Some of the first comments I read were truly lacking in even basic understanding.
First, the Pyle is not state of the art as stated. +/- 2db 20-20khz affects the sound
from bass Through highs, Not just the bass and highs.

Second, there are electrolytic capacitors in the power supply filtering circuit,
with dielectric absorption (DA) of ~7%. the DA of poly capacitors is ~ 0,02%.

Even a layman understands degrading some 7% of the music signal (frequency dependent)
is quite poor, so hardly audiophile/state of the art quality. And the decoupling capacitor is
in the direct circuit path.

By the way, +/- 0,1db from 20-20khz is an approximate signal deviation change of -54db from the
fundamental.
+/-2db is an approximate change of -22db give or take. That is horrible.
The human ear has the potential of perceiving to -132db, extremely more sensitive.
You, the reader, can guess the quality of the phono stage.
HD of virtually any amplifier (except SETs) is overtaken by the speaker distortions. Virtually
all individuals utilize about 1 watt from an amplifier. 0.05% distortion from a tube amplifier
just is not noticeable. Peaks of several watts can be (esp. SET amps) but speaker distortions
are greater.
So 0,0001% means nothing. In fact, global negative feedback in solid state amplifiers is a problem
because it takes a finite time for the musical signal to "travel" between input to output and back to
the input. Thus the signal is always affected, even if above some 20khz. That has been proven several
times in studies.

By the way, anything solid state cannot be made to be perceptually perfectly accurate/natural,
for many reasons, while vacuum tubes, using the right types, can be designed to be perceptually
perfectly accurate/natural, especially small signal such as preamplifiers with gain etc. But even tube
amplifiers, through specialized listening tests (not the scam dbt/abx tests being propagated on
audio forums for marketing purposes.)

For those reading these posts, please be very careful what you believe as the mis-representation
and misinformation is truly astounding. It is quite evident why truly accurate analog audio is
slowly becoming extinct. (ps. I do agree that super expensive components are just that, super
expensive and does Not produce accurate sound.) I shall not respond anymore on this string.

Cheers
pos

 

Did he?

Wrong link?

 

Mediocre sound was tolerated back when the standard was AM radio.

Certainly, but this was a modern device meant to be retro.

 

Ah, in post #41 another "golden ear" is heard from with the usual misstatements about solid-state amps versus tube amps, amplifier distortion and frequency response.
His are the comments that are "truly lacking" in technical accuracy and basic understanding (doesn't even use dB correctly), of course backed up by magical "studies".
I won't bother to refute them, since I know it won't change his closed mind.

 

Certainly, but this was a modern device meant to be retro.

Apparently succeeded perhaps more than intended.

 

Wrong link?

Link fixed.

 

Some of the first comments I read were truly lacking in even basic understanding.
First, the Pyle is not state of the art as stated. +/- 2db 20-20khz affects the sound
from bass Through highs, Not just the bass and highs.

Second, there are electrolytic capacitors in the power supply filtering circuit,
with dielectric absorption (DA) of ~7%. the DA of poly capacitors is ~ 0,02%.

Even a layman understands degrading some 7% of the music signal (frequency dependent)
is quite poor, so hardly audiophile/state of the art quality. And the decoupling capacitor is
in the direct circuit path.

By the way, +/- 0,1db from 20-20khz is an approximate signal deviation change of -54db from the
fundamental.
+/-2db is an approximate change of -22db give or take. That is horrible.
The human ear has the potential of perceiving to -132db, extremely more sensitive.
You, the reader, can guess the quality of the phono stage.
HD of virtually any amplifier (except SETs) is overtaken by the speaker distortions. Virtually
all individuals utilize about 1 watt from an amplifier. 0.05% distortion from a tube amplifier
just is not noticeable. Peaks of several watts can be (esp. SET amps) but speaker distortions
are greater.
So 0,0001% means nothing. In fact, global negative feedback in solid state amplifiers is a problem
because it takes a finite time for the musical signal to "travel" between input to output and back to
the input. Thus the signal is always affected, even if above some 20khz. That has been proven several
times in studies.

By the way, anything solid state cannot be made to be perceptually perfectly accurate/natural,
for many reasons, while vacuum tubes, using the right types, can be designed to be perceptually
perfectly accurate/natural, especially small signal such as preamplifiers with gain etc. But even tube
amplifiers, through specialized listening tests (not the scam dbt/abx tests being propagated on
audio forums for marketing purposes.)

For those reading these posts, please be very careful what you believe as the mis-representation
and misinformation is truly astounding. It is quite evident why truly accurate analog audio is
slowly becoming extinct. (ps. I do agree that super expensive components are just that, super
expensive and does Not produce accurate sound.) I shall not respond anymore on this string.

Cheers
pos

First, almost NONE of the recorded music we can buy is close to what the actual live instruments sound like. The fact is that the studio editing changes things. CD recordings are edited "to sound better,"at, least for most music. ACTUALLY "Hi-Fi" systems should not have tone controls. WE ADJUST THE RESPONSE TO OUR PREFERENCE.

 

https://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/accessories/best-phono-preamps

 

Ah, in post #41 another "golden ear" is heard from with the usual misstatements about solid-state amps versus tube amps, amplifier distortion and frequency response.
His are the comments that are "truly lacking" in technical accuracy and basic understanding (doesn't even use dB correctly), of course backed up by magical "studies".
I won't bother to refute them, since I know it won't change his closed mind.

Such a reply is better unwritten crut, as generic comments do not address any specifics.
I don't mean to offend, but with such misinformation, misleading statements.
let's address what you have written.

The comments concerning misstatements about "golden ear" is misleading. You mention
frequency response.

As per Dr. Kunchur's 5 year research study from which I not only agree with his assessment,
but also have performed my own research, both in the college lab, and my own engineering lab,
for some 45 years. Dr. Kunchur's reply. His work demonstrated that the ear perceives 5us when
accompanied by listenable music, no bone connection. A second work used a PET scan to document
the brain's reaction to ultrasonics, again with listenable music, and no bone conduction.

Dr. Kunchur.

"Thank you for your query about my papers on auditory temporal (time) resolution in humans (posted on my web site: http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm) and for forwarding the forum comments to me. I would like to respond to some of the assertions and comments that were presented. First of all, an internet forum is a dangerous place to obtain information -- instead one should go to an authentic original source such as a published scientific paper in a refereed journal. On an internet forum, a writer can post completely arbitrary, unproven, and indeed totally wrong statements with no backing or oversight whatsoever. Normally this would be a laughing matter, except that sometimes people obtain their "education" through such forums and this can therefore cause further harm to the scientific understanding held by the general population, which is already in a national crisis.
In science, assertions must be properly backed up and verified.

Just to give a clearer idea of how formal science and the (incredibly rigorous) scientific process is conducted, I thought I would explain what went into publishing the two above mentioned papers that have apparently generated controversy among lay readers (interestingly there has been no controversy whatsoever in all the professional circles which include

audiologists,
otolaryngologists,
acousticians,
engineers, and
physicists ).

An experiment has to be carefully thought out and then submitted as a proposal to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and approved by them before it can even begin. Then optimum equipment, methods, and a multitude of cross checks must be developed (my papers give some details to help appreciate what went in). It takes about half a year to conduct each sequence of controlled blind tests.

Consent forms (legally approved and certified by the IRB) must be signed. The results, analysis, and conclusions are then carefully considered and discussed with colleagues who are experts in their related inter-disciplinary fields; for this I went in person to various universities and research institutes and met with people in departments of

physics,
engineering,
psychology,
neuroscience,
music,
communications sciences,
physiology, and
materials science.

After that the results and conclusions were presented at conferences of

the Acoustical Society of America (ASA),
Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and
American Physical Society (APS).

Seminars were also made at numerous

universities and
research/industrial institutions

(please see the list on my web site). After each presentation, the audience is free to tear apart the conclusions and ask all possible questions. Eminent people such as presidents of the above mentioned societies and corporations were present at
my presentations and engaged in the discussions.

After passing through this grueling oral presentation process, written manuscripts were then submitted to journals. There, anonymous referees are free to attack the submission in any way they want. More than a dozen referees and editors have been involved in this journal refereeing process. Only after everyone is satisfied with the accuracy of the results and all statements made in the manuscript, are the papers published in the journals.

The entire process took around 5 years from initial concept to refereed publications. (Note that an article in a conference proceeding does not go through the rigorous refereeing process of a formal journal. Essentially anything submitted there gets accepted for publication. Contents of books are also not rigorously refereed. When possible, reference should always be made to an original journal article.)

Milind N. Kunchur, Ph.D.
CASE & Carnegie Foundation South Carolina Professor
Governor's Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina"

One can easily understand that degrading/destroying the musical signal and quality by 7% (electrolytic
capacitor), to only 0.02% by poly capacitors is quite a sonic improvement. Inner detail that was masked
or destroyed by 7% is now available to hear. And global negative feedback is not going to correct that
situation. And solid state components typically use more electrolytic capacitors as decoupling capacitors
than tube designs.

Then of course we have interelectrode junction capacitances, Miller capacitance etc. With tubes we
have a vacuum as insulation, whereas solid state has semi conductor material with much much higher
DA.
The resistance of the conductors comprising the junction capacitances is extremely low for tubes
but factors higher for semiconductor materials inside the transistor. The Miller capacitance makes
the problems worse.

The RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, written by 26 Engineers discusses perceptual differences
in detail over a variety of subjects. I suggest you obtain a copy and study.
Olson, for music, perceptual distortion is generally around 0,7% up to 15khz. For 20khz maybe 0,5%.
So 0.001% harmonic distortion (HD) doesn't mean much when much global negative feedback (GNF) is used.
Without GNF, transistor amplifiers have much higher distortion, and usually are much more complicated
with many more sonic robbing parts than tube amplifiers. Specialized listening tests are required to assess
true accuracy, not just a few, meaningless specifications given to the public.

I hope the audience has a better understanding of true science.

cheers
pos

 

First, almost NONE of the recorded music we can buy is close to what the actual live instruments sound like. The fact is that the studio editing changes things. CD recordings are edited "to sound better,"at, least for most music. ACTUALLY "Hi-Fi" systems should not have tone controls. WE ADJUST THE RESPONSE TO OUR PREFERENCE.

Hi Bill,
I agree. I have seen recording studios and I agree, junk design, junk parts, and lots of editing.
However, some music is not manipulated or edited anymore which helps.
Also, some designs are using more regulators to isolate electrolytic capacitors from the audio
signal circuit. I think some are actually using better sonic quality parts as well. But it could be
much better, but more expensive, unfortunately.

I don't mean to offend, but how would you know since you don't have a well designed audio system?
This is not the first rodeo I have been too. Reproduction systems are virtually no better than recording
systems. A few manufacturers are making higher quality sonic systems though.

cheers
pos

 

Some of the first comments I read were truly lacking in even basic understanding.
First, the Pyle is not state of the art as stated. +/- 2db 20-20khz affects the sound
from bass Through highs, Not just the bass and highs.

Second, there are electrolytic capacitors in the power supply filtering circuit,
with dielectric absorption (DA) of ~7%. the DA of poly capacitors is ~ 0,02%.

Even a layman understands degrading some 7% of the music signal (frequency dependent)
is quite poor, so hardly audiophile/state of the art quality. And the decoupling capacitor is
in the direct circuit path.

By the way, +/- 0,1db from 20-20khz is an approximate signal deviation change of -54db from the
fundamental.
+/-2db is an approximate change of -22db give or take. That is horrible.
The human ear has the potential of perceiving to -132db, extremely more sensitive.
You, the reader, can guess the quality of the phono stage.
HD of virtually any amplifier (except SETs) is overtaken by the speaker distortions. Virtually
all individuals utilize about 1 watt from an amplifier. 0.05% distortion from a tube amplifier
just is not noticeable. Peaks of several watts can be (esp. SET amps) but speaker distortions
are greater.
So 0,0001% means nothing. In fact, global negative feedback in solid state amplifiers is a problem
because it takes a finite time for the musical signal to "travel" between input to output and back to
the input. Thus the signal is always affected, even if above some 20khz. That has been proven several
times in studies.

By the way, anything solid state cannot be made to be perceptually perfectly accurate/natural,
for many reasons, while vacuum tubes, using the right types, can be designed to be perceptually
perfectly accurate/natural, especially small signal such as preamplifiers with gain etc. But even tube
amplifiers, through specialized listening tests (not the scam dbt/abx tests being propagated on
audio forums for marketing purposes.)

For those reading these posts, please be very careful what you believe as the mis-representation
and misinformation is truly astounding. It is quite evident why truly accurate analog audio is
slowly becoming extinct. (ps. I do agree that super expensive components are just that, super
expensive and does Not produce accurate sound.) I shall not respond anymore on this string.

Cheers
pos

Hello there,

Well those sound like some very profound statements about audio. However, I am very leery about hearing statements that profess one type of audio amplifier over another or really about how listeners perceive the sounds they hear to be either good or bad. That's especially since I read about the Stradivarius listening tests that had shown that even the best soloists preferred modern violins over million-dollar vintage Italian designs in blind tests.
It seems almost like the old proverb, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", converted into "beauty is in the ear of the beholder", which makes a lot of sense.
Also, "perfect" may not translate to "desirable" in all cases, although we would need a precise definition of what we want to deem as being "perfect".

Perhaps you might reveal where you get your information from, and personal experiences with audio.

Capacitors though were always coming into question when used in audio work.

 

https://www.whathifi.com/best-buys/accessories/best-phono-preamps

A $400 preamp cracks me up. It won't reduce hiss or pop one little bit. It's a silk purse from a pig's ear. I'm certain I've never heard any system that incorporates a phono preamp that cost more than a few dollars. This is vinyl, after all. Sound quality was the reason we all dropped vinyl 40? years ago.

 

Second, there are electrolytic capacitors in the power supply filtering circuit...

You know this how? I'm not doubting it, just wondering if you found a schematic somewhere.

 

Quite an interesting discussion we have here. Now for my take on it all: I have, years back, listened to a very fine performance by a quite good symphony, live, in a good auditorium. The only electronic sound system was for the announcer.
I hold that others are certainly welcome to enjoy that music, live, or perfectlt reproduced from recorded as perfectly as they can afford.
I want none of it!! you are certainly welcome to listen to whatever pleases you at whatever sound level does not rattle my house or car. I find "perfect fidelity " music rather boring and totally uninspiring. I do ask that you extend me the same courtesy of not commenting further on the requirements needed to satisfy your musical tastes, as I will not criticize yours.

 

And the decoupling capacitor is
in the direct circuit path.

Okay, here's one of your misconceptions.
Decoupling capacitors are not in the direct circuit patch, they are used to filter noise from the power supply.
So a DA of 7% has zip effect on the sound.

+/-2db is an approximate change of -22db give or take.

Another error.
2dB is a 2dB change not a 22dB change.

global negative feedback in solid state amplifiers is a problem
because it takes a finite time for the musical signal to "travel" between input to output and back to
the input

That's an absolute bunch of hooey (to use the technical term).
That finite "travel" time is near the speed of light.
Solid state amps have been designed that exceed the performance of any tube amp for distortion, frequency response, and dynamic range .

Siegfried Linkwitz, was one of the premier audio engineers in the world and designed a speaker system (the Linkwitz LX521.4MG Speaker/Amplifier System) that has been reviewed as giving one of the most realistic, transparent, and lifelike sound of any speaker system available.
He used solid-state amps in his design.
If tube amps were better he would have used them.

And I can't see how auditory temporal (time) resolution in humans has anything to do with high fidelity reproduction of sound.

All the rest of your post is way too rambling to even attempt a coherent reply.

I hope the audience has a better understanding of true science.

Understanding the "true science" of hearing is one thing.
But it's curious to me that one who thinks there are an expert in how we hear, thinks that also makes them an expert in the electronics used to reproduce sound.
It doesn't.
The things you stated about that are pseudo-science, promoted by audiophiles who have little technical training in electronics.

 

The whole concept of "Feedback loop delay" in amplifiers is far stupider than "just a bunch of hooey", it is, in reality, screamingly STUPID!!!! Feedback happens cycle by cycle, it can not be delayed.
On top of that, the big "advantage" of the direct-coupled amplifiers is that drift in the first stage will take out the expensive transistors in the output stage.. And possibly others in between.

 

I find "perfect fidelity " music rather boring and totally uninspiring.

On what system have you listened to this "perfect fidelity"?

 

On what system have you listened to this "perfect fidelity"?

"perfect fidelity" is only available at a live performance. The very good reproduction, which came across to me, was at the home of one we were visiting. I did not ask about the details of the system, as it would not have been appropriate in the context of the visit.
The need for "perfect fidelity", like other expensive things,is an acquired taste, not appealing to me. Perfectly OK for others, as presently we do not all have to be alike. THAT FREEDOM is precious indeed!!

 

Hi,

Just to note, one of the reasons capacitors came into question in audio work was because of sensitivity to feedback due to physical vibration. I've never investigated this myself however.

 

"global negative feedback in solid state amplifiers is a problem because it takes a finite time for the musical signal to "travel" between input to output and back to the input "

That's an absolute bunch of hooey (to use the technical term).

One of the things that came out of the 60's was the solid state audio power amplifier wars of the 70's. As the voltage and power gains got higher and higher, so did the amount of negative feedback. A frequent complaint was the "harshness" of the sound of solid-state amps, and some of those complaints were justified. As a way to put a number on it, someone came up with TIM - transient intermodulation distortion; just like it sounds, a form of distortion at the point of sharp transients in the signal that is separate from the normal harmonic distortion rating. This was a real enough thing that both of the big audio magazines at the time started measuring it in their test labs. Might this be what sasaudio is referring to?

IIRC, TIM is a time-delay / group-delay phenomenon not related to the speed of light. It comes from propagation delay through individual transistors caused by inter-element capacitances, and capacitance in the feedback loop. Maybe. Those articles were a loooooong time ago.

ak