Gedlee on distortion

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

First, here's hoping Jeff is soon matched to the kidney he needs.

As for harmonic distortion generally, the scientific consensus is as I quoted from Toole above. Just because DIYers can measure it doesn't mean it means anything.



As I previously wrote, "one of the most important parts of reading comprehension generally is to understand the scope of a text."

Here, my phase you quoted was expressly limited in scope to describe those "tritely dismissing important contributors rather than engaging them and probing them for truth."

If one wishes to self-select into that group...OK I guess. But it's an insult to Jeff to unjustifiably lump him in with such wretches.

Scope is an interesting thing. I taught LSAT classes and did private tutoring for about 6 or 7 years. I found the main difference between the people who performed well (say 165-180) and the people who did poorly (say under 160) was that the people who did well intuitively grasped the scope of a text in the Logical Reasoning section, whereas the low scorers did not. Other aspects of the test could be taught, but scope identification seemed to be a function of basic intelligence.

What snide condescension.

Typical lawyer . . . presented with a question and proceeds to go off on a tangent proclaiming his superiority, and never answers the question.

At least we know he thinks he's an expert at belittling others.

[andy19191]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

The idea that all distortion measurements need to be weighted for audibility to have value seems obvious, and is clearly backed by experiment and experience (see Toole again) as well.

A few posts above I called this daft not obvious! http://techtalk.parts-express.com/im...lies/smile.png [<- This is supposed to be my first smiley but it looks like a URL? If you click on it you can see the intended smiley.] THD is THD, IMD is IMD why does it "seem obvious" that it should be something that it is not?

If Toole and friends want to create a subjective measure of distortion nastiness then that is fine but it will not be a precisely defined engineering measure of distortion. Perhaps it will help in the marketing of speakers but I suspect it will be a fair bit less useful than the current set of distortion measurements for DIYing speakers.

[hongrn]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

another lawyer, this explains everything.

You forgot a few qualifiers. Should have been "another narcissistic, contemptuous lawyer".

[craigk]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

You forgot a few qualifiers. Should have been "another narcissistic, contemptuous lawyer".

+1

[blur]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

+1

Yawn.

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

A few posts above I called this daft . . . THD is THD, IMD is IMD

Would that it were that simple, but it's not. Read what Geddes and Toole have written . . .

"1% THD" could mean 1% 2nd or 1% 5th . . . you won't hear the former and will hate the latter. There are enough different ways even to measure IMD that whether any of them are "precise" or not they tell us little about what they mean to perceived "sound" (especially when applied to loudspeaker drivers). There are very good psychoacoustic reasons to apply "weighting curves" to distortion measurements (and to not get particularly exercised about things which we can't hear).

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Eleanor Roosevelt

[Sydney]

Olde English Proverb

Along the same lines: "Little things please little minds"

[Jeff B.]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Would that it were that simple, but it's not. Read what Geddes and Toole have written . . .

"1% THD" could mean 1% 2nd or 1% 5th . . . you won't hear the former and will hate the latter. There are enough different ways even to measure IMD that whether any of them are "precise" or not they tell us little about what they mean to perceived "sound" (especially when applied to loudspeaker drivers). There are very good psychoacoustic reasons to apply "weighting curves" to distortion measurements (and to not get particularly exercised about things which we can't hear).

I agree with this statement.

[craigk]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Yawn.

What ever Blur you have let us see your true colors. So please yawn away, better yet block me.

[Jeff B.]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

You guys are a lot tougher on Pallas than I am. First, in totality, i agree with a lot of what he says. Now, when we don't agree, he is usually citing sources like Geddes, Jone, Olive, or Toole, and I can't fault him for that, I may just disagree for whatever reason. I really don't pay much attention to this "air of superiority" that you guys refer to, such banter doesn't bother me any. I figure I'm as smart as he is anyway ;).

Now, regarding the statement that THD is not a good measure of how a speaker will sound, I kind of agree with that, because typically THD is dominated by second order distortion and we really don't find this to sound very objectionable. On the other I have some midbass drivers from a high-end manufacturer that have nice cones but very ordinary motors with short Xmax and no shorting rings. These drivers have a rising third order distortion that when driven a little begin to sound very hard in the midrange as that odd order distortion becomes higher. I am pretty sure just about anyone would hear this. The thing is, for some drivers, this can happen at levels lower than you might expect.

Jeff B.

[craigk]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

You guys are a lot tougher on Pallas than I am. First, in totality, i agree with a lot of what he says. Now, when we don't agree, he is usually citing sources like Geddes, Jone, Olive, or Toole, and I can't fault him for that, I may just disagree for whatever reason. I really don't pay much attention to this "air of superiority" that you guys refer to, such banter doesn't bother me any. I figure I'm as smart as he is anyway ;).

Now, regarding the statement that THD is not a good measure of how a speaker will sound, I kind of agree with that, because typically THD is dominated by second order distortion and we really don't find this to sound very objectionable. On the other I have some midbass drivers from a high-end manufacturer that have nice cones but very ordinary motors with short Xmax and no shorting rings. These drivers have a rising third order distortion that when driven a little begin to sound very hard in the midrange as that odd order distortion becomes higher. I am pretty sure just about anyone would hear this. The thing is, for some drivers, this can happen at levels lower than you might expect.

Jeff B.

Eton has always had motor issues, and some morel drivers also. Morel has made an attempt to correct this with some of there newer drivers. I wish Eton would follow, I do like their cones.

[winslow]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Sounds more like an older Focal speaker...or maybe Audax.

But agree with you on the Eton...I thought they were releasing some new SOTA drivers soon.

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

You guys are a lot tougher on Pallas than I am. First, in totality, i agree with a lot of what he says. Now, when we don't agree, he is usually citing sources like Geddes, Jone, Olive, or Toole, and I can't fault him for that, I may just disagree for whatever reason. I really don't pay much attention to this "air of superiority" that you guys refer to, such banter doesn't bother me any. I figure I'm as smart as he is anyway ;).

Jeff B.

Jeff, you're being too modest. You're way smarter than Pallas is.

It's easy to quote folks, something Pallas seems to excel at. But when he cites folks as "experts" who produce a product that is at best, mediocre (Geddes) and that he has never done anything original for himself, it gets a little tiresome.

[craigk]

Re: Gedlee on distortion

Sounds more like an older Focal speaker...or maybe Audax.

But agree with you on the Eton...I thought they were releasing some new SOTA drivers soon.

Focal had some issues until they started the W series. I hope you are correct about Eton.