An ideal amplifier makes an exact copy of the input, and any good modern amplier does this for all practical purposes.
Bob

Bob, I disagree for one reason. Why do most people crank up the volume of their music? My understanding of what that does to a linear amp (the average modern amplifier) is to drive the amp into 2nd term harmonics in it's output. And it's accepted that the harmonics in music impart an overall quality in the sound to the human sense of hearing.

 

Can you show an actual measured waveform before and after an amplifier that displays the distortion you are concerned with?

No, I wish I could, though. The posted thread isn't established theory or science. In fact it's entirely new or uniquely different, and meant to invoke the imagination of others who might do the experimentation necessary for it's establishment as modern theory. The end goal is just the furtherment of audio enjoyment by us, nothing more.

 

No, I wish I could, though. The posted thread isn't established theory or science. In fact it's entirely new or uniquely different, and meant to invoke the imagination of others who might do the experimentation necessary for it's establishment as modern theory. The end goal is just the furtherment of audio enjoyment by us, nothing more.

Maybe there is a reason why these threads have gained little to no traction.

 

Isn't the comment by papabravo just an be attempt to insult me and to trash my post? I'd like to report the disrespect in his remarks promoting this reply

 

Listeners crank up the volume because they are deaf, because the speakers cannot produce the important high frequencies of music and speech, or because they like to hear the severe clipping distortion of rock "music".
The rock musicians are deafened by their extremely loud "music" and also crank up the volume because they cannot hear the added distortion harmonics.

A modern amplifier produces all the sounds and harmonics without any distortion at all levels up to output clipping. Output clipping produces many harsh additional harmonics.

What is " 2nd term harmonics "? You have been saying that a modern amplifier "muffles" high frequency harmonics in music which is not true. I think you are listening to an AM radio or an amplifier that is clipping like crazy and the resulting added distortion harmonics are covering up the harmonics of the music.
You need a clipping indicator that some amplifiers have.

Most amplifier output clipping has additional odd-order harmonics which sound awful. The clipping is symmetrical of the top and bottom of the waveform.

A single vacuum tube, bipolar transistor or Fet without any negative feedback produce additional even-order harmonics that sound "musical" because they are exactly octaves apart. They occur at levels that are less than when the output produces clipping.
People who like the sound of a vacuum tubes amplifier like to hear its musical added even harmonics distortion.

 

Listeners crank up the volume because they are deaf, because the speakers cannot produce the important high frequencies of music and speech, or because they like to hear the severe clipping distortion of rock "music".
The rock musicians are deafened by their extremely loud "music" and also crank up the volume because they cannot hear the added distortion harmonics.

A modern amplifier produces all the sounds and harmonics without any distortion at all levels up to output clipping. Output clipping produces many harsh additional harmonics.

What is " 2nd term harmonics "? You have been saying that a modern amplifier "muffles" high frequency harmonics in music which is not true. I think you are listening to an AM radio or an amplifier that is clipping like crazy and the resulting added distortion harmonics are covering up the harmonics of the music.
You need a clipping indicator that some amplifiers have.

Most amplifier output clipping has additional odd-order harmonics which sound awful. The clipping is symmetrical of the top and bottom of the waveform.

A single vacuum tube, bipolar transistor or Fet without any negative feedback produce additional even-order harmonics that sound "musical" because they are exactly octaves apart. They occur at levels that are less than when the output produces clipping.
People who like the sound of a vacuum tubes amplifier like to hear its musical added even harmonics distortion.

You've got that wrong about my hearing and others hearing. Don't you crank up your volume to the point of your own ear's preference. Not to make a mud slinging forum of this website. My intent is purely an intellectual one, meant to be useful for the enjoyment of music, not to make myself a dominant writer on any subject. Furthermore, I indicated linear amplification, and that is done with a bipolar transistor which seldom produces clipping. 2nd term harmonics as you may suspect are a referencing to the Fourier Series, the 2nd term of which is one octave higher than it's fundamental frequency. And noticable to human hearing as more of a "quality" of high fidelity music.

 

No, I wish I could, though. The posted thread isn't established theory or science. In fact it's entirely new or uniquely different, and meant to invoke the imagination of others who might do the experimentation necessary for it's establishment as modern theory. The end goal is just the furtherment of audio enjoyment by us, nothing more.

If you can't measure what you are talking about it might as well not exist. There is no basis I know of for suggesting there is something different about the sounds of musical instruments than then output of a low distortion amplifier that can be detected by human listeners in a way that could be corrected using the vague method you propose.

No insult intended but you haven't presented anything that can be used to pursue some solution, that is, you have shown no problem to attack.

 

Even harmonics (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th etc) that are added to the original music are distortion and should not be produced for the sounds to be called "hifi".
Here is the waveform of a sinewave that has severe even order distortion produced by a single vacuum tube, transistor or Fet that has no negative feedback. The waveform is not symmetrical because its top is squashed but is not clipping.
Some vacuum tubes and Fet amplifiers have low even harmonics because they symmetrically squash the tops and bottoms of the waveform causing odd order distortion.

 

You are working on some false assumptions.

Listeners do not crank up the volume level for more distortion. Listeners turn up the volume level for higher audible or pyscho-acoustic and physical sensation. There are other means and ways for producing enhanced experience.

All audio amplifiers fabricated with tube, bipolar, or FET technology are capable of producing distortion.

Bipolar transistor amplifiers and all other amplifier technologies are capable of clipping.

All audio amplifiers fabricated with tube, bipolar, or FET technology are capable of producing minimal non-linearity. It is a question of how the active device is biased, output level, and amount of negative feedback applied. In other words, a lot depends on the design of the amplifier and how much distortion one is willing to accept.

 

If you can't measure what you are talking about it might as well not exist. There is no basis I know of for suggesting there is something different about the sounds of musical instruments than then output of a low distortion amplifier that can be detected by human listeners in a way that could be corrected using the vague method you propose.

No insult intended but you haven't presented anything that can be used to pursue some solution, that is, you have shown no problem to attack.

Yeah, well we come from two different backgrounds. I follow my understandings only, and you have your own resolutions, we don't need to carry our matters further. No Malarkey or insults slinging necessary. David

 

Yeah, well we come from two different backgrounds. I follow my understandings only, and you have your own resolutions, we don't need to carry our matters further. No Malarkey or insults slinging necessary. David

I haven't insulted you in any way. Consider: you are here seeking help from people who know more than you do (that makes sense to do, of course), but, you can't present any evidence that what you claim is happening, is, in fact happening.

You have your "understandings" but you can't explain what they are based on. You have concluded something and aren't interested in considering the idea your understanding is umreconciliable with the evidence. If you can bring new evidence, I think you will find people interested in the ideas.

If you are wrong, it is surely not insulting to point that out. If I don't understand what evidence you have, it is surely no insult to ask for clarification. Your understanding isn't evidence, and if you don't understand physical evidence, what is it that you are understanding?

 

You are working on some false assumptions.

Listeners do not crank up the volume level for more distortion. Listeners turn up the volume level for higher audible or pyscho-acoustic and physical sensation. There are other means and ways for producing enhanced experience.

All audio amplifiers fabricated with tube, bipolar, or FET technology are capable of producing distortion.

Bipolar transistor amplifiers and all other amplifier technologies are capable of clipping.

All audio amplifiers fabricated with tube, bipolar, or FET technology are capable of producing minimal non-linearity. It is a question of how the active device is biased, output level, and amount of negative feedback applied. In other words, a lot depends on the design of the amplifier and how much distortion one is willing to accept.

"A lot depends on the design of the amplifier and how much distortion one is willing to accept"

 

People crank up the volume on their amplifiers because they like the qualities it gives to their music. And we've got differences in our understanding of human preferences and what goes on with such based on our ears.

 

I haven't insulted you in any way. Consider: you are here seeking help from people who know more than you do (that makes sense to do, of course), but, you can't present any evidence that what you claim is happening, is, in fact happening.

You have your "understandings" but you can't explain what they are based on. You have concluded something and aren't interested in considering the idea your understanding is umreconciliable with the evidence. If you can bring new evidence, I think you will find people interested in the ideas.

If you are wrong, it is surely not insulting to point that out. If I don't understand what evidence you have, it is surely no insult to ask for clarification. Your understanding isn't evidence, and if you don't understand physical evidence, what is it that you are understanding?

Yaakov, you've got me pegged wrong too. I made my post as an offering for others betterment, not because I was asking for advice of any kind. And at this time we, or I have several other advisors wanting to correct me with my matters too.

 

Yaakov, you've got me pegged wrong too. I made my post as an offering for others betterment, not because I was asking for advice of any kind. And at this time we, or I have several other advisors wanting to correct me with my matters too.

I am dumbfounded by this. If I understand you correctly, you wanted to improve us by sharing your superior understanding?

Is that really what you meant?

Please tell me I misunderstood you.

 

I am dumbfounded by this. If I understand you correctly, you wanted to improve us by sharing your superior understanding?

Is that really what you meant?

Please tell me I misunderstood you.

My intention was only to spark the more creative imagination of others that read my post; towards a hoped for improvement in audio reproduction, through a better understanding of electronics science. I'm told that things can always be worse; and my understanding of that is the implication that maybe things can always be better too.

 

My intention was only to spark the more creative imagination of others that read my post; towards a hoped for improvement in audio reproduction, through a better understanding of electronics science. I'm told that things can always be worse; and my understanding of that is the implication that maybe things can always be better too.

I think that most of the audio engineers on this forum could make an amplifier with distortion in the parts-per-million region, bandwidth to beyond audibility and noise below the threshold of hearing, using bipolar, JFET or MOSFET transistors.

 

You asserted the waveforms produced by musical instruments have certain (unquantifiable) properties, that practical circuits behave in particular ways which has been challenged but received no defense from you, and that other active components act differently, also challenged and merely reasserted by you.

How are you seeking "a better understanding of electronics science"? You are not getting involved in the investigation of "electronic science".

I wish you the very best, but it's time for me to bow out.

 

The sheer number of myths that revolves around audio is astounding. Most technical types tend to ignore the hype and focus on what the test equipment says or shows.

 

The sheer number of myths that revolves around audio is astounding. Most technical types tend to ignore the hype and focus on what the test equipment says or shows.

Subjectivism was invented so that companies with less competent engineers could sell amplifiers. If you consider that "Hi-fi" started in the late 1940s with Williamson and Leak, then distortion improved by a factor of ten every decade until subjectivism arrived in the 1980s.