|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: I go away for a couple of weeks and look what happens! posted by Commuteman on April 27, 2004 at 13:36:27:
Peter: ""you list (presumably deliberately) most of the most contentious areas of current debate.""You presumed correctly.
Peter: ""Rationally creating a path from this research to the need for better engineering in these areas means that we have "lowered the fence" a little AND established a direction in which to look.""
I had intended to mean the fence between the diehards who believe, and those who don't.
I consider folly the use of "pseudo-physics" to explain what is "heard", things like grain boundary, strand jumping, skin effect, cryo treatment, burn in, dielectric effects...a whole huge host of "ridiculous" explanations for the "high end audio club".
It is folly because, without any tie to the real world, it pushes the people who could research it away, laughing at the obvious "lack" of engineering acumen. It creates entire product lines and markets on superstition, for lack of a better word. You have designers, tweakers, saying this matters, that matters, changing things haphazardly, without actually advancing the SOTA, or really understanding what they are changing...think of how many times you've heard someone rationalize a tweak "because it sounds better", as opposed to something like "it lowers the S/N ratio", or "it lowers phase shift".
You have cable manu's touting very low inductance wire, 4 nhenry per foot, as the good thing, and then you have some that sell individual conductors, with their inherent HIGH inductance (200-300 nH per foot in application), also as the good thing.
And then, you have the engineering types, who laugh at the disparities between the two and rightly so, for the compete lack of science.
But of course, the engineering types are using the 20Khz audibility model. For actually hearing tones, that is a good one..but for stereo imaging, it appears to be terribly flawed..
Who'd have thought we could hear 1.5 uSec L-R? My goodness, that is a huge implied bandwidth, one never considered in human hearing models..
As an engineer, I look at Nordmark and the implications (I make the assumption that his results are valid), and say without hesitation....it's time for a paradigm shift. Stereo reproduction systems (including IC's, PC's, amps, speaker wires, and even speakers) have never worried about 1.5 uSec timing control...it's now time to do so..
With any luck, the results of the Nordmark paper, although almost 3 decades old, will both open the avenues of research for all the audio components, as well as communication between the esoteric's and engineering types..
As I've pointed out, those timing speeds open up a whole new world of questions for "high end audio" engineering. First, how to test it, how to control it if it is there, how to design, and very important, can it be shown as audible...Nordmark did that, albeit with test tone stuff..but it shows a path.
I worry, though, that discussing it here, on a miniscule forum, won't be enough for the industry to take notice..
Cheers, John
PS...if these issues are valid and corrected, it will mean the cost of sonic accuracy would reduce, and we will simply change what we argue about...:-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Welcome back - jneutron 06:53:32 04/28/04 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
