which would allow him to determine the total volume of the glass bulb. This approach would take an experienced engineering applicant approximately twenty minutes to solve the answer. The second method an applicant could use to find the answer was to remove the brass base from the bulb and then fill the bulb with water. Once the bulb was filled with water, its contents could easily be poured into a measuring cup or laboratory beaker mug to determine the exact amount of water it could hold. This method generally took less than two minutes. Nearly all the engineers who used the first method to calculate the volume of water a light bulb could hold were politely thanked for their time and sent on their way. However, the applicants who used the second method were greeted warmly by Mr. Edison who asked, "When can you start?"
Based on your very impressive technical knowledge, can you tell me what happens if the velocity of an audio signal entering an amplifier leaves at a different velocity?
Better yet - Is it possible to exit at a different velocity?
Absolutely - the method I use is quite radical and unconventional. This is one of the reasons that people who hear this technique for the first time are shocked at how well it replicates the live event. It is capable of unraveling the layout of the venue and placing sound objects back into space. Essentially a reverse of the recording capture.
The key to doing this is have a stable playback speed. Conventional amplifiers don't have circuitry that can detect or control this property.
I know you remember me from the early postings on the other threads. I have had my share of critics and audiophiles who just enjoyed making fun of my work. Well I never gave up and here we are in 2016 with an actual way to hear perfect flawless, distortion-less music.
I must thank God for what has happened as a result.of all that work. There was no way to measure what I only suspected was going on. It functions so well - it is a miracle.
Already I have been talking with 4 of the top 3D movie makers about implementing Live analog amplifiers in the movie soundtracks and driving the local speakers in the theaters with metered Mach One sound. Besides the audio market, it is made for all types of entertainment.
I watched to the halftime show during the Superbowl on H-CAT and experience an absolute attendance.
Maybe neutral is how relaxed you are while listening. Like your brain is not working overtime to interpolate what you are hearing into what you would like to hear. That would make "neutral" as individual as the listener. Applying science to art never seems to work out anyway, for just that reason.
"I don’t need to crack the text books to know that if I push a cup off a table that the next thing it will do is hit the floor."
I don’t need to crack a text book to know the sky is blue, either. But neither statement, while a truism, is relevant in this discussion. We call that a Strawman argument.
If you step back and try to see the overall process, it becomes simpler. The electronics is the only part of the signal path that differs as a medium from the air in the hall at the venue and air in your living room
The live performance literally gets lost in the "electronic" translation. If you have a circuit stage with a gain of 10 Measuring the "exactness" of the 10.000 v rms out for 1.000 v rms in focuses your attention on the vertical axis. The real crime is how much energy from the 1 khz sine wave has been compromised by the amplifying method. IOW if we look at the horizontal time domain we see more valuable information about the constant nature of the delivery speed. Turntables have wow and flutter references, digital devices have jitter well analog amplifiers also have dynamic timing issues.
To answer your question about how significant is the variation - It turns out it is almost everything. Here is a statement sure to get people upset but its true.
Ninety percent of the problems with systems that don't sound right can be blamed on the electronics. This is because they are responsible for the destruction of vital cues about where things are located in a performance.
I know the argument about how much distortion speakers have will do more damage and not allow you to even hear a lower amounts of distortion elsewhere in the system. That simply is not true. Here is why:
Take phase errors and crossovers etc. Whatever they do to the signal - it is stable. It is not dynamic. If you had an rc circuit to roll off the highs at 10khz of course it would sound like there are no highs but whatever image you manage to get from it would be stable because it is static IOW the diffusion remains the same. Your soundstage may not fully appear correctly but there would be no dynamic "modulation" of location information to scatter the vectors of sound objects.
Analog amps modulate the velocity of the passing signal enough to cause confusion in the mind of the listener. The amount of modulation needed to diffuse an image is in the parts per billion.
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.
