Why don't you understand that the radio frequency bypass capacitors in an FM tuner operate at frequencies that are 5000 times higher than the highest audio frequency and have no affect on the audio harmonics?

Why don't you understand that coupling capacitors pass all the high frequency audio harmonics but block DC and low audio frequencies? The value of a coupling capacitor can be calculated to pass any low frequency even below audible frequencies if you want. Resistive coupling is not used because it reduces the levels of DC and all audio frequencies.

 

I deleted a double post.

 

I've got some Gold-Leaf, Oxygen-Free, Hand-Wound, and Lazer-Cut, Capacitors I'd like to sell.
Any takers ?
.
.
.

 

Don't your expensive capacitors have too much inductance and aren't they microphonic?
I use inexpensive readily available film capacitors to couple audio perfectly.

 

The extra Inductance helps to restore the Harmonics distorted by "harsh" Capacitor designs,
and the Lazer-Trimming helps to restore the Sound-Stage-Depth lost by the
normally inferior brand of Solder used to attach the Gold-Plated-Wires to the Circuit-Board.
.
.
.

 

I've got some Gold-Leaf, Oxygen-Free, Hand-Wound, and Lazer-Cut, Capacitors I'd like to sell.
Any takers ?
.
.
.

Ian0, do you by chance have an interest in an L/C Resonant Primary step-down transformer, commonly used at power substations worldwide? I don't have one for sale personally, but I don't object to chatting about them, to anyone?

 

The extra Inductance helps to restore the Harmonics distorted by "harsh" Capacitor designs,
and the Lazer-Trimming helps to restore the Sound-Stage-Depth lost by the
normally inferior brand of Solder used to attach the Gold-Plated-Wires to the Circuit-Board.
.
.
.

Any passive device except resistors Ian0. And there isn't any other way around it. Musical sounds diminish in both frequency and intensity. And when amplified there is an alteration caused by capacitive or inductive "charging rate characteristics", I wish I had a better term. And a better way of conveying that to you.

 

You either been severely misinformed, or you're a Troll.
One we can help with, the other, not so much.
Pick one.
.
.
.

 

Any passive device except resistors Ian0. And there isn't any other way around it. Musical sounds diminish in both frequency and intensity. And when amplified there is an alteration caused by capacitive or inductive "charging rate characteristics", I wish I had a better term. And a better way of conveying that to you.

I wish you had a better way of conveying it as well.
Most musical instrument sounds are resonances - either the resonance of a string of a certain length, or the resonance of air in a tube. The resonances are damped, so that the amplitude decays over time. With that statement, I agree.
Diminishing in frequency? The fundamental tends to stay put, as it must unless the length of tube or string changes. The harmonics, however, tend to be more damped than the fundamental and decay more quickly. You can see this if you watch the output from a guitar on a scope - as the tone decays, there is less harmonic content and it looks more like a sinewave.
Is that what you mean?
But the effects of amplification? Amplification can be so good these days, with bandwidths way beyond audibility, distortion into the parts-per-million region, and background noise that is almost inaudible. I don't think that there's any important part of the signal going missing or getting significantly changed by the amplification, unless, of course, that is the desired effect - in which case, it's not an amplifier, it's a signal processor.

 

I wish you had a better way of conveying it as well.
Most musical instrument sounds are resonances - either the resonance of a string of a certain length, or the resonance of air in a tube. The resonances are damped, so that the amplitude decays over time. With that statement, I agree.
Diminishing in frequency? The fundamental tends to stay put, as it must unless the length of tube or string changes. The harmonics, however, tend to be more damped than the fundamental and decay more quickly. You can see this if you watch the output from a guitar on a scope - as the tone decays, there is less harmonic content and it looks more like a sinewave.
Is that what you mean?
But the effects of amplification? Amplification can be so good these days, with bandwidths way beyond audibility, distortion into the parts-per-million region, and background noise that is almost inaudible. I don't think that there's any important part of the signal going missing or getting significantly changed by the amplification, unless, of course, that is the desired effect - in which case, it's not an amplifier, it's a signal processor.

IanO, you tell a believable story. Moreover you might be correct, but I have the impression that you're steeped in your education (not that such is all that bad, it's always good to hear where the State of the art sits). But I disagree for these reasons: 1. When you play a horn your lips are pursed together tightly at first sounding and relax some, as the note is carried further, which effectively sets up a deteriorating frequency. 2. The resonant chamber on a guitar isn't regular, therefore it has a reflection effect on many frequencies which by shape only, sets up a deteriorating frequency. That changing shape and resulting frequency deterioration is common to nearly all acoustic instruments, maybe with the exception of a pipe organ. However with a pipe organ the pipes are round and support a range of fundamental frequencies. I can be wrong, but if you ever have nothing better to do, take an audio signal generator and test the response of one pipe, my guess is for intensification of several fundamental frequencies. Another guess is that with the deteriorating intensity, you'll find a lengthening of the fundamental wavelength.
Well yes, a believable story on my part, but I've got an order for a realistic tuner and the intent to rebuild the amplifiers, and with which to give it the ear-test for obvious improvements.
One more thing to address that scope test you mention. Your scope probably uses several capacitors and such are passive devices, and like what I wrote produce acoustic waveform alteration/distortion, in that the acoustic waveform doesn't pass through passive devices in series or shunt, intact, because of their charging/discharging "characteristics", I don't have a better term. And the reason recorded music is distinguishable from live music is because the human ear picks up that difference, just like you can get a picture to hang plumb to gravity with nothing more that your eyesight and your own personal judgement or senses. IanO you're intelligent, and well versed in the books/education, but the sciences are updated minute to minute these days. And change is the only certain matter that applies to any well established matter.

 

The source isn't blowing into or strumming the amplifier, it is a recording of whatever the original instrument did to whatever fidelity the recording device could manage. The amplifier is reproducing that recording in a way entirely different from the way the sounds were originally made.

I am not at all convinced by your description that something special is going on in playing the instruments concerning the things you mention (your terminology is completely ambiguous and non-standard) but in any case, if something like that happens, it has already happened and was recorded.

The playback does not involve lips or resonant chambers, it involves making the recorded signal have a greater amplitude, and it does that in a way completely unlike the playing of the instrument. It can't interfere with those characteristics if, as is the case, the measurement of distortion in the chain of recording and playback is to compare the input signal to the output signal and see how similar they are in various dimensions where distortion can occur.

Whatever your "deteriorating frequency" is, if it was recorded, a modern amplifier will reproduce it—the use of capacitors notwithstanding—to an accuracy beyond the ability of your ears to distinguish it. Failures at reproduction are very unlikely to be found in the amplifier, the microphones and speakers, which have to interact with the air, are much more problematic.

 

Patrick, musical instruments do not produce a "deteriorating frequency" unless they are played with a deteriorating frequency.
You seem to be confusing level (loudness) and frequency (pitch).

A level can be changed without changing the frequency.
A frequency can be changed without changing the level.

Microphones, amplifiers and speakers can produce excellent sound with good value or can produce bad sound because they are poorly designed with errors and have a low cost (cheap junk).
The room that the sound system is used in also affects the sound. A sound can go from a speaker directly to your ears then the sound reflection off the floor, ceiling or a wall has a longer distance to travel to your ears which causes some of the harmonics to cancel changing the sound.

 

Exactly what do you mean by a "deteriorating frequency"? I can understand what is meant by an "increasing frequency" or a "decreasing frequency", but how does a frequency "deteriorate". It brings to mind the concept of it moving in the s-plane parallel to the real axis.

Your scope probably uses several capacitors

When it is DC coupled, the signal does not pass through capacitors.

Back in the 1980s, not long before the factory closed, I was invited to a demonstration by Vitavox. Their System 191 was the closest I have ever heard to being indistinguishable from live music. Apart from that (and MP3 files), the loudspeaker is almost always the limiting factor that gives the game away as to whether it is live or recorded music.

 

Many singers who have "deteriorating frequency" use the program called "Autotune" to sing with the correct pitch. But Autotune sometimes changes the pitch abruptly like a keyboard.

 

Exactly what do you mean by a "deteriorating frequency"? I can understand what is meant by an "increasing frequency" or a "decreasing frequency", but how does a frequency "deteriorate". It brings to mind the concept of it moving in the s-plane parallel to the real axis.


When it is DC coupled, the signal does not pass through capacitors.

Back in the 1980s, not long before the factory closed, I was invited to a demonstration by Vitavox. Their System 191 was the closest I have ever heard to being indistinguishable from live music. Apart from that (and MP3 files), the loudspeaker is almost always the limiting factor that gives the game away as to whether it is live or recorded music.

A deteriorating frequency is one that decreases with time, in my terms.

 

A deteriorating frequency is one that decreases with time, in my terms.

like a descending glissando?

 

Exactly what do you mean by a "deteriorating frequency"? I can understand what is meant by an "increasing frequency" or a "decreasing frequency", but how does a frequency "deteriorate". It brings to mind the concept of it moving in the s-plane parallel to the real axis.


When it is DC coupled, the signal does not pass through capacitors.

Back in the 1980s, not long before the factory closed, I was invited to a demonstration by Vitavox. Their System 191 was the closest I have ever heard to being indistinguishable from live music. Apart from that (and MP3 files), the loudspeaker is almost always the limiting factor that gives the game away as to whether it is live or recorded music.

In what country is Vitavox located, and do you mean my speakers or the musician's speakers?

 

Vitavox was in Borehamwood, just north of London. The company had a weird portfolio of hifi and military audio (public address loudspeakers and microphones for ships and submarines). They were taken over and closed the hi-fi arm in the early 1990s. The hi-fi designs are back in production now
https://www.vitavoxhifi.co.uk/products.php?page=cabinet_loudspeakers
if you've got £46,000 to spend on a pair of loudspeakers.

 

Snip, removed offensive quote, Wendy

a fairly common musical term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glissando

 

Vitavox was in Borehamwood, just north of London. The company had a weird portfolio of hifi and military audio (public address loudspeakers and microphones for ships and submarines). They were taken over and closed the hi-fi arm in the early 1990s. The hi-fi designs are back in production now
https://www.vitavoxhifi.co.uk/products.php?page=cabinet_loudspeakers
if you've got £46,000 to spend on a pair of loudspeakers.

Yeah.