Amp Specs esp. DampFactor : Citation, Adcom, etc.

Hello Athmaspere,

LOVE your posts !!!!

I said that John Atkinson " input signal can be subject of discussion" and this is exactly what you did !

Even more interesting your comment: "... if the waveform is fast enough and lacking manipulation, the limbic system does the processing, but if too slow and certain harmonics are added, the processing is done by the cerebral cortex (emotional vs intellectual). "

Is exactly the same that Simon Thacher of Spectron wrote in the article I referred to:

"...The exploration of the origin of "listener fatigue" is extremely interesting, at least, for this writer. We believe that when our subconscious mind detects a small unnatural trace of distortion in reproduced acoustic music (which is not recognized yet as a very low level irritant by the analytical part of our brain) it activates a subtle alarm. This forces the listener into the tense or alert mode. Indirectly supporting this hypothesis is the common description we hear from Spectron users who utilize the two powerful monoblock amplifiers (7 kW peak power, each): "how relaxing" is my listening now "

Analytical part of the brain is the cortex, of course as you pointed out and emotional (or subconscious mind as Simon calls it) is our old reptilian brain

Its amazing - only from both of you I hear CLEARLY and bearly identically how audio engineering is related to our "undertsanding" of music

Seriously, I doubt that anyone could make serious progress in an audio design without understanding how the human ear/brain system works.

Some of this research is very new. The bit that I mentioned about how the processing moves from one part of the brain to another has only been done in the last 2-3 years. Intuitively, I think a lot of designers suspected something like that, hence some systems that invoke toe-tapping and the like; but its nice now to find out that the subjective experience is real and to have objective numbers to back it up.

That, IMO, is what the objective approach **should** be. Otherwise, the bench measurement rules amounts to the Emperor's New Clothes.

"Aewhistory, you might be surprised to find out that research about the way the ear hears and how the audio system interacts with that, has really not been dealt with all that much in a way that is not classified. "

That's disappointing to hear, although perhaps not surprising (and I shouldn't have presumed). With all the progress that the sciences have made, there is so much more to do; a fact made clear by our progress. If anything, our advances have really made it apparent how much of what we thought we knew we, in fact, do not know or have incomplete, need to rethink, etc.

However, thanks for sharing that snippet about something that has been done. Although this thread has gone completely in a different direction than I'd intended, I'm really quite happy with the discussion. I just wish I had something more to add, but I have been reading along consistently.

One last question/point: is there anything one might call research dealing with the linkage of critical listening and planar/electrostatic speakers? I might be totally off-base, but I remember hearing once that more than half of Stereophile readers had some sort of planar/eletrostatic speaker even though there are FAR more box-speaker manufacturers. I have little doubt that this is not representative of music listening in general; it must be representative of audiophiles and/or critical music listeners, right? Anyway, just wondering.

Atmasphere,

As I understand it, our brain works more in time domain than frequency domain. We cannot hear above 20kHz but recent research shows that people can still tell the difference between 20kHz and 50kHz bandwidth listening to music. All spacial clues are also defined by transients.

A lot of this information is lost or changed in digital processing. On one hand it is almost impossible to recover 20kHz sinewave when whole period is defined by two points of 44.1kHz (AFAIK Nyquist criteria protects only frequency information) on the other digital filtering alters step response making ringing to appear after (as it should be)and BEFORE pulse itself. Our hearing is sensitive to the shape of the wavefront. Newest filtering schemes (non-apodizing filters) used, for example, in Meridian CDP have (Stereophile review) normal looking step response and better, more natural sound.

Kijanki, would this explain why some have argued that keeping the signal above 20kHz is still necessary even though it isn't audible in the 'traditional' sense? Or is that what you're saying and I'm just repeating it? :-)

Thanks, Aaron