atmosphere ^^ of course, there is the issue of what is meant by 'zero distortion'.I think it narrows down to obviously having ultra low or no harmonic distortion but more importantly it has to have the absence of dynamic phase errors that fall far below harmonic distortion measurements. Take for example ground loops and grounding in general. If you cue up your cartridge with the volume up and listen for noise (hum buzz etc.) it it is dead quite, it does not mean that you do not have a problem with ground loops. The problem caused by some ground loops show up when the music is playing. This is where electromagnetic broadcasts such as current running through your speaker cables can be picked up by a low Z loop that includes your IC's. The other problem is extremely low level hum (not audible) that is contaminating the phase angles of bass info between 60 to 120 hz. It dynamically modulates the presented image like a shake table. As a result, the velocity of the sound waves is modulated and the total presentation is perceived as a smear or out of focus. Amplifier errors in the area of phase distortion must be removed first.. Harmonic distortion only happens when the phase distortion is unchecked. If you kill the phase errors you kill harmonic distortion. That's zero distortion. Roger |
I'm a musician & it isn't necessarily the case that the signature of a live event is the venue. It depends which venue & it is possible to determine the 'quality' of the backline within a particular venue which would therefore be the signature of the performance with consideration to multiple artists performing in that venue. |
jmcgrogan2 I did not say there was no sonic signature Roger. I said the neutral means to me that neither the high nor low frequencies are emphasized. There is a difference. Yes I know you did not say there was no sonic signature. My point was what happens when there is no sonic signature? IOW most audiophiles can sit down in a blind test and listen to a "system" and say this sounds like a tube system or SS system (in some cases where there is both it might be tricky). Obviously everything presents a sonic signature, unless it presents no sound at all.It is possible to have no sonic signature and still have sound. The sonic signature represents a trace or finger print that is imposed on the music signal by the amplifying process. If you speak through a cardboard tube like you find in the center of a paper towels, it becomes obvious that the hollow modified sound of your voice was caused by the cardboard tube. That is its sonic signature and your ear-brain recognizes immediately what it is. Tube and transistor circuitry has come a long way but it still has audible traces of the process. It is due to low level distortion which are different for both circuit types. (that's why you can tell which is which). When there is no distortion (zero) there is no sonic signature and cannot be recognized as tubes or transistors. I don't know if you call that neutral or natural but I know it is desirable because it sounds "live". Any sonic signature gives your brain a clue that it is a reproduction. The only sonic signature at the concert hall is the sound of concert hall. Roger |
What happens if there is no sonic signature? I did not say there was no sonic signature Roger. I said the neutral means to me that neither the high nor low frequencies are emphasized. There is a difference. Obviously everything presents a sonic signature, unless it presents no sound at all. Many folks call gear/cables/speakers "neutral" if they highlight the high frequencies, thereby giving the illusion of higher resolution. In my mind, emphasizing the high frequencies does NOT connote neutrality. Obviously YMMV. |
"The entire country of Switzerland is neutral, so I suggest all serious hifi listening should be done there." I would suggest that since we won’t all have the opportunity in our lives to visit that idyllic land we should at a very minimum listen to the electronics manufactured there so we might gain greater insight into what the word "neutral" truly means. |
dracule1 wrote... I doubt anyone can claim their stuff is neutral.This has been the case for many years. What happens when something comes along that actually can perform as totally neutral? Can you predict the year in the future when all of these problems are behind us? That fateful day when problems with sound reproduction have been cured? The day when you feel like you are on the holodeck of the enterprise? That year is 2016 Roger |
Roger wrote, "Can you tell me what happens if the velocity of an audio signal entering an amplifier leaves at a different velocity?" -- What happens when the audio signal from the speakers travels at different velocities to the listener depending on the room temperature? "And if that can be plugged into your formulas, why wasn't this fixed a long time ago?" -- You haven't shown there's a problem yet. The cup falling on the floor just didn't do it for me. "Why did it take decades for someone to notice the real problems? I'll tell you one of the reasons. Because it is not in your text books. I thank God every day for keeping me out of college. I would be just as confused as you guys. Don't get me wrong - If you have seen my white paper you can see that I have done all my homework. It just looks different from your homework." - You will have a uphill battle if your white paper has technical "issues." You might be onto something, who knows. But it's not necessarily a very convincing argument to claim off the bat that your logic or your research doesn't agree with (all) text books on the subject. There's nothing wrong with being self taught, not necessarily. "You can't argue with success." - That's what they said about cold fusion. |
geoffkait, Ok so we all knew the cup would fall. Moving on... Can you tell me what happens if the velocity of an audio signal entering an amplifier leaves at a different velocity? And if that can be plugged into your formulas, why wasn't this fixed a long time ago? Why did it take decades for someone to notice the real problems? I'll tell you one of the reasons. Because it is not in your text books. I thank God every day for keeping me out of college. I would be just as confused as you guys. Don't get me wrong - If you have seen my white paper you can see that I have done all my homework. It just looks different from your homework. You can't argue with success. Roger |
Mapman 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. Roger |
Roger paul wrote, "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. |
| Post removed |
Mapman, 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. Even with cancer, I could not be happier. Roger |
geoffkait, With all due respect... 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. 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? Roger |
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? |
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. cheerios |
| Post removed |
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. It is possible and it does work. Roger |
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. Regards, -- Al |
" 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 :^) |
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! |
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? Cheerios |
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... |
Mapman wrote, "Geof by your logic then photons are how a NEwton’s Cradle works too. They never taught us that in physics class! You should write a book! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_cradle 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. |
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. |
Turns out signals in cables don't travel at the speed of light anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor 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? |
Geof by your logic then photons are how a NEwton's Cradle works too. They never taught us that in physics class! You should write a book! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle 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. |
OK, let’s review the bidding. The audio signal is not the same thing as charge. The electrons in the conductor move very slowly. 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. |
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. |
