A little feedback worse than none at all?
NewYorkDave
tube mixing console. (Please, let's ignore for the moment the question
of WHY someone would want to design a tube mixing console in 2003!).
Anyway, I cooked up a usable circuit in short order: two triodes in
cascade, with negative feedback from the plate of triode 2 to the
cathode of triode 1. I'm using both sections of a 12AU7. The open-loop
gain of the circuit is 123, and with feedback it's 76. So, there's
4.18dB of feedback, a very modest amount. I didn't like the idea of
using NFB at all at the beginning, but this application really demands
predictable gain that isn't unduly affected by tube aging or
manufacturing spread.
Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB or
so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of higher-order
distortion products. My distortion analyzer is out of order at the
moment, so I can't look at the distortion products of my breadboarded
circuit. I guess I'm just wondering if Baxandall's assertion (which
apparently arose from experiments with a FET amplifier) also applies
to tubes. Your comments are very much appreciated.
Why not just use, say, a 12AX7 (with an open-loop gain of 1600 in this
particular circuit)? Well, I tried it, but it clips with a much lower
input voltage (0.14VRMS versus 0.67) and has a much lower maximum
output swing than the 12AU7 (27 VMRS versus 45).
Jacobe Hazzard
"NewYorkDave" <electro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:b514d126.03111...@posting.google.com
Perhaps you might try cascading multiple gain stages with global NFB? Maybe
a 12AX7 for the high initial gain and a 'U7 for the output swing?
Just a thought.
Walter Harley
> Hi gang. I'm working on the design of an amplifier to be used in a
> tube mixing console. (Please, let's ignore for the moment the question
> of WHY someone would want to design a tube mixing console in 2003!).
Actually, let's not ignore it - it's often a mistake to give someone
engineering advice if you don't understand why they're trying to do what
they're trying to do. If someone wants a tube mixing console, it is
presumably because they want a certain sound or behavior which they
associate with tube mixing consoles. But obviously, not all tube circuits
sound the same - if they did, you wouldn't be worried about what topology to
choose. So, unless the problem is just that their (your?) studio is too
cold, you really need to know what kind of mixing console they're dreaming
of; find its schematic, or at least its topology; and build that.
But your post suggests that you are attempting to build with the simple goal
of reducing distortion. With due respect to the fact that this is
cross-posted to rec.audio.tubes, I would submit that starting with a tube
design is not the most straightforward way to achieve low distortion, though
it may be a good way to achieve euphonic distortion. There must be some
additional goal, and you need to find it (if you haven't already) or tell us
what it is (if you have).
> My distortion analyzer is out of order at the
> moment, so I can't look at the distortion products of my breadboarded
> circuit.
Do you have a sound card on a computer? Send a sinewave to the circuit,
sample the results, do an FFT.
If not, can you build a reasonably sharp notch filter - even a passive RLC
one, with three components? If so, build one; send a sinewave at the
circuit, adjust the frequency for maximum null, look at the results.
In either case, if you don't have a low-distortion sinewave handy, you won't
get a perfect picture - but it will certainly be good enough to tell you
whether your high-order distortion products are decreasing or increasing.
Just compare with and without the circuit.
But again, low distortion is not necessarily the goal here. We don't know
what the goal is, yet.
Patrick Turner
NewYorkDave wrote:
> Hi gang. I'm working on the design of an amplifier to be used in a
> tube mixing console. (Please, let's ignore for the moment the question
> of WHY someone would want to design a tube mixing console in 2003!).
> Anyway, I cooked up a usable circuit in short order: two triodes in
> cascade, with negative feedback from the plate of triode 2 to the
> cathode of triode 1. I'm using both sections of a 12AU7. The open-loop
> gain of the circuit is 123, and with feedback it's 76. So, there's
> 4.18dB of feedback, a very modest amount. I didn't like the idea of
> using NFB at all at the beginning, but this application really demands
> predictable gain that isn't unduly affected by tube aging or
> manufacturing spread.
>
> Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
> Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB or
> so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of higher-order
> distortion products. My distortion analyzer is out of order at the
> moment, so I can't look at the distortion products of my breadboarded
> circuit. I guess I'm just wondering if Baxandall's assertion (which
> apparently arose from experiments with a FET amplifier) also applies
> to tubes. Your comments are very much appreciated.
I have seen the very article in Wireless World to which you refer.
What Mr Baxandall said was all too true.
But the thd without FB has to be quite high before you'd worry about
the increase in high order artifacts after applying a modest, ie, less
than 14 dB of NFB.
Where you have only 1% of thd you won't have a problem with thd increase
after
FB application.
>
>
> Why not just use, say, a 12AX7 (with an open-loop gain of 1600 in this
> particular circuit)? Well, I tried it, but it clips with a much lower
> input voltage (0.14VRMS versus 0.67) and has a much lower maximum
> output swing than the 12AU7 (27 VMRS versus 45).
The earlier clipping isn't caused by the FB, its due to the
load imposed on the second 1/2 of the 12AX7.
The 12AX7 operates ideally with only 0.7mA of anode current,
and if it clips at 27 vrms, then the load including
the DC supply resistor, external load on the amp, plus the
feedback resistor will total 54k.
This is a low load for 12AX7, and they like loads up around 150k.
But you could have a 12AU7 cathode follower, and take the FB from the
follower cathode to the cathode of the V1, and then you get
an extremely low output resistance, and a large output voltage capability,
and very low thd.
On the other hand, why use any loop FB at all?
triodes like 6CG7/6SN7 are very linear at 1 v output,
which may be all you use in a mixer.
It does depend on the gain you want, and the circuit you propose to
use, and its use.
12AU7 isn't quite as linear, but has a warmer sound, imho,
and your use of moderate, and trimable FB to establish a fixed known gain
shouldn't affect the sound much.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
Walter Harley wrote:
With all due respect to your very informative comments, one should realise that
a 6SN7, or a humble 12AX7 might make 5% of mainly 2H distortion at about
65 vrms output from a typical circuit, optimally loaded with resistances,
or a lot less if loaded by constant current sources.
The rate of decrease in the thd as the output voltage is reduced isn't linear
so that by 1 volt output, it may be only 0.04%, and nearly all 2H.
If you have 2.83 volts applied to an 8 ohm speaker,
then that's a watt, and maybe you get 90 dB SPL.
The distortion voltage would be 1 mV.
This would be inaudible at 4 metres away, even if it was played some how without
the main undistorted signal present.
It represents an SNR of 68 dB. The sound of tubes
isn't always one of euphony, and pleasantness caused by the 2H, since
it is inaudible, so some other hard to define effect is going on
to render the music more pleasant to listen to.
One can plug in various brands of the same tube type,
and get a different sonic signature each time.
Its more aparent with less FB.
For example, I prefer Telefunken NOS 6CG7 ahead of NOS Mullard,
ahead of EH6CG7, in that order.
They measure somewhat similarly.
Building a tube audio system is the hard way to go about audio,
but many ppl have heard this inexplicable difference to the sound,
which they like, so its worth doing, for them.
The original poster was aking about if he should use NFB,
and yes, its a reliable way to trim different channels to get the same gains.
It may/may not have effects on the thd, and maybe the sound, but I have found
a little FB doesn't ruin the sound, ie, it won't change tp that of
a typical SS set up.
Some folks spend the bucks on Burr Brown opamps,
some spend them on tubes, and either devices offer low enough thd,
depending on the use.
There are many ppl fed up with the hard sound of totally
digital and SS systems, and they add some tubes into the
chain to warm the sound.
It sounds like snake oil, I know, but I have heard the effects with my own ears.
Totally analog tubed studio systems can offer truly stunning sound,
especially if they don't compress anything, of fiddle with the sound
in a chain of 50 cascaded opamps.
I know of one small studio here where they do use a tube compressor, and the do
a lot of fiddling, since the musicians scream loud for it,
because they loathe the accurate sound of themselves on a recording,
and beg the studio to titivate their sound this way and that to make it
better than reality, more appealing, so they'll sell more CDs.
Music is a aural fantasy. Anything goes in the world of pop, which
is the greater part of recording these days.
But to hear the essence of a Stradivari, I'd prefer a tubed system.
But you are right about goals.
We dunno what the guy really wants to do with his mixer.
Patrick Turner.
Walter Harley
> With all due respect to your very informative comments, one should realise
that
> a 6SN7, or a humble 12AX7 might make 5% of mainly 2H distortion at about
> 65 vrms output from a typical circuit, optimally loaded with resistances,
> or a lot less if loaded by constant current sources.
> The rate of decrease in the thd as the output voltage is reduced isn't
linear
> so that by 1 volt output, it may be only 0.04%, and nearly all 2H.
Quite so, and I agree with your further comments on the inaudibility of said
distortion. I will make the observation that in a typical recording console
these days, one expects to pass reasonably clean signals of at least +18dBu
Vrms, which would be about 17 volts peak to peak. So your estimate of 1V is
a bit of a straw man, I fear - I expect we are closer to the 5% end than the
0.04%, and that is quite audible.
Nonetheless, the only point I'm trying to make - and I think from your
comments that you would agree - is that not all tube circuits sound alike.
Since as you say "building a tube audio system is the hard way to go about
audio," there must be a reason why the OP wants tubes. If he simply sets
about building something that has tubes in it - or, if he applies novel
design techniques - there is no reason to expect he will get anything like
the sound he or his client has in mind.
> There are many ppl fed up with the hard sound of totally
> digital and SS systems, and they add some tubes into the
> chain to warm the sound. It sounds like snake oil, I know,
> but I have heard the effects with my own ears.
I would not dream of getting into a tubes vs. semiconductors argument; it
has been repeatedly shown that that is unproductive for all involved!
Personally, on my hifi I prefer to hear something as close as possible to
what the mixing engineer was hearing, so I opt for a system that reproduces
with maximal accuracy. But that is a personal choice; and it is achievable
through a variety of technologies. It should be beyond argument that, if
one makes the opposite choice (wishing one's stereo to further modify the
sound), any technology can supply the necessary inaccuracies, and different
technologies will supply different inaccuracies.
Either way, we are talking here about a mixing desk rather than a hi-fi, and
as you say it is commonplace (and to my ears often desirable) to introduce
intentional inaccuracies during audio production, whether through distortion
in the microphones, preamps, mixing desk, analog tape, or other processing
gear.
I'd be glad to build a tube console if I could find a client to pay for it.
I'd start by finding the schematic of a classic tube console.
-walter
Phil Allison
"Walter Harley" <
> "Patrick Turner" <
> > The rate of decrease in the thd as the output voltage is reduced isn't
> linear so that by 1 volt output, it may be only 0.04%, and nearly all 2H.
>
> Quite so, and I agree with your further comments on the inaudibility of
said
> distortion.
* A figure 0.04% THD ( mainly 2H) would be a very good *overall spec* for
an audio reproduction system - ie from mic input to home loudspeaker
terminals.
But for an single stage out of of twenty or so such stages it is
totally unacceptable - if all were the same the THD would then build up to a
total of 1% or more and be very audible as muddy sound - or more precisely
innummerable intermodulation products.
All the pre-amp and line level stages that make up the recording chain
need to be as free of non-linearity as possible so the end result is no
worse than the touted 0.04% THD "inaudible" goal.
........... Phil
John Woodgate
<electro...@hotmail.com> wrote (in <b514d126.0311141449.7ac28720@po
sting.google.com>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on
Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
>I'm using both sections of a 12AU7. The open-loop gain of the circuit is
>123, and with feedback it's 76. So, there's 4.18dB of feedback, a very
>modest amount. I didn't like the idea of using NFB at all at the
>beginning, but this application really demands predictable gain that
>isn't unduly affected by tube aging or manufacturing spread.
With only 4 dB of feedback, you won't get predictable gain. You need
more feedback.
>
>Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
>Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB or
>so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of higher-order
>distortion products.
ANY amount of feedback causes this; the question is whether it matters.
With tubes and FETs, it usually doesn't; with the more aggressive non-
linearities of bipolar transistors, it often does. You get a low THD,
say 0.3%, but it is composed of every harmonic from 2nd to infinity.
It's not so much the harmonic distortion that matters but the consequent
complex intermodulation distortion. You overcome this with bipolars by
paying a lot of attention to minimising the open-loop non-linearity, but
that's a good principle to adopt with any sort of active devices.
[snip]
>
>Why not just use, say, a 12AX7 (with an open-loop gain of 1600 in this
>particular circuit)? Well, I tried it, but it clips with a much lower
>input voltage (0.14VRMS versus 0.67) and has a much lower maximum output
>swing than the 12AU7 (27 VMRS versus 45).
But the 12AX7 with more feedback is potentially a better solution, if
there isn't some special reason why you need more than 27 V RMS output.
More feedback will allow you to apply 0.67 V at the input, or even more.
If you choose plate resistors more suitable for 12AX7 you can probably
get more than 27 V RMS output anyway.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that NewYorkDave
> <electro...@hotmail.com> wrote (in
> <b514d126.0311141449.7ac28720@po sting.google.com>) about 'A little
> feedback worse than none at all?', on Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
>
>> I'm using both sections of a 12AU7. The open-loop gain of the
>> circuit is 123, and with feedback it's 76. So, there's 4.18dB of
>> feedback, a very modest amount. I didn't like the idea of using NFB
>> at all at the beginning, but this application really demands
>> predictable gain that isn't unduly affected by tube aging or
>> manufacturing spread.
>
> With only 4 dB of feedback, you won't get predictable gain. You need
> more feedback.
>>
>> Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
>> Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB
>> or so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of
>> higher-order distortion products.
>
> ANY amount of feedback causes this;
Ahmmm, a bit misleading john. If the feedback is large enough,
essentially, all distortion will be reduced in practise.
The deal is that with *low* feedback, a pure square law device will have
its input mixed with its output causing generation of 3rd harmonics, and
higher, which were not present in the original amp. However, if the FB
is large enough, the resulting distortion can easily go to < 0.01%.
Sure, if the original device was *pure* square, than 0.01% 3rd, is still
larger than zero. The reality however, is that all practical devices
have odd harmonics as well, such that large feedback will result is a
net total reduction of the original distortion at all harmonics of
relevance.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
intrinsically unsolvable.
Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
John Woodgate
A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <dGmtb.59$3M3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.n
et>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Sat, 15 Nov
2003:
>>> Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
>>> Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB
>>> or so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of
>>> higher-order distortion products.
>>
>> ANY amount of feedback causes this;
>
>Ahmmm, a bit misleading john. If the feedback is large enough,
>essentially, all distortion will be reduced in practise.
No, not misleading at all. You should read more carefully. PJB was
quoted as:
>INCREASE the generation of higher-order distortion products.
Note 'higher-order'. Your explanation below actually shows how
intermodulation between low-order harmonics (and including the
fundamental) creates higher-order ones that wouldn't be there if there
were no feedback!
>
>The deal is that with *low* feedback, a pure square law device will have
>its input mixed with its output causing generation of 3rd harmonics, and
>higher, which were not present in the original amp. However, if the FB
>is large enough, the resulting distortion can easily go to < 0.01%.
>Sure, if the original device was *pure* square, than 0.01% 3rd, is still
>larger than zero. The reality however, is that all practical devices
>have odd harmonics as well, such that large feedback will result is a
>net total reduction of the original distortion at all harmonics of
>relevance.
What is *relevant* is the nasty noise created by the high-order
intermodulation distortion. Because some intermodulation products due to
different orders add in-phase, the intermodulation products can be much
larger than the harmonics. And, being unrelated harmonically to the
fundamental, they sound much worse than even high odd-order harmonics.
Attempts at weighting harmonics in terms of their subjective nastiness
has more or less settled on weighting by the square of the order. See
IEC/EN 60268-3, although this weighting was proposed (by E R Wigan,
IIRC) long before it was accepted into the standard. Naturally, weighted
harmonic distortion doesn't appear in manufacturers' specifications,
because the figures are often unattractively large.
Patrick Turner
John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.electronics.design that NewYorkDave
> <electro...@hotmail.com> wrote (in <b514d126.0311141449.7ac28720@po
> sting.google.com>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on
> Fri, 14 Nov 2003:
>
> >I'm using both sections of a 12AU7. The open-loop gain of the circuit is
> >123, and with feedback it's 76. So, there's 4.18dB of feedback, a very
> >modest amount. I didn't like the idea of using NFB at all at the
> >beginning, but this application really demands predictable gain that
> >isn't unduly affected by tube aging or manufacturing spread.
>
> With only 4 dB of feedback, you won't get predictable gain. You need
> more feedback.
Tube circuits often measure within 1/2 a dB with no FB.
So to equalise gains of 3 or more channels,
one can trim the feedback with a pot to equalise the gains,
so maybe you have 3.5 dB in one amp, and 4.5 db in another.
This will not make much difference to the sound of each channel.
But if say 20 db of FB is used, there isn't any need to
adjust the FB networks, as the same fixed 1% resistor networks
will give gains well within 1/2 a dB.
>
> >
> >Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
> >Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB or
> >so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of higher-order
> >distortion products.
>
> ANY amount of feedback causes this; the question is whether it matters.
Baxandal said that where thd was high, and FB was moderate,
and open loop bandwidth restricted, then this made the
thd barely a measured improvement.
So lots of open BW, lots of NFB, and low open thd were needed
for a best result.
>
> With tubes and FETs, it usually doesn't; with the more aggressive non-
> linearities of bipolar transistors, it often does.
I have found j-fets produce maybe 20 times the thd of a tube
at low signal voltages. Fets should be lumped in with bjts,
not tubes, imho.
> You get a low THD,
> say 0.3%, but it is composed of every harmonic from 2nd to infinity.
> It's not so much the harmonic distortion that matters but the consequent
> complex intermodulation distortion. You overcome this with bipolars by
> paying a lot of attention to minimising the open-loop non-linearity, but
> that's a good principle to adopt with any sort of active devices.
True, the IMD is the worst problem, but the lower the THD,
the less IMD you have.
>
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Why not just use, say, a 12AX7 (with an open-loop gain of 1600 in this
> >particular circuit)? Well, I tried it, but it clips with a much lower
> >input voltage (0.14VRMS versus 0.67) and has a much lower maximum output
> >swing than the 12AU7 (27 VMRS versus 45).
>
> But the 12AX7 with more feedback is potentially a better solution, if
> there isn't some special reason why you need more than 27 V RMS output.
> More feedback will allow you to apply 0.67 V at the input, or even more.
>
> If you choose plate resistors more suitable for 12AX7 you can probably
> get more than 27 V RMS output anyway.
The loading seen by the 12AX7 restricts its output, since a typical
idle current is a low 0.7 mA.
So a load which a bjt might drive easily, say 1k, can only
have 5vrms of output, from a 12AX7, and with far greater thd,
because the RL seen by a triode should be many times its Ra.
Patrick Turner.
John Woodgate
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote (in <3FB640EB...@turneraudio.com.a
u>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Sun, 16 Nov
2003:
>The loading seen by the 12AX7 restricts its output, since a typical idle
>current is a low 0.7 mA. So a load which a bjt might drive easily, say
>1k, can only have 5vrms of output, from a 12AX7, and with far greater
>thd, because the RL seen by a triode should be many times its Ra.
I wouldn't dream of driving a 1 kohm load with a 12AX7. I can't see that
what you say is relevant.
Patrick Turner
John Woodgate wrote:
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Patrick Turner
> <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote (in <3FB640EB...@turneraudio.com.a
> u>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Sun, 16 Nov
> 2003:
>
> >The loading seen by the 12AX7 restricts its output, since a typical idle
> >current is a low 0.7 mA. So a load which a bjt might drive easily, say
> >1k, can only have 5vrms of output, from a 12AX7, and with far greater
> >thd, because the RL seen by a triode should be many times its Ra.
>
> I wouldn't dream of driving a 1 kohm load with a 12AX7. I can't see that
> what you say is relevant.
I know you wouldn't dream of it; I was just pointing out
about a low load effect.
Atcually, my figures for 1 k are wrong, and the vo should only be 0.5v.
It is concievable that the load to which a mixer is hooked up to is 10k,
in which case the vo is 5v.
If the tube used on the output is a 1/2 a 12AU7, with 5 mA of idle curent,
then the maximum output into 1 k is around 3.5 v, and into 10k its 35 v.
Patrick Turner.
NewYorkDave
try to give a clearer explanation of what I'm trying to do. I have
only a few minutes left in my lunch hour, but I'll try to put it to
good use :)
I record music on an 8-track multitrack recorder, and I want to build
a tube mixing console to take the place of the IC-based model I've
been using. My goal is to achieve a clearer sound (due to a simpler
circuit with fewer active stages) and perhaps some of that intangible
"tube warmth." However, I'm not looking to build a "distortion
device"... The tube consoles that were used to track the records we
all love from the '50s and '60s were designed to be as linear as
possible within the limits of the technology of the day, and any
euphonic qualities added were incidental. It's not clear to me whether
that sound really came from the tubesand transformers or from the more
straightforward topologies, anyway. In a modern mixing console, a
signal may pass through tens of IC amplifiers on its way from input to
output. Contrast this to a typical console layout from 1961:
http://vintageproaudio.com/photos/langevinwiring1.jpg
http://vintageproaudio.com/photos/langevinwiring2.jpg
The "open system" architecture of the classic tube console is not
cost-effective to build today, with its constant-impedance attenuators
and panpots, transformer-coupled I/O on all amplifier stages, etc., so
I'm opting for a simpler high-impedance passive mixing arrangement
followed by tube makeup gain, tube buffering and a
transformer-coupled, balanced, Low-Z output.
My circuit has 6.5dB of loss in the panpot, and about 21dB of loss in
the mixing network. The output stage of the mixer is a white cathode
follower driving a 2:1 stepdown transformer, so there's another 7dB or
so of loss. Between the mixing network and the cathode follower, there
needs to be an amplifier stage to make up all these losses, plus
provide an additional 12dB or so of reserve amplification.
The topology I was going to use was a two-stage feedback amplifier
followed by a master volume control (potentiometer), then the cathode
follower output stage. I considered using the amplifier stage
direct-coupled to the cathode follower, with feedback from the CF to
the cathode of the first stage, but then I would have to put my master
volume control BEFORE the amplifier input, which would wreck the
signal-to-noise ratio.
John Woodgate
<electro...@hotmail.com> wrote (in <b514d126.0311170958.2d277ae3@po
sting.google.com>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on
Mon, 17 Nov 2003:
>I'm
>opting for a simpler high-impedance passive mixing arrangement followed
>by tube makeup gain,
You are likely to find that not very satisfactory. An EF86 makes a good
virtual-earth mixer with minimal unavoidable noise, but a 12AX7 cascode
should be better, although I never tried it.
N. Thornton
Hi
Im far too tired to comment properly, but I dont like the sound of
this one, I'd look at the options more.
Regards, NT
Patrick Turner
NewYorkDave wrote:
Why don't you draw up a schematic of the proposed tube amp
mixer, and let us take a look, and make comments.
The use of an amp module using two cascaded tubes with FB to replace
opamps
is a valid enough starting point for the amplifiers.
Its one heck of a lot of work for any of us to sit down and design it all
for you.
Patrick Turner.
Ruud Broens
"Walter Harley" <wal...@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:bp3v45$std$0...@216.39.172.65...
: "Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote...
: > With all due respect to your very informative comments, one should
realise
: that
: > a 6SN7, or a humble 12AX7 might make 5% of mainly 2H distortion at about
: > 65 vrms output from a typical circuit, optimally loaded with
resistances,
: > or a lot less if loaded by constant current sources.
: > The rate of decrease in the thd as the output voltage is reduced isn't
: linear
: > so that by 1 volt output, it may be only 0.04%, and nearly all 2H.
:
: Quite so, and I agree with your further comments on the inaudibility of
said
: distortion. I will make the observation that in a typical recording
console
: these days, one expects to pass reasonably clean signals of at least
+18dBu
: Vrms, which would be about 17 volts peak to peak. So your estimate of 1V
is
: a bit of a straw man, I fear - I expect we are closer to the 5% end than
the
: 0.04%, and that is quite audible.
..........................
Using 2 EF86's, preferably Valvo or Philips, in parallel, triode connected,
in a mu-stage with a 6AC7, with appropriately raised filament supply,
running from 650 V,
expect 75 V rms output at some 3% THD, 7.5 V rms @ 0.2 % or so.
Noise with a 10 mV input signal at -65 dB, dynamic range 109 dB,
all not too bad, I'd say. Gain of nearly 30 *. Using a stereo 100 K potmeter
at the input of this and the next stage would make a really fine input
channel.
Rudy...................
: I would not dream of getting into a tubes vs. semiconductors argument; it
:
:
Ruud Broens
"Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:3fb98b78$0$13882$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
:
: "Walter Harley" <wal...@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
Err, make that gain of nearly 60 *. The mu-stage will be quite capable of
driving a low-impedance passive eq. circuit. I have the tubes, but not the
680 V supply,
but then i'd go all the way for the ultimate input strip, with a moderate
step-up
Sowter mu-metal canned & core input transformer i have, over 70 dB
s/n should be possible @ 10 mV. Second stage tube : try a 9002.
Rudy
:
: : I would not dream of getting into a tubes vs. semiconductors argument;
: :
:
:
Kevin Aylward
> I apologize for not providing more detail in my original post. I'll
> try to give a clearer explanation of what I'm trying to do. I have
> only a few minutes left in my lunch hour, but I'll try to put it to
> good use :)
>
> I record music on an 8-track multitrack recorder, and I want to build
> a tube mixing console to take the place of the IC-based model I've
> been using. My goal is to achieve a clearer sound (due to a simpler
> circuit with fewer active stages)
This is an old wife's tale, i.e. a complete and utter nonsense argument.
Less parts do *not* mean a clearer sound. Indeed, more stages mean you
can have less gain per stage allowing for more feedback at each stage
which reduces the distortion tremendously.
> and perhaps some of that intangible
> "tube warmth."
This where a dirty sound sounds better.
> However, I'm not looking to build a "distortion
> device"... The tube consoles that were used to track the records we
> all love from the '50s and '60s were designed to be as linear as
> possible within the limits of the technology of the day, and any
> euphonic qualities added were incidental. It's not clear to me whether
> that sound really came from the tubesand transformers or from the more
> straightforward topologies, anyway. In a modern mixing console, a
> signal may pass through tens of IC amplifiers on its way from input to
> output.
So bloody what. A decent modern console uses op-amps with < 0.005% thd
and imd. It makes no practical difference whether there are quite a few
in series, especially as explianed above. A final spec of a decent
console is easily < 0.01%, 1db flat from 20Hz to 40khz.
You are suffering from a severe "golden ears" delusion.
Ruud Broens
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mTjub.114$s32...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: NewYorkDave wrote:
: > I apologize for not providing more detail in my original post. I'll
: > try to give a clearer explanation of what I'm trying to do. I have
: > only a few minutes left in my lunch hour, but I'll try to put it to
: > good use :)
: >
: > I record music on an 8-track multitrack recorder, and I want to build
: > a tube mixing console to take the place of the IC-based model I've
: > been using. My goal is to achieve a clearer sound (due to a simpler
: > circuit with fewer active stages)
:
: This is an old wife's tale, i.e. a complete and utter nonsense argument.
: Less parts do *not* mean a clearer sound. Indeed, more stages mean you
: can have less gain per stage allowing for more feedback at each stage
: which reduces the distortion tremendously.
Hm, Kevin, that's rather oversimplifying things there, isn't it ?
Sure, with a couple of BB OPA 2604's you can build a mixing desk
at least an order cheaper than with tubes and anything more than
4 channels fully tubed must be called an *investment* rather than
an experiment.
That said, perceived sonic qualities of a circuit and THD measurements
only have a marginal correlation, therefore THD is *not* indicative for
the sound quality, still a largely intangible, only a starting point.
But then, many a thousand pro-tube processing and mixing gear
must be bought by fools... ?
Rudy
: > and perhaps some of that intangible
:
:
Patrick Turner
Kevin Aylward wrote:
From what you have said Kevin, what help are you offering the man to
help him build a tube mixing desk?
Some of the greatest recordings of all time were done using
all tube gear.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au>
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > So bloody what. A decent modern console uses op-amps with < 0.005% thd
> > and imd. It makes no practical difference whether there are quite a few
> > in series, especially as explianed above. A final spec of a decent
> > console is easily < 0.01%, 1db flat from 20Hz to 40khz.
> >
> > You are suffering from a severe "golden ears" delusion.
> >
> > Kevin Aylward
> From what you have said Kevin, what help are you offering the man to
> help him build a tube mixing desk?
** None of course - there is no need for anyone to offer help to a fool
on a fool's mission.
> Some of the greatest recordings of all time were done using all tube gear.
** That is a mindlessly pompous comment about the musical performance,
which if captured well was so done** DESPITE** the use of tubes in the
recording chain ****NOT *** because of them.
.......... Phil
Ian Iveson
"Walter Harley" <wal...@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote
>...
> these days, one expects to pass reasonably clean signals of at
least +18dBu
> Vrms, which would be about 17 volts peak to peak. So your
estimate of 1V is
> a bit of a straw man, I fear - I expect we are closer to the 5%
end than the
> 0.04%, and that is quite audible.
Is this audible if only on brief peaks? Excuse my ignorance, but I'm
from rat, and 17Vpp seems a lot to me. Is that done with op amps?
What would be the typical profile of the distortion from such a
console?
>
> Nonetheless, the only point I'm trying to make - and I think from
your
> comments that you would agree - is that not all tube circuits
sound alike.
> Since as you say "building a tube audio system is the hard way to
go about
> audio," there must be a reason why the OP wants tubes. If he
simply sets
> about building something that has tubes in it - or, if he applies
novel
> design techniques - there is no reason to expect he will get
anything like
> the sound he or his client has in mind.
Exactly, almost. Unless he uses a whole heap of valves very
cleverly, there are some kinds of distortion that he is unlikely to
achieve. Probably get plenty noise though, but that's another issue.
> > There are many ppl fed up with the hard sound of totally
> > digital and SS systems, and they add some tubes into the
> > chain to warm the sound. It sounds like snake oil, I know,
> > but I have heard the effects with my own ears.
>
> I would not dream of getting into a tubes vs. semiconductors
argument; it
> has been repeatedly shown that that is unproductive for all
involved!
Including the original argument that led to the exodus to SS? And
the recent valve revival? Yes the argument grinds on unproductively
most of the time, but occasionally it can amount to something. After
all, we are wondering why on earth this guy wants to build a valve
mixer.
> Personally, on my hifi I prefer to hear something as close as
possible to
> what the mixing engineer was hearing, so I opt for a system that
reproduces
> with maximal accuracy.
Several problems. First, the circularity: you only believe you are
hearing the same as the mixing engineer because you believe your
system is accurate. Secondly, the poverty of expectation, that your
critical mind must focus when listening to music at home upon an
anonymous engineer in some distant time and place: there is no art
in aspiring to mere reproduction. Thirdly, since "maximal" is not
absolute, you cannot escape the need to consider what kinds of
inaccuracy are more or less acceptable than others and, having taken
that step, you have two major axes, quantity and quality to
consider, and it becomes reasonable to expect that more good quality
distortion may be better than less of an inferior kind.
> But that is a personal choice; and it is achievable
> through a variety of technologies. It should be beyond argument
that, if
> one makes the opposite choice (wishing one's stereo to further
modify the
> sound), any technology can supply the necessary inaccuracies, and
different
> technologies will supply different inaccuracies.
Er...that last sentence is self-contradictory surely? In *principle*
it may be possible to reproduce the characteristics of a particular
circuit by using another technology, and indeed DSP promises exactly
that. But actually, and economically, it doesn't work like that.
Hence the continuing popularity of valve guitar amplifiers despite
the availability of cheap and reliable DSP emulators. A good plastic
violin costs a fortune I should imagine, and is successful not
because it emulates a good wooden one, but because it sounds like a
good violin...there is a distinction there somewhere I'm sure...
So the occasional offerings of "valve-like" mosfet amps are silly
and miss the point, for me. In general they address only one or two
characteristics, and not the right ones. Easier to build a valve amp
anyway.
>
> Either way, we are talking here about a mixing desk rather than a
hi-fi, and
> as you say it is commonplace (and to my ears often desirable) to
introduce
> intentional inaccuracies during audio production, whether through
distortion
> in the microphones, preamps, mixing desk, analog tape, or other
processing
> gear.
>
> I'd be glad to build a tube console if I could find a client to
pay for it.
> I'd start by finding the schematic of a classic tube console.
Yes. But what for I wonder? Seems a crazy scheme. Perhaps easier to
restore one. Do they come up on Ebay or were they all trashed years
ago?
cheers, Ian
Jon Yaeger
doesn't sound as good to my ears as some 1% distorting tube sets . . .
Simplicity is a good goal. In my experience, less complexity means less
chance of failure, and sometimes lower noise.
Golden ears may be a delusion, but it's often a pleasant and rather harmless
one . . .
NewYorkDave
"Please, let's ignore for the moment the question
of WHY someone would want to design a tube mixing console in 2003!"
The discussion was pretty constructive up to the point that I revealed
my rerasons for wanting to build a tube mixer. Now the ad-hominem
attacks have begun. Without knowing anything about me, two posters
have seen fit to call me "deluded" and "a fool on a fool's quest." But
to the rest of the posters, I thank you for your constructive
criticism and the ideas you've offered.
jim
May I apologise on behalf of this NG. We are all nice guys. If we can, we
are helpful. We are polite, friendly, nice, people. Ocassionally a Stuka
dive bomber wings in with somebody with a silly hat and a smile on his
face... We try to ignore them .... they are nothing to do with us.... it is
their idea of .....'having a good time' ??!!
You're very welcome.. Stick with us....
kind regards
jim
Ruud Broens
"jim" <j...@IreallyHateSpam.macsys50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpdf6e$pm9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
:
: "NewYorkDave" <electro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, Dave, if you actually build something along what i outlined elsewhere
I could offer you 2 or 4 of these input tranny's at "a friend's price",
since i
have a dozen or so...Mind you, them EF86's don't come cheap..Keep us posted
there..
Cheers,
Rudy
Tim Auton
[snip]
>Golden ears may be a delusion, but it's often a pleasant and rather harmless
>one . . .
Try telling that to the wives* and credit card companies of some
audiophiles...
Tim
* Husbands, partners, choirboys, whatever.
--
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a
thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great
storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.
- The Book of Mozilla, 3:31
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
> <dGmtb.59$3M3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.n et>) about 'A little
> feedback worse than none at all?', on Sat, 15 Nov 2003:
>
>>>> Thing is, I've come across a reference to a study done by P. J.
>>>> Baxandall in the '70s, in which he showed that using less than 15dB
>>>> or so of feedback can actually INCREASE the generation of
>>>> higher-order distortion products.
>>>
>>> ANY amount of feedback causes this;
>>
>> Ahmmm, a bit misleading john. If the feedback is large enough,
>> essentially, all distortion will be reduced in practise.
>
> No, not misleading at all. You should read more carefully. PJB was
> quoted as:
>
>> INCREASE the generation of higher-order distortion products.
Yes, and I explained that practical amps *always* have odd harmonics as
well as even, and if you use *enough* feedback, the total will still be
less.
>
> Note 'higher-order'. Your explanation below actually shows how
> intermodulation between low-order harmonics (and including the
> fundamental) creates higher-order ones that wouldn't be there if there
> were no feedback!
yes, but it also shows why I am still correct.
>
>>
>> The deal is that with *low* feedback, a pure square law device will
>> have its input mixed with its output causing generation of 3rd
>> harmonics, and higher, which were not present in the original amp.
>> However, if the FB is large enough, the resulting distortion can
>> easily go to < 0.01%. Sure, if the original device was *pure*
>> square, than 0.01% 3rd, is still larger than zero. The reality
>> however, is that all practical devices have odd harmonics as well,
>> such that large feedback will result is a net total reduction of the
>> original distortion at all harmonics of relevance.
>
> What is *relevant* is the nasty noise created by the high-order
> intermodulation distortion.
Yes, but.....only if its weighted effect is more objectionable, and it
wont if the feedback is large enough.
>?Because some intermodulation products due
> to different orders add in-phase, the intermodulation products can be
> much larger than the harmonics.
Ho hummm....*already* considered in my explanation.
> And, being unrelated harmonically to
> the fundamental, they sound much worse than even high odd-order
> harmonics.
Ho hummm...only if there is *low* feedback. Use enough feedback, and all
distortion will be less.
>
> Attempts at weighting harmonics in terms of their subjective nastiness
> has more or less settled on weighting by the square of the order. See
> IEC/EN 60268-3, although this weighting was proposed (by E R Wigan,
> IIRC) long before it was accepted into the standard. Naturally,
> weighted harmonic distortion doesn't appear in manufacturers'
> specifications, because the figures are often unattractively large.
As I explained, none of this matters with *large* amounts of feedback.
Large feedback will clobber all distortion. You wont here it if is all
below 0.01%, and this is easy to do. End of story.
NewYorkDave
decade, so I know to put on my asbestos suit before entering the
building. Still, I can't help but be taken aback when I see a
reasonable discussion degenerate into a flame war for no apparent
reason.
At any rate, I didn't mean to open up a debate on the relative merits
of tube versus transistorized mixers... I was really only seeking a
discussion of the effects of negative feedback on the distribution of
distortion products, and how this might vary depending on the type of
active device being used.
Ian Iveson
help.
There are a heap of considerations here, concerning where and how the
mixing is done, and from and to where the feedback might go.
AFAIK, your original concerns were relevant in a different context and
may not be applicable here.
Have you considered simulation? With spice you can get a reasonably
accurate comparison of topologies, with their characteristic
distortion and frequency responses.
Several folk hanging out on rat use circuitmaker, and there are a
range of valve models available. Certainly there is no shortage of
models for such as ECC8X and EF86. You do need to find one with enough
sophistication to reasonably approximate the distortion.
Your plan seems reasonable to me, and clear in outline. One obvious
question though: if it were possible to take your kind of short-cuts
to console design in the 50s, why didn't they do it?
If you take your feedback from the output of the white cathode
follower, you will have a ring of three, which is a classic circuit
for some reason I can't remember. Have you considered mu-followers for
the gain stages, or perhaps just for the second? If allowable you
could achieve such by using MOSFETS for the top devices.
cheers, Ian
electro...@hotmail.com (NewYorkDave) wrote in message news:<b514d126.03111...@posting.google.com>...
John Woodgate
.net>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Tue, 18 Nov
2003:
>As I explained, none of this matters with *large* amounts of feedback.
>Large feedback will clobber all distortion. You wont here it if is all
>below 0.01%, and this is easy to do. End of story.
This is simply not true, as has been found time after time by people who
thought that 60 dB of feedback would cure all ills. When you look at the
IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
Fred Nachbaur
I haven't been involved with this thread much, but decided I'd jump in here.
An exact answer would depend on more variables than can be readily
covered in a usenet discussion. But for an approximate answer, the
images shown at the link below might be helpful:
http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk/tubestuf/ampspecs.htm
[scroll about 1/2-way down. The green bars ("clean") are with NFB, and
the red ones ("classic") without.]
This is with or without about 6 dB of global feedback around the driver,
UL PP output stage, and output transformer. As you can see by comparing
the two images, there is a significant difference in how the reduction
in harmonic products is distributed *based on output power*. At the 12
watt level, the most significant reduction was to the 6th harmonic.
However, at the 54 watt level, the greatest drop is in the 4th harmonic.
Also note how the other differences are distributed.
Note also that these graphs are done with a fixed resistance as the
output load. Fluctuations in speaker impedance would greatly change the
harmonic distribution, and probably accentuate the relative differences
with or without NFB also.
What's the audible difference between the two settings? I find that at
low listening levels, the "clean" setting has a noticeably tighter bass,
and more restrained highs. But the difference is not that great. At
higher levels, the NFB setting sounds increasingly dry compared to the
"classic" mode. The classic mode sounds punchier, richer, more
interesting to listen to, but also more tiring over a long time.
There seems to be a point somewhere in the middle, where the
"euphonious" nature of the "classic" mode reaches a peak. I'd hazard a
guess at around the -10 dB point.
At high levels, the classic mode has a decidedly "rangey" sound to it,
and the relative dryness of the "clean" setting is a welcome relief. But
the threshold of clipping distortion is much more well-defined. In the
"classic" mode you can tolerate a fair amount of clipping on the largest
peaks, without noticing unless you listen really closely. Not so in the
"clean" mode, when it falls apart it does so quite noticably. It's
pretty easy to set the volume control for maximum undistorted output!
Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
> <%luub.743$s32...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli .net>) about 'A little
> feedback worse than none at all?', on Tue, 18 Nov 2003:
>
>> As I explained, none of this matters with *large* amounts of
>> feedback. Large feedback will clobber all distortion. You wont here
>> it if is all below 0.01%, and this is easy to do. End of story.
>
> This is simply not true,
Yes it is.
>as has been found time after time by people
> who thought that 60 dB of feedback would cure all ills.
It most certainly does, if it is applied correctly. That means that
there is 60 db, i.e. if it is slew limiting than the feedback aint 60db,
it goes to zero, hence violates the assumption of 60db of feedback.
>When you look
> at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For starters,
consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a 1khz signal
riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz. 0.05 to 0.1% plus
dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable. And this is really
nasty stuff. Its a spread right across the spectrum. Adding in the
standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
whatsoever that your claim is supported.
There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels from
correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but not
distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
Ruud Broens
: John Woodgate wrote:
: > I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
: > <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
: > <%luub.743$s32...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli .net>) about 'A little
: > feedback worse than none at all?', on Tue, 18 Nov 2003:
: >
: >> As I explained, none of this matters with *large* amounts of
: >> feedback. Large feedback will clobber all distortion. You wont here
: >> it if is all below 0.01%, and this is easy to do. End of story.
: >
: > This is simply not true,
:
: Yes it is.
:
: >as has been found time after time by people
: > who thought that 60 dB of feedback would cure all ills.
:
: It most certainly does, if it is applied correctly. That means that
: there is 60 db, i.e. if it is slew limiting than the feedback aint 60db,
: it goes to zero, hence violates the assumption of 60db of feedback.
:
: >When you look
: > at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
:
: Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For starters,
: consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a 1khz signal
: riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz. 0.05 to 0.1% plus
: dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable.
Well, you don't exactly show clarity of mind here yourself, do you ?
Please rephrase and explain what this has to do with the sentence above..
And since you seem to be a numbers-believer, please tell us how you
arrived at them:)
And this is really
: nasty stuff. Its a spread right across the spectrum.
Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
Adding in the
: standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
: whatsoever that your claim is supported.
:
: There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels from
: correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but not
: distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
:
: Kevin Aylward
: salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Says who ?
: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness.
Sorry, read up on cognitive science and logic and
...a whole lot more...
this is just posing without any apparent insight, Kevin.
"Understanding" consciousness can
: therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
: intrinsically unsolvable.
:
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
:
Pissed off by posers,
Rudy
Ruud Broens
"Ian Iveson" <ianives...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:b2685f1f.03111...@posting.google.com...
: OTOH, until we know what you are trying to achieve, it is hard to
: help.
:
: There are a heap of considerations here, concerning where and how the
: mixing is done, and from and to where the feedback might go.
:
: AFAIK, your original concerns were relevant in a different context and
: may not be applicable here.
:
: Have you considered simulation? With spice you can get a reasonably
: accurate comparison of topologies, with their characteristic
: distortion and frequency responses.
:
: Several folk hanging out on rat use circuitmaker, and there are a
: range of valve models available. Certainly there is no shortage of
: models for such as ECC8X and EF86. You do need to find one with enough
: sophistication to reasonably approximate the distortion.
:
: Your plan seems reasonable to me, and clear in outline. One obvious
: question though: if it were possible to take your kind of short-cuts
: to console design in the 50s, why didn't they do it?
:
: If you take your feedback from the output of the white cathode
: follower, you will have a ring of three, which is a classic circuit
: for some reason I can't remember. Have you considered mu-followers for
: the gain stages, or perhaps just for the second? If allowable you
: could achieve such by using MOSFETS for the top devices.
:
: cheers, Ian
Yep, that could 'shave the bill', second stage will have large
voltage swing, little mosfet background noise won't hurt :)
Can't beat solid state noise-wise, no question. But you can
emulate the strategy to a certain extent, that is, use a 'massively'
parallel device approach, massive being in practical terms: 4.
Cheaper than 2 EF86's paralleled by quite a bit would be 4
Telefunken or Siemens C3m's ,triode-strapped, which would
give you about 60* amplification at about the same levels
as the EF86's, probably somewhat higher distortion (have
no data readily available, just the curves) and requiring a
'meetier' current source on top.
No data on noise, but as they were developed for long-
distance repeating of signals, low-noise was 'in by design'.
Worth a try, maybe, coz' these german telecom's tubes are just
now appearing on the market, in abundance it seems - hence
to good to be true pricing :)
Keep up 'the quest' ,
Cheers,
Rudy
Patrick Turner
NewYorkDave wrote:
There are those who wouldn't use a tube to do anything, ever,
in any circuit.
I am not one of them, and I build with SS and tubes, and
I enjoy both methods of signal handling.
I know folks who like tube gear in their studios, and there is no
need for an argument about which is better, or even legitimate.
So, where were we?
Tube design for a mixing desk. Its sounds like a great project idea.
I suggest you post only to rec.audio.tubes, and
not also to sci.electronics.design, where perhaps some of the anti tube
brigade
will pester you.
Your first post on the matter seemed to present a daunting task for us to
design for you,
but it would be easier if you had an easy to understand block diagram,
with the amps shown as triangles, with the required gain drawn in,
and the attenuator impedances.
Its then we could advise on a suitable amp config.
Patrick Turner.
Ben Bradley
wrote:
>I apologize for not providing more detail in my original post.
I have no direct knowledge of how to answer your original question,
but these pointers may help. Firstly, you should ask again on
rec.audio.pro, where I've seen you post on other things, and where
there are (also) people who have desinged with tubes.
Also read the 4th edition Radiotron Designer's Handbook (perhaps do
this before posting on RAP), the ancient tome that allegedly has
everything known about vacuum tube circuit design.
You may want to try this to do distortion measurements (and not
just a percentage number, but the spectrum) on your circuits:
http://audio.rightmark.org/
Kevin Aylward
You mean, you don't have the capability to work out the details for
yourself?
I was posting to John, he is well aware of how to calculate Doppler
frequency shifts. For the most part, John is a very good engineer. He
just makes some mistakes like we all do.
> Please rephrase and explain what this has to do with the sentence
> above.. And since you seem to be a numbers-believer, please tell us
> how you arrived at them:)
>
> And this is really
>> nasty stuff. Its a spread right across the spectrum.
>
> Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
> doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
And you have the cheek to criticize my ideas below, with this
demonstration of your lack of knowledge here.
velocity = f.x = 100 x 0.01 = 1 m/s
Sound travels at 330 m/s
df/f = v/330 = 1/330 = 0.3%
(technically the velocity don't change, but the effect is the same via
wavelength)
>
> Adding in the
>> standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
>> whatsoever that your claim is supported.
>>
>> There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels
>> from correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but
>> not distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
>>
>> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
>>
>> Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
> Says who ?
Your serious dude? Its trvial. See below.
>
>> Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
>> consciousness.
>
> Sorry, read up on cognitive science and logic and
> ...a whole lot more...
Clearly, I know a lot more than you about this subject.
If you think that you can experience an emotion without consciousness,
please explain, in detail.
> this is just posing without any apparent insight, Kevin.
Nonsense. The fact that you don't have the insight to understand this,
is your problem, not mine. This is something I actually know quite a bit
about, as will be clear from the following in this post.
Please explain to me how you actually *perceive* an emotion *without*
consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is *how*
feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised. Emotions are
feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
What do you think "understanding" *really* is dude. Jump out of the bath
in excitement and say "Eureka, I've got it!!!" Then you will understand
that "understanding" is an emotion, i.e. a *feeling* that you
*experiance*. "Ahh haaa, now... I *understand*". Say this in you mind to
make it sink in.
The fact that you have never understood this before, don't make it any
less so. A feeling is what consciousness is all about. How you can not
understand the most basic of these concepts, and spout off gibberish
like this, is simply amazing.
What the issue here is, is that many may well have missed the obvious.
Go back and really *think* on what "feelings" "awareness" "emotions"
"consciousness" really are. They are all self referral. You cannot
explain any, without invoking the other. For some reason, many have
missed this fundamental point, and have spent much effort in trying to
derive consciousness.
>
> "Understanding" consciousness can
>> therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
>> therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
>> intrinsically unsolvable.
>>
>> Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
>> understanding of the parts of a system can
>> explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
>
> That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
> theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
Goedel is a *general* existence proof. It does not allow one to actually
show that a *specific* relation is non derivable, only that such
relations exist. My argument proves an actual example. I have shown that
an understanding of consciousness *cannot* be derived from inanimate
processes. Its a new axiom. This is indeed already *accepted* by the
likes of Roger Penrose as a basic new axiom. I have simple *proved* that
this *is* the case.
This has been missed because many like you, did not appreciate what
"Eureka!!!! I understand" really meant. That is, understanding is indeed
an emotion, as it is something one feels, despite the fact that many
have not recognised this before. Secondly, in my proof, the term
"emotion" can be dispensed with anyway. It is not important to the
proof. It was only included to clarify the issue. All that matters is
that "understanding" is something that we are consciously *aware* of. If
we are *not* consciously aware of something, than how can we have an
understanding of something? So, since being aware that we understand
something necessarily requires consciousness, therefore, its self
referral. Therefore, we cannot derive an understanding of consciousness
without invoking consciousness in the explanation.
>>
> Pissed off by posers,
You mean, pissed off by people who understand much, much, more than you.
If you do have any *valid* objections to
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html, let us here them.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
Ruud Broens
: >>
: >>> When you look
: >>> at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
: >>
: >> Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For
: >> starters, consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a
: >> 1khz signal riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz. 0.05
: >> to 0.1% plus dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable.
: >
: > Well, you don't exactly show clarity of mind here yourself, do you ?
:
: You mean, you don't have the capability to work out the details for
: yourself?
:
: I was posting to John, he is well aware of how to calculate Doppler
: frequency shifts. For the most part, John is a very good engineer. He
: just makes some mistakes like we all do.
Well, if you must refrain to personal remarks (allways a sign of weakness,
lack of 'quality arguments') , John is a very good engineer at least sounds
a lot nicer than What drugs are you on ?..
: >
: > Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
: > doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
:
: And you have the cheek to criticize my ideas below, with this
: demonstration of your lack of knowledge here. ????
:
: velocity = f.x = 100 x 0.01 = 1 m/s
:
: Sound travels at 330 m/s
:
: df/f = v/330 = 1/330 = 0.3%
:
:
: (technically the velocity don't change, but the effect is the same via
: wavelength)
very technical...just a small question there: how does the sine wave
driving the cone translate to a constant cone velocity, please tell us..
: > Adding in the
: >> standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
: >> whatsoever that your claim is supported.
standard 1 to 10 % - what a wild, sweeping, unqualified and therefore
utterly
nonsensical statement. hope you're not responsible for 'upcoming'
spice speaker models at the company there...
: >> There is no way that one can audiable detect 0.01% THD/IMD levels
: >> from correctly designed amps. If it was frequncy shifts, maybe, but
: >> not distortion. Been there done, it, wrote the book.
The book title and ISBN # being ? :)
: >> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
: >>
: >> Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
: > Says who ?
:
: Your serious dude? Its trvial. See below.
:
: >
: >> Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: >> consciousness.
: >
: > Sorry, read up on cognitive science and logic and
: > ...a whole lot more...
:
: Clearly, I know a lot more than you about this subject.
Wow, stating that clearly makes it so...
:
: If you think that you can experience an emotion without consciousness,
: please explain, in detail.
:
:
: > this is just posing without any apparent insight, Kevin.
:
: Nonsense. The fact that you don't have the insight to understand this,
: is your problem, not mine. This is something I actually know quite a bit
: about, as will be clear from the following in this post.
:
: Please explain to me how you actually *perceive* an emotion *without*
: consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is *how*
: feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised. Emotions are
: feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
Hm, well, this is leading a bit astray, but if you want to discuss such
matters, let's start with definitions: so what is perception, Kevin ?
< snipped some more: i'm clever, you don't understand "arguments">>
: > That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
: > theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
:
: Goedel is a *general* existence proof. It does not allow one to actually
: show that a *specific* relation is non derivable, only that such
: relations exist. My argument proves an actual example. I have shown that
: an understanding of consciousness *cannot* be derived from inanimate
: processes. Its a new axiom. This is indeed already *accepted* by the
: likes of Roger Penrose as a basic new axiom. I have simple *proved* that
: this *is* the case.
Say it is so = formal prove of an argument ....boy, the 'new' science is
getting easy
these days..
(It think the subject of consciousness is just a bit to important to handle
in one-liners, but must confess it's interesting to see a 'numbers-man'
like yourself doubting a materialistic-mechanistic worldview)
:: >>
: > Pissed off by posers,
:
: You mean, pissed off by people who understand much, much, more than you.
you don't seriously think that people are inclined to take up a discussion
if you *have* to refrain to these little smug remarks all the time, do u ?
: If you do have any *valid* objections to
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html, let us here them.
:
: Kevin Aylward
: salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Have a spicy day, Kevin,
Rudy
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:iyFub.60$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>>> When you look
>>>>> at the IM distortion, that 0.01% is a sick joke.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish. Complete and utter crap. What drugs are you on? For
>>>> starters, consider the FM distortion of speakers. i.e. consider a
>>>> 1khz signal riding on a speaker going back and forth at 100 Hz.
>>>> 0.05 to 0.1% plus dopplar induced distortion is easily achievable.
>>>
>>> Well, you don't exactly show clarity of mind here yourself, do you ?
>>
>> You mean, you don't have the capability to work out the details for
>> yourself?
>>
>> I was posting to John, he is well aware of how to calculate Doppler
>> frequency shifts. For the most part, John is a very good engineer. He
>> just makes some mistakes like we all do.
>>
>
> Well, if you must refrain to personal remarks (allways a sign of
> weakness, lack of 'quality arguments') , John is a very good engineer
> at least sounds a lot nicer than What drugs are you on ?..
Err.. John and me are arguable, friends. My comment was not at him
personally, but at what he said. What he said was crap.
>>>
>>> Wow! Now, let's see, a large cone excursion, say 10 mm, creates a
>>> doppler-frequency shift of ?? numbers, please..
>>
>> And you have the cheek to criticize my ideas below, with this
>> demonstration of your lack of knowledge here. ????
>>
>> velocity = f.x = 100 x 0.01 = 1 m/s
>>
>> Sound travels at 330 m/s
>>
>> df/f = v/330 = 1/330 = 0.3%
>>
>>
>> (technically the velocity don't change, but the effect is the same
>> via wavelength)
>
> very technical...just a small question there: how does the sine wave
> driving the cone translate to a constant cone velocity, please tell
> us..
It doesn't. This is the *peak* frequency shift. The frequency goes up
and down in a sine fashion, as the cone goes backwards and forwards. The
number is get a feel of the sort of the magnitude of the FM modulation
that occurs.
>>
>> Please explain to me how you actually *perceive* an emotion *without*
>> consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is
>> *how* feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised.
>> Emotions are feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
>
> Hm, well, this is leading a bit astray, but if you want to discuss
> such matters, let's start with definitions: so what is perception,
> Kevin ?
Most aspects of consciousness gets one into a self referral situation.
Perception is that which the conscious is aware of. What is
consciousness, that which can perceive things. Get the drift. I have
updated my site to address this in more detail.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html
>
> < snipped some more: i'm clever, you don't understand "arguments">>
>
>>> That transposing Goedels findings on mathematical
>>> theory on the domain of physics - your idea ?
>>
>> Goedel is a *general* existence proof. It does not allow one to
>> actually show that a *specific* relation is non derivable, only that
>> such relations exist. My argument proves an actual example. I have
>> shown that an understanding of consciousness *cannot* be derived
>> from inanimate processes. Its a new axiom. This is indeed already
>> *accepted* by the likes of Roger Penrose as a basic new axiom. I
>> have simple *proved* that this *is* the case.
>
> Say it is so = formal prove of an argument ....boy, the 'new' science
> is getting easy
> these days..
Some of it is.
> (It think the subject of consciousness is just a bit to important to
> handle in one-liners, but must confess it's interesting to see a
> 'numbers-man' like yourself doubting a materialistic-mechanistic
> worldview)
What are you on about. I *am* a strict materialistic-mechanic. There is
nohing more than mass-energy moving about. If you had read the title to
my papers, this would be obvious, The Mean Meme-Gene Darwinian Machine.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of
its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is.
It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
Frank Bemelman
news:QpJub.220$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
[snip]
> Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
> sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of
> its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is.
> It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable.
How many boards do you need to pull out of HAL9000 before it
looses it's consciousness ;)
--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)
John Woodgate
.net>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov
2003:
>Err.. John and me are arguable, friends. My comment was not at him
>personally, but at what he said. What he said was crap.
No, Kevin, it isn't. What happens when you apply lots of feedback around
an amplifier of poor linearity is that you swap maybe 5% of low-order
distortion (2nd, 3rd, 5th.) for 0.05% or so of every harmonic up to the
upper band limit of the amplifier. The latter sounds FAR worse, because
of the multiplicity of intermodulation products, some of which are much
larger in amplitude than the adjacent harmonics.
Ruud Broens
"John Woodgate" <j...@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:EU6UTJEHA3u$Ew...@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself:
it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena
in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of'
time by using complex numbers, but
a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time,
whatever your modeling might lead you to believe.
So here is one, just for Kevin:
what are you actually correcting there with a feedback signal ?
Cheers,
Rudy
Ruud Broens
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: > message news:iyFub.60$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: >> consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is
: >> *how* feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised.
: >> Emotions are feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
: >
: > Hm, well, this is leading a bit astray, but if you want to discuss
: > such matters, let's start with definitions: so what is perception,
: > Kevin ?
:
: Most aspects of consciousness gets one into a self referral situation.
: Perception is that which the conscious is aware of. What is
: consciousness, that which can perceive things. Get the drift. I have
: updated my site to address this in more detail.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html
:
: Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
: sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of
: its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is.
: It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable.
Mmm, yesss... this is referred to as the excretionist theory.
But you know all that, being the self-proclaimed expert,
so tell us more about other theories of consciousness,
sure you are aware of them ?
No hard feelings, Kev', :)
Rudy
: Kevin Aylward
:
:
Kevin Aylward
Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue.
The transfer function of:
Vo(jw) = A(jw)/(1 + A(jw).B(jw))
Includes time via the phase of A(jw) and B(jw))
In the laplace domain
Vo(s) = A(s)/(1 + A(s).B(s))
Incluses time in its inverse.
> So here is one, just for Kevin:
> what are you actually correcting there with a feedback signal ?
>
Its all in the wash. The math accounts for any and all time delays. One
just crunches the numbers.
Ross Matheson
in rec.audio.tubes<iyFub.60$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
[ ... ]
: What the issue here is, is that many may well have missed the obvious.
: Go back and really *think* on what "feelings" "awareness" "emotions"
: "consciousness" really are. They are all self referral. You cannot
: explain any, without invoking the other. For some reason, many have
: missed this fundamental point, and have spent much effort in trying to
: derive consciousness.
"The Tao that can be conceived is not the Tao"
Tao Te Ching
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
: therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
: intrinsically unsolvable.
"As the soft yielding water cleaves obstinate stone,
so to yield with life solves the insoluble"
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
No argument there!
But I submit that progress is being made, in understanding time n dimensions!
Cheers!
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
> <QpJub.220$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli .net>) about 'A little
> feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov 2003:
>> Err.. John and me are arguable, friends. My comment was not at him
>> personally, but at what he said. What he said was crap.
>
> No, Kevin, it isn't. What happens when you apply lots of feedback
> around an amplifier of poor linearity is that you swap maybe 5% of
> low-order distortion (2nd, 3rd, 5th.) for 0.05% or so of every
> harmonic up to the upper band limit of the amplifier.
What part of "large amounts of feedback" are you having trouble with
John?
> The latter
> sounds FAR worse,
Why don't you read what I actually wrote.
>because of the multiplicity of intermodulation
> products, some of which are much larger in amplitude than the
> adjacent harmonics.
I have *already* explained, that yes, if the feedback is *low*, than it
can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
Ross Matheson
in rec.audio.tubes<0YLub.1298$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
: John Woodgate wrote:
: > I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
: > <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
: > <QpJub.220$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli .net>) about 'A little
: > feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov 2003:
: >> Err.. John and me are arguable, friends. My comment was not at him
: >> personally, but at what he said. What he said was crap.
: >
: > No, Kevin, it isn't. What happens when you apply lots of feedback
: > around an amplifier of poor linearity is that you swap maybe 5% of
: > low-order distortion (2nd, 3rd, 5th.) for 0.05% or so of every
: > harmonic up to the upper band limit of the amplifier.
:
: What part of "large amounts of feedback" are you having trouble with
: John?
:
: > The latter
: > sounds FAR worse,
:
: Why don't you read what I actually wrote.
:
: >because of the multiplicity of intermodulation
: > products, some of which are much larger in amplitude than the
: > adjacent harmonics.
:
: I have *already* explained, that yes, if the feedback is *low*, than it
: can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
: figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
:
: Kevin Aylward
Re "large amounts of feedback" and "great", I wonder what you learned chaps
might think of this, previously bookmarked <unable to check tonight> site?
http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory-1-theory.html [or start from audio/ ]
Up to 100db feedback? I thought it was interesting, and it seemed new &
original ... bookmarked early this year ... in terms of SS device fidelity.
Regards, from a mere amateur & novice;-)
Ross Matheson
John Woodgate
i.net>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19
Nov 2003:
>I have *already* explained, that yes, if the feedback is *low*,
The proliferation of high-order harmonics is also a characteristic of
large amounts of feedback. They don't disappear as you increase the
feedback: each one is reduced but combinations spawn even higher orders
of harmonics and intermodulation products.
> than it
>can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
>figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
IF (and it's a big IF) you really achieved 0.01% IMD, then you'd have a
case. But if you get 0.01% THD by putting lots of feedback around a not
very linear amplifier, then you will NOT get 0.01% IMD.
We added a weighted harmonic distortion option to IEC 60268-3 precisely
because IC manufacturers were offering audio chips with this problem;
poor open-loop linearity but lots of feedback. Good THD figures but very
poor IMD. The chip manufacturers refused to accept that IMD was of any
significance (well they would, wouldn't they) so we 'gave' them weighted
THD instead.
Kevin Aylward
>> Ruud Broens wrote:
>>> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:iyFub.60$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>>>> Please explain to me how you actually *perceive* an emotion
>>>>> *without*
>>>> consciousness? Its a tautology. Its that simple. Consciousness is
>>>> *how* feelings are recognised, i.e. how emotions are recognised.
>>>> Emotions are feelings, i.e. we are consciously aware of them.
>>>
>>> Hm, well, this is leading a bit astray, but if you want to discuss
>>> such matters, let's start with definitions: so what is perception,
>>> Kevin ?
>>
>> Most aspects of consciousness gets one into a self referral
>> situation. Perception is that which the conscious is aware of. What
>> is consciousness, that which can perceive things. Get the drift. I
>> have updated my site to address this in more detail.
>>
>> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html
>>
>>
>> Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
>> sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function
>> of its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It
>> just is. It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not
>> derivable.
>
> Mmm, yesss... this is referred to as the excretionist theory.
Never heard of the word excretionist.
> But you know all that, being the self-proclaimed expert,
What I will say here, is that most of what has been written in the past
is wrong. The fundamental reason for this is that they did not know
about computers, or truly understand that the brain is it. They is
nothing else. We are a machine. Sure, the brain operates a bit
different, but the main features are all that is required to get a
reasonable handle on the issues.
> so tell us more about other theories of consciousness,
> sure you are aware of them ?
Quite frankly, whenever I have trolled the web on this, its all crap.
Every, bit of it.
e.g.http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/liane/papers/api/api.html
"This paper proposes that an entity is conscious to the extent it
amplifies information, first by trapping and integrating it through
closure, and second by maintaining dynamics at the edge of chaos through
simultaneous processes of divergence and convergence. The origin of life
through autocatalytic closure, and the origin of an interconnected
worldview through conceptual closure, induced phase transitions in the
degree to which information, and thus consciousness, is locally
amplified. Divergence and convergence of cognitive information may
involve phenomena observed in light e.g. focusing, interference, and
resonance. By making information flow inward-biased, closure shields us
from external consciousness; thus the paucity of consciousness may be an
illusion."
Philosophers, by and large have no idea whatsoever. Consciousness is an
engineering problem.
> No hard feelings, Kev', :)
None at all.
NewYorkDave
> Your plan seems reasonable to me, and clear in outline. One obvious
> question though: if it were possible to take your kind of short-cuts
> to console design in the 50s, why didn't they do it?
That's a good question, and I think I have the answer.
The type of circuit I describe DID exist in the '50s in the form of
small self-contained mixers. The type of mixer I'm looking to build
falls roughly into that category, insofar as it's self-contained and
of a fixed configuration.
Larger studio consoles followed a sort of "open system" architecture
where the individual components--amplifiers, equalizers, faders and so
on--were normalized for input/output impedances of 600 ohms and the
console could be reconfigured at will via patchcords. This was handy
when the individual parts of a console were expensive and you couldn't
afford to put, say, an equalizer on every channel. Your console might
have 8 channels but only four equalizers, that could be patched in as
needed. That Langevin wiring diagram link I posted earlier in the
thread shows a typical console arrangement. Note that all
interconnections are brought out to patchbay jacks.
>
> If you take your feedback from the output of the white cathode
> follower, you will have a ring of three, which is a classic circuit
> for some reason I can't remember.
I would like to do that, but including the cathode follower in the FB
loop means that the master volume control would have to go either
before or after the amplifier/buffer combination, which is undesirable
either from a S/N standpoint (pot BEFORE the amp) or an output
impedance/balance/loading perspective (AFTER the output buffer). I
also wanted to avoid having to use more than two tubes per amplifier.
Of course, if the internal noise of the amplifier were reduced to a
very low level by negative feedback, then the S/N degradation from
putting the pot before the amplifier might not be a problem in
practice. The S/N will get worse as you turn down the pot; but if it's
exceptionally low in the first place, well...
Ben Bradley
wrote:
>Hi gang. I'm working on the design of an amplifier to be used in a
>tube mixing console. (Please, let's ignore for the moment the question
>of WHY someone would want to design a tube mixing console in 2003!).
You (and others reading this thread) may be interested (or amused)
at this contemporary design all-tube console, discussed on
rec.audio.pro a year or two ago:
John Woodgate
wrote (in <2v6nrvshnjdhtli7j...@4ax.com>) about 'A little
feedback worse than none at all?', on Thu, 20 Nov 2003:
>Re "large amounts of feedback" and "great", I wonder what you learned
>chaps might think of this, previously bookmarked <unable to check
>tonight> site? http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory-1-theory.html [or
>start from audio/ ]
The page is not available, but
>http://peufeu.free.fr/audio
works. The author seems, in general, to know what he is talking about.
NewYorkDave
> Your first post on the matter seemed to present a daunting task for us to
> design for you
Patrick, I think you misunderstand my intention in the original post.
I'm not asking anyone to design my circuit for me. I just wanted
comments on the distribution of distortion products in tube amplifiers
with negative feedback. This knowledge could help to guide me in
designing my circuit, but I wasn't looking for someone else to do the
design work for me.
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
> <0YLub.1298$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl i.net>) about 'A little
> feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov 2003:
>
>> I have *already* explained, that yes, if the feedback is *low*,
>
> The proliferation of high-order harmonics is also a characteristic of
> large amounts of feedback. They don't disappear as you increase the
> feedback: each one is reduced but combinations spawn even higher
> orders of harmonics and intermodulation products.
What is it with yoiu that you wont read what I wrote.
A *practical* amp *always* generates *all* harmonics. If enough feedback
is used each and every harmonic will stil be less than the open loop for
value of each harmonic.
>
>> than it
>> can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
>> figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
>
> IF (and it's a big IF) you really achieved 0.01% IMD, then you'd have
> a case.
No its not a big if whatsoever. Its trivial to get 0.005% at 20Khz. Done
it 20 years ago. 20 years later and my mosfet 1000 is still going
strong. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/studiomaster/Studiomaster.htm
>But if you get 0.01% THD by putting lots of feedback around a
> not very linear amplifier, then you will NOT get 0.01% IMD.
If you use enough feed back you will, but I am not discussing poorly
designed amps.
Secondly, if it were so bad, tube amps would sound dreadful as they
typically have low feedback, like say 15db.
>
> We added a weighted harmonic distortion option to IEC 60268-3
> precisely because IC manufacturers were offering audio chips with
> this problem; poor open-loop linearity but lots of feedback. Good THD
> figures but very poor IMD. The chip manufacturers refused to accept
> that IMD was of any significance (well they would, wouldn't they) so
> we 'gave' them weighted THD instead.
I'm not really discussing cheap and nasty ic chips. I am referring to
competently designed discrete hi-fi amps. Of course ic amps are usually
poor.
Ruud Broens
Actually, it's called excretionism, just playing there with letters
& words - call it a little eccentricity - to denote a person holding
such a belief.
:
: > But you know all that, being the self-proclaimed expert,
Some, knowledgeble in the fields of cognitive psychology, AI, etc. might
have chuckled there, as it's a key debating issue : hard vs. soft
interpretation
of observations in the matter. Interesting as the subject can be, I think
it's better
to give it a rest, most ppl. will consider this way OT anyway.
Great though the web can be for all sorts of matters, I don't think some
cut & paste actions constitutes the base from which you gather an
in-depth knowledge & understanding of subjects such as these.
FYI, the computer metaphor *has* been used for many a year now,
before that it was the telephone exchange..
Now, where philosophy, valid reasoning, belief systems, what constututes
knowledge, etc. come in is : if the metaphor (model) describes & predicts
behaviour perfectly, is this actually 'what's going on' in the world ?
The hard AI party line says: quack like a duck, walk like a duck, duck
dropping's
all' round --> must be a duck
While the 'softies' say: for all practical usage, the model is great...but
ad-lib
applying Occam's razor - not some proven law, mind you, 'just' a rule of
thumb,
common sense - is simply not valid.
This has all a lot to do with the basic philosophic distinction of
Realist vs. Idealist a matter of epistomology
Where as for a realist, walking into a brick wall, bleeding nose and all,
certainly is proof of this brick wall 'being out there'
Not so for an Idealist, who maintains, there is no way to
verify this, it is only 'the sensation' of brick wall, bleeding nose
etc. that one can talk about
Just a final bit of spice then: physicists do *not* hold a realist's
view of reality, that is, a physicist will tell you physics deals with
correlations of perceived sensory data, a phenomenological approach.
And, sorry to say, common sense just gets you so far.
May I suggest, if the subject interests you, to get a copy of
Foundations of Cognitive Science, ed. Michael I. Posner - MIT Press 1986
or a somewhat more compact
The Mind's New Science - Howard Gardner - Basic Books1985
:
:
: Kevin Aylward
: salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
:
: Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
: Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
: consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
: therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
: therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
: intrinsically unsolvable.
:
: Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
: understanding of the parts of a system can
: explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
:
Here's a little piece by Gilbert Ryle - 1949:
"I'm not interested in the issues of how one sees or
understands something if those seeings or
understandings involve the positing of some
internal understanding or perceptual mechanisms"
Happy readin',
Rudy
John Woodgate
I am reading it, Kevin. I just don't accept what you say.
>
>A *practical* amp *always* generates *all* harmonics. If enough feedback
>is used each and every harmonic will stil be less than the open loop for
>value of each harmonic.
No. An amplifier with very little 9th harmonic, for example, but quite a
bit of 3rd and fifth, is quite likely to have MORE 9th when feedback is
applied. It could also have less, because the new 9th might be in the
opposite polarity to the original.
>
>>
>>> than it
>>> can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
>>> figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
>>
>> IF (and it's a big IF) you really achieved 0.01% IMD, then you'd have
>> a case.
>
>No its not a big if whatsoever. Its trivial to get 0.005% at 20Khz.
How do you get 0.005% **IMD** at a single frequency?
It's trivial to get 0.005% **THD** at 20 kHz if the closed-loop
bandwidth is low enough.(;-)
>Done
>it 20 years ago. 20 years later and my mosfet 1000 is still going
>strong. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/studiomaster/Studiomaster.htm
I expect your amp has good open-loop linearity. In that case, you won't
have the problem I'm talking about.
>
>
>>But if you get 0.01% THD by putting lots of feedback around a
>> not very linear amplifier, then you will NOT get 0.01% IMD.
>
>If you use enough feed back you will, but I am not discussing poorly
>designed amps.
But that's the whole POINT!!! It IS bad design to put lots of feedback
around an amplifier with poor open-loop linearity.
>
>Secondly, if it were so bad, tube amps would sound dreadful as they
>typically have low feedback, like say 15db.
I feel like giving up! LOW feedback isn't a serious source of highly
extended harmonic spectra, which lead to bad IM performance.
>
>>
>> We added a weighted harmonic distortion option to IEC 60268-3
>> precisely because IC manufacturers were offering audio chips with
>> this problem; poor open-loop linearity but lots of feedback. Good THD
>> figures but very poor IMD. The chip manufacturers refused to accept
>> that IMD was of any significance (well they would, wouldn't they) so
>> we 'gave' them weighted THD instead.
>
>I'm not really discussing cheap and nasty ic chips. I am referring to
>competently designed discrete hi-fi amps. Of course ic amps are usually
>poor.
Yes, you are arguing from different initial assumptions. That's why you
don't accept what I am saying.
NewYorkDave
ben_nospa...@mindspring.com (Ben Bradley) wrote in message news:<3fbbb7a7...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
> <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
> <NfPub.2276$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl i.net>) about 'A little
> feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov 2003:
>> What is it with yoiu that you wont read what I wrote.
>
> I am reading it, Kevin. I just don't accept what you say.
Your simple not listening.
>>
>> A *practical* amp *always* generates *all* harmonics. If enough
>> feedback is used each and every harmonic will stil be less than the
>> open loop for value of each harmonic.
>
> No. An amplifier with very little 9th harmonic, for example, but
> quite a bit of 3rd and fifth, is quite likely to have MORE 9th when
> feedback is applied.
NOT IF THE FEEDBACK IS LARGE ENOUGTH.
Why can't you understand this.
> It could also have less, because the new 9th
> might be in the opposite polarity to the original.
>>
>>>
>>>> than it
>>>> can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
>>>> figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
>>>
>>> IF (and it's a big IF) you really achieved 0.01% IMD, then you'd
>>> have a case.
>>
>> No its not a big if whatsoever. Its trivial to get 0.005% at 20Khz.
>
> How do you get 0.005% **IMD** at a single frequency?
Dont be an arse. There is an assumption here, lets say the other one is
at 19Khz
>
> It's trivial to get 0.005% **THD** at 20 kHz if the closed-loop
> bandwidth is low enough.(;-)
Look, there are even amps that have *widband* THD/IMD at < 0.001%.
>
>> Done
>> it 20 years ago. 20 years later and my mosfet 1000 is still going
>> strong. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/studiomaster/Studiomaster.htm
>
> I expect your amp has good open-loop linearity. In that case, you
> won't have the problem I'm talking about.
It has to be a pretty pathetic amp design to have poor open loop
linearity. Sure, there were some dreadful amps in the past, but as I
explained in my published letters in Electronics World, its simple not
an issue to design an amplifier correctly.
>>
>>
>>> But if you get 0.01% THD by putting lots of feedback around a
>>> not very linear amplifier, then you will NOT get 0.01% IMD.
>>
>> If you use enough feed back you will, but I am not discussing poorly
>> designed amps.
>
> But that's the whole POINT!!! It IS bad design to put lots of feedback
> around an amplifier with poor open-loop linearity.
What's your definition of poor open loop linearity?
>>
>> Secondly, if it were so bad, tube amps would sound dreadful as they
>> typically have low feedback, like say 15db.
>
> I feel like giving up! LOW feedback isn't a serious source of highly
> extended harmonic spectra, which lead to bad IM performance.
Of course it is. Your now contradicting yourself. With low feedback, a
square law mixes with its input to generate many odd harmonics. With
large enough feedback, it clobbers these newly introduced harmonies.
>>
>>>
>>> We added a weighted harmonic distortion option to IEC 60268-3
>>> precisely because IC manufacturers were offering audio chips with
>>> this problem; poor open-loop linearity but lots of feedback. Good
>>> THD figures but very poor IMD. The chip manufacturers refused to
>>> accept that IMD was of any significance (well they would, wouldn't
>>> they) so we 'gave' them weighted THD instead.
>>
>> I'm not really discussing cheap and nasty ic chips. I am referring to
>> competently designed discrete hi-fi amps. Of course ic amps are
>> usually poor.
>
> Yes, you are arguing from different initial assumptions. That's why
> you don't accept what I am saying.
I stated what my assumption was, right from the start. Large amounts of
feedback.
Kevin Aylward
>>
>> Philosophers, by and large have no idea whatsoever. Consciousness is
>> an engineering problem.
>>
>>> No hard feelings, Kev', :)
>>
>> None at all.
>
> Some, knowledgeble in the fields of cognitive psychology, AI, etc.
> might have chuckled there, as it's a key debating issue : hard vs.
> soft interpretation
> of observations in the matter. Interesting as the subject can be, I
> think it's better
> to give it a rest, most ppl. will consider this way OT anyway.
> Great though the web can be for all sorts of matters, I don't think
> some cut & paste actions constitutes the base from which you gather an
> in-depth knowledge & understanding of subjects such as these.
I disagree on this last bit. If you do a bit of trolling and read a few
snippets of the pros papers on there university sites, you can get a
reasonable feel as to what the overall views are. This one snippet is
indeed typical of them all. I did spend a bit of time on this, just to
see what the alternatives were.
> FYI, the computer metaphor *has* been used for many a year now,
> before that it was the telephone exchange..
The details don't matter. Its input, processing and output. The brain
has storage and there are sensors here and there, and it gets
replicated. Thats all that is required to get a good picture of what's
going on.
>
> Now, where philosophy, valid reasoning, belief systems, what
> constututes knowledge, etc. come in is : if the metaphor (model)
> describes & predicts behaviour perfectly, is this actually 'what's
> going on' in the world ? The hard AI party line says: quack like a
> duck, walk like a duck, duck dropping's
> all' round --> must be a duck
There can be many models to describe the same reality. For example,
special relativity and the lorentz ether theory have identical
equations. Mathematically they are indistinguishable. However, one has
absolute space, one doesn't.
> While the 'softies' say: for all practical usage, the model is
> great...but ad-lib
> applying Occam's razor - not some proven law, mind you, 'just' a rule
> of thumb,
> common sense - is simply not valid.
>
> This has all a lot to do with the basic philosophic distinction of
> Realist vs. Idealist a matter of epistomology
>
> Where as for a realist, walking into a brick wall, bleeding nose and
> all, certainly is proof of this brick wall 'being out there'
>
> Not so for an Idealist, who maintains, there is no way to
> verify this, it is only 'the sensation' of brick wall, bleeding nose
> etc. that one can talk about
This is about absolute proof and proof beyond reasonable doubt. We know
absolute proof is impossible in general, however, society executes
people on much less than absolute proof.
>
> Just a final bit of spice then: physicists do *not* hold a realist's
> view of reality, that is, a physicist will tell you physics deals with
> correlations of perceived sensory data, a phenomenological approach.
This is not really true of all or even most physicists. Many hold the
view that there is an objective reality, that may be describable by many
different models. Some hold the view that there is no objective reality.
I am in the same camp as Einstein, that there is an objective reality.
Because I know Goedal, I can accept that this may be true, even without
proof. The evidence suggests that there is a real reality, despite some
claims to the contrary my writers of popular physics Bantam paperbacks.
A main issue with popular expressed physics is that many metaphysical
ideas are presented as being a consequence of the physics known to work,
when in fact, the physics don't care about someone's particular
interpretation. For example, collapse of the wave function, particles in
two places at once, or many universes, are all waffle ideas that are not
required in the slightest in quantum Mechanics. They are redundant
add-ons. QM works pefectly well without these daft ideas.
Ruud Broens
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: > message news:83Oub.2204$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
:
:: >
: > Just a final bit of spice then: physicists do *not* hold a realist's
: > view of reality, that is, a physicist will tell you physics deals with
: > correlations of perceived sensory data, a phenomenological approach.
:
: This is not really true of all or even most physicists. Many hold the
: view that there is an objective reality, that may be describable by many
: different models. Some hold the view that there is no objective reality.
: I am in the same camp as Einstein, that there is an objective reality.
: Because I know Goedal, I can accept that this may be true, even without
: proof. The evidence suggests that there is a real reality, despite some
: claims to the contrary my writers of popular physics Bantam paperbacks.
:
: A main issue with popular expressed physics is that many metaphysical
: ideas are presented as being a consequence of the physics known to work,
: when in fact, the physics don't care about someone's particular
: interpretation. For example, collapse of the wave function, particles in
: two places at once, or many universes, are all waffle ideas that are not
: required in the slightest in quantum Mechanics. They are redundant
: add-ons. QM works pefectly well without these daft ideas.
Funny that you should mention Quantum Physics - it's precisely the
findings in this field that tell us, Idealism is the 'best fit'.
Maybe add some Feymann books to the list there..
Rudy
:
: Kevin Aylward
:
:
Ruud Broens
"NewYorkDave" <electro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b514d126.03111...@posting.google.com...
: Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
Hi, Dave, excuse the lenghty side-thread there,
but wouldn't it be great, having your modular mixing desk,
part by part,
commented and suggested on - in a constructive, helpfull way -
not sure if leavin' SED in is a good idea, but he, nothing wrong
with a little cross-posting now-and-then. A web-sociology
neo-behaviorist might right now be typing something like
"it's good to have some mental cross-breeding, to keep the
web population healthy" :)
For instance, if i were in your position, i'd "worry" about
noise, dynamic range, first, then see what you can compromize
on in matters of distortion.
BTW found a place with 'very' cheap EF86's & C3m's :)
Can e-mail you the link be4 here..
Cheers,
Rudy
John Popelish
I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback
does not have much chance of increasing the high harmonics when it is
used to suppress the low harmonics, It just allows them to be more
audible, because the low (and more pleasant sounding) harmonics get
reduced more than the higher (less pleasant) ones do. This is a
result of there being more excess gain and less phase shift at the
lower harmonic frequencies.
So, first, you try to design an amplifier that has lowest amount of
the higher harmonics before the loop is closed. The feedback will
then take care of the lower harmonics, as long as you stay well away
from saturation, where the open loop gain falls to the point that the
negative feedback drops out right when the harmonic content jumps up.
Headroom is probably more important than harmonic purity.
None of this is scientific, but just rule of thumb stuff.
--
John Popelish
John Popelish
I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback
Ruud Broens
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: <sorry John, snppin' for BW sav'n purposes there: >
: > Here is one problem of the concept of feedback itself:
: > it is all very well to model perceived physical phenomena
: > in a suitable mathematical form, convenient to 'get rid of'
: > time by using complex numbers, but
: >
: > a cause-effect-feedback chain of events does not occur in zero time,
: > whatever your modeling might lead you to believe.
:
: Ho hummm. The model includes time. Explicity. Its a non issue.
Kevin! I've decided i won't let you off easily here, either. Sorry, chap.
Understanding...simple...evident.
Can thee understand this:
Here i have this train, it's a short one,
1 ps nice triangular spikies, 1 Volt to the top
hm, arrivin' - ever sooo slowly, them 'lectrons -
at the opamp's front door : entrance, for a
millionfold gain, over here please cue
Now, this is a place of good'breedin',
The noble house of ye Lords BB,
model OPA sumthin.
Hear they have a nice, 50 bold Volts
of powering the place there.
Can you finish the story ?
Rudy
: The transfer function of:
:
:
Kevin Aylward
No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit
about "popular descriptions of physics". There is *nothing* in physics
whosoever that indicates Idealism. However, I agree that many Phd's do
waffle on with their misunderstandings and *claim* that such
metaphysical nonsense is part of real physics. I think you should be
aware that, although an EE, I do know a litle bit about these subjects,
e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html
What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Ruud Broens
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: > message news:8ASub.2312$pu6....@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: >> Ruud Broens wrote:
: >>> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: >>> message news:83Oub.2204$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: >>
: The evidence suggests that there is a
: >> real reality, despite some claims to the contrary my writers of
: >> popular physics Bantam paperbacks.
: >>
: >> A main issue with popular expressed physics is that many metaphysical
: >> ideas are presented as being a consequence of the physics known to
: >> work, when in fact, the physics don't care about someone's particular
: >> interpretation. For example, collapse of the wave function,
: >> particles in two places at once, or many universes, are all waffle
: >> ideas that are not required in the slightest in quantum Mechanics.
: >> They are redundant add-ons. QM works pefectly well without these
: >> daft ideas.
: >
: > Funny that you should mention Quantum Physics - it's precisely the
: > findings in this field that tell us, Idealism is the 'best fit'.
: > Maybe add some Feymann books to the list there..
:
: No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit
: about "popular descriptions of physics". There is *nothing* in physics
: whosoever that indicates Idealism. However, I agree that many Phd's do
: waffle on with their misunderstandings and *claim* that such
: metaphysical nonsense is part of real physics. I think you should be
: aware that, although an EE, I do know a litle bit about these subjects,
: e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html
:
: What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
along the same cut&paste-from-da-web 'method' there ?
Good to see you're siding with Einstein there, he, we all stand
on the shoulders of giants, eh ?
That said, have to say he 'lost it a bit' when proclaiming
"God doesn't through Dice"
when confronted with da quanta.
books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations
of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either
you or me, hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen."
will lookit up for ya, man.
I rest 'my' thread...
Hope i've wobbled your firm beliefs a bit, but anyhow, twaz nice,
C U
Rudy
:
: Kevin Aylward
:
:
Kevin Aylward
What story? It is too convoluted to understand. I suspect that you are
making an argument along the lines that feedback takes time, with the
claim that it arrives too late. If so, this is a complete non issue, as
I already explained. *Correct* feedback theory and application accounts
for this all in the wash. Of course, if the input signal step is faster
than the slew rate that the loop can handle there is an issue, however,
this is *already* accounted for in the assumption of large loop gain. If
it slews there is *no* loop gain, i.e. the condition will violate the
initial assumption. If I declare that there *is* loop gain, than I
*really* *mean* that there *is* loop gain, all the time. End of story.
Conditions where there is *no* loop gain are *excluded*, by
construction.
So, we make an amp and make sure that its input signal slew rate is less
than which the amp can handle, thereby preventing any issues. So long as
there *is* sufficient loop gain, as soon as the input signal starts to
move, the large gain will force a continuous correction signal to the
feedback input.
Kevin Aylward
Its not in depth, but it is accurate in what is known.
>
> along the same cut&paste-from-da-web 'method' there ?
> Good to see you're siding with Einstein there, he, we all stand
> on the shoulders of giants, eh ?
> That said, have to say he 'lost it a bit' when proclaiming
> "God doesn't through Dice"
> when confronted with da quanta.
He was the first to explain the photo electric effect with quanta.
>
> books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations
> of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either
> you or me,
The truth, most are not.
> hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen."
Such as?
I don't think you know where I'm coming from. I am not alone in my view
of physics. There are many well respected physicists that reject the
daft add-on interpretations of QM. e.g Leslie Ballentine's text book
"Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development", of Simon Frazer Univesity,
with the Quantum Ensemble Interpretation.
> will lookit up for ya, man.
> I rest 'my' thread...
> Hope I've wobbled your firm beliefs a bit, but anyhow, twaz nice,
Not at all. You haven't actually presented any actual views other than
suggesting I go an look at other peoples views.
John Woodgate
i.net>) about 'A little feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19
Nov 2003:
>John Woodgate wrote:
>> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
>> <kevindotaylwardEXTR A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
>> <NfPub.2276$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntl i.net>) about 'A little
>> feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov 2003:
>>> What is it with yoiu that you wont read what I wrote.
>>
>> I am reading it, Kevin. I just don't accept what you say.
>
>Your simple not listening.
Yes, I am. You are considering what applies when you apply feedback to
an amplifier with very good open-loop non-linearity, pushing the state-
of-the-art, while I am considering the danger of relying on large
amounts of feedback to correct an amplifier that has poor open-loop
linearity, such as many tube/valve stages.
>
>>>
>>> A *practical* amp *always* generates *all* harmonics. If enough
>>> feedback is used each and every harmonic will stil be less than the
>>> open loop for value of each harmonic.
>>
>> No. An amplifier with very little 9th harmonic, for example, but
>> quite a bit of 3rd and fifth, is quite likely to have MORE 9th when
>> feedback is applied.
>
>NOT IF THE FEEDBACK IS LARGE ENOUGTH.
You should read what *I* wrote, 'quite likely'. It depends on precisely
how much feedback. I used to have a demo rig that showed this. As you
altered the feedback (while adjusting the input voltage so as to keep
the same out put voltage), you could see the 9th harmonic increase and
decrease. The same applied to the 7th and 11th.
>
>Why can't you understand this.
Because you are contradicting something that I didn't write.
>
>> It could also have less, because the new 9th
>> might be in the opposite polarity to the original.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> than it
>>>>> can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
>>>>> figures of < 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.
>>>>
>>>> IF (and it's a big IF) you really achieved 0.01% IMD, then you'd
>>>> have a case.
>>>
>>> No its not a big if whatsoever. Its trivial to get 0.005% at 20Khz.
>>
>> How do you get 0.005% **IMD** at a single frequency?
>
>Dont be an arse. There is an assumption here, lets say the other one is
>at 19Khz
So I'm not only suppose to read what you write, but also to mentally
fill in what you don't write?
Normally, 19+20 kHz is used to look at the 1 kHz component, i.e. second-
order intermodulation only. It IS necessary to look at third-order as
well, to get a representative picture of what is going on. Looking at
2nd order only is like looking at THD and not the harmonic spectrum. THD
can only tell you that 'more is probably worse'. It won't tell you
whether 1% sounds good or horrible.
>
>>
>> It's trivial to get 0.005% **THD** at 20 kHz if the closed-loop
>> bandwidth is low enough.(;-)
>
>Look, there are even amps that have *widband* THD/IMD at < 0.001%.
Please note the smiley. I have to make jokes in this thread, otherwise
I'd scream.(;-)
>
>>
>>> Done
>>> it 20 years ago. 20 years later and my mosfet 1000 is still going
>>> strong. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/studiomaster/Studiomaster.htm
>>
>> I expect your amp has good open-loop linearity. In that case, you
>> won't have the problem I'm talking about.
>
>It has to be a pretty pathetic amp design to have poor open loop
>linearity.
We WERE discussing valve/tube amplifiers. Remember?
>Sure, there were some dreadful amps in the past, but as I
>explained in my published letters in Electronics World, its simple not
>an issue to design an amplifier correctly.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But if you get 0.01% THD by putting lots of feedback around a
>>>> not very linear amplifier, then you will NOT get 0.01% IMD.
>>>
>>> If you use enough feed back you will, but I am not discussing poorly
>>> designed amps.
>>
>> But that's the whole POINT!!! It IS bad design to put lots of feedback
>> around an amplifier with poor open-loop linearity.
>
>What's your definition of poor open loop linearity?
It can't be a hard-and-fast formal definition, because the *nature* of
the non-linearity matters. The exponential non-linearity of bipolars is
bad news, because that generates an extended harmonic spectrum open-
loop, whereas the square law of a FET is much less troublesome.
Generally, something between 2% and 5% can be regarded as 'poor'.
>
>>>
>>> Secondly, if it were so bad, tube amps would sound dreadful as they
>>> typically have low feedback, like say 15db.
>>
>> I feel like giving up! LOW feedback isn't a serious source of highly
>> extended harmonic spectra, which lead to bad IM performance.
>
>Of course it is. Your now contradicting yourself. With low feedback, a
>square law mixes with its input to generate many odd harmonics.
But with low feedback, the high-order mix products are very small.
>With
>large enough feedback, it clobbers these newly introduced harmonies.
>
They DON'T reduce much, if at all, as you increase the feedback, and
higher and higher order components appear. Do some calculations or
simulations and you will see what I mean. You get 0.0x% of each harmonic
from 2nd to the band-limit of the amplifier.
>>>
[snip]
>>>
>>> I'm not really discussing cheap and nasty ic chips. I am referring to
>>> competently designed discrete hi-fi amps. Of course ic amps are
>>> usually poor.
>>
>> Yes, you are arguing from different initial assumptions. That's why
>> you don't accept what I am saying.
>
>I stated what my assumption was, right from the start. Large amounts of
>feedback.
>
No, you made TWO initial assumptions, *good open-loop linearity* AND
large amounts of feedback. See your comment about chap and nasty ic
chips.
WITH those TWO assumptions, I don't have any serious disagreement with
what you say, but *I* didn't make those assumptions, which are not
applicable to the case the OP stated.
Ruud Broens
: >>
: >> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
: > Ai, Kev', got your in depth understanding of Quantum Theory
:
: Its not in depth, but it is accurate in what is known.
:
: >
: > along the same cut&paste-from-da-web 'method' there ?
: > Good to see you're siding with Einstein there, he, we all stand
: > on the shoulders of giants, eh ?
: > That said, have to say he 'lost it a bit' when proclaiming
: > "God doesn't throw Dice"
: > when confronted with da quanta.
:
: He was the first to explain the photo electric effect with quanta.
:
: >
: > books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations
: > of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either
: > you or me,
:
: The truth, most are not.
:
: > hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen."
:
: Such as?
:
: I don't think you know where I'm coming from. I am not alone in my view
: of physics. There are many well respected physicists that reject the
: daft add-on interpretations of QM. e.g Leslie Ballentine's text book
: "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development", of Simon Frazer Univesity,
: with the Quantum Ensemble Interpretation.
I couldn't care less where 'you're coming from'
It's your feeble quality of arguments, the sheer lack of
knowledge, the obnoxious condescendending style,
that tells us enough about you.
Confronted with the simplest of simple, no freshman in
physics would have any problem with, like the doppler
question i put to you, you couldn't get it right, simpel.
Never mind you conveniently neglected to inform us
what bearing this effect, with any musical signal only having
such magnitude at oh, say, 1 % of the time, actually has
on the perceived sound. And then the whole raft of
unoutspoken beliefs you hold, most of them blatantly wrong,
eg. that perception of distortion is simply a linear additional
effect, so how can 0.1 % of X be noticiable when there is
1 % of Y....
In fact, you remind me a lot of the athropologists of the
old days, who did nothing but reasoning about their findings
from their 'superiour white man' position, ascribing any
find to stupidity, primitivity, etc.
For instance, there was this tribe who had this ritual,
where if someone got seriously ill, it ended with hanging
a particular produce from a tree, near a river, for seven
days, then brew some medicine from that.
Stupid, placebo effect, etc.
Until some biochemist tracked this story and found out
that precisely these circumstances promoted the growth
of a mold that had very penicilline-like effects...
Since you are so hot on understanding, may i suggest
you order a Guinness from your local pub there tonight
80 % foam, 20 % beer. Now the foam may taste great,
but..
Have a nice weekend
Rudy
BTW couldn't resist the urge to spell Richard P. Feynman's
name there as Feymann, he, what's life without a bitta
laughter and must confess i had my ROTFLMAO session
picturing little Kev there, frantically Googling away there,
ending up at some obscure Japanese site discussion the
finds of some biochemist or so ..:)
Paul Burridge
wrote:
>I couldn't care less where 'you're coming from'
>It's your feeble quality of arguments, the sheer lack of
>knowledge, the obnoxious condescendending style,
>that tells us enough about you.
Hmmm. I do believe I've heard these criticisms before, Kev. That Nobel
prize ain't comin' any time soon. ;->
--
"I expect history will be kind to me, since I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill
Ruud Broens
"Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
:
: "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
: news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
:
: : >>
: : >> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
Actually, this one :)
Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical
year that Dick had spent as a 'graduate student' in biology. He had an
opportunity to renew the acquaintance when he visited Chicago early in
1967, and when they met Watson gave Feynman a copy of the typescript
of what was to become his famous book The Double Helix, about his
discovery, together with Francis Crick, of the structure of DNA. Feynman
read the book straight through, the same day. He had been accompanied
on that trip by David Goodstein, then a young physicist just completing
his
PhD at Caltech, and late that night Feynman collared Goodstein and told
him that he had to read Watson's book -- immediately. Goodstein did as
he was told, reading through the night while Feynman paced up and down,
or sat doodling on a pad of paper. Some time towards dawn, Goodstein
looked up and commented to Feynman that the surprising thing was that
Watson had been involved in making such a fundamental advance in science,
and yet he had been completely out of touch with what everybody else in
his field
was doing.
Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle, surrounded
by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals: DISREGARD. That, he
told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was what he had forgotten, and why
he had been making so little progress. The way for researchers like himself
and Watson to make a breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else
was doing and plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186]
What had gone wrong for Feynman was that he had begun taking too seriously
the idea
that modern knowledge is a collective enterprise. Just trying to keep up
with his field had
suppressed his own sources of inspiration, which were in his own solitary
questions and
examinations. This, indeed, is the fate of most research in most
disciplines, to make the
smallest, least threatening, possible addition to "current knowledge."
Anything more would be
presumptuous, anything more might elicit the fatal "Don't you know what
so-and-so is doing"
from a Peer Reviewer, anything more might invite dismissal as some
off-the-wall speculation
-- not serious work.
So Feynman "stopped trying to keep up with the scientific literature or
compete with other
theorists at their own game, and went back to his roots, comparing
experiment with theory,
making guesses that were all his own..." [p. 186]. Thus he became productive
again, as he
had been when he had just been working things out for himself, before
becoming a famous physicist.
While this is an important lesson for science, it is a supreme lesson for
philosophy,
where "current knowledge" can be dominated by theories, like Logical
Positivism or deconstruction,
that are simply incoherent. Trying to keep up with literature like that is a
complete waste of time, even if contributions to it earn the praise of
reviewers and are snapped up by presitigious journals.
To participate in this may prudently recommend itself to the careerist, but
it holds little hope of making
any real contributions to the progress of philosophy.
To philosophy they are assigned with their wives and children, and in
spite of Petrarch's povera e nude vai filosofia ["you go poor and nude,
philosophy"], they have taken a chance on it. [Arthur Schopenhauer, The
World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, E.F.J. Payne translation, Dover,
1858, p.xxvi]
New ideas do not come from committees, and although this dynamic is so well
understood
as to be part of folk wisdom, researchers in many areas of science or
scholarship are so blinded
by their own herd mentality, or collectivist ideology, or rent-seeking
behavior, that they commonly act,
both for themselves and in judgment of others, in denial of it. Of all the
"curious" lessons of
Richard Feynman's life, this is one of the best.
Ken Smith
John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote:
[...]
>I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback
>does not have much chance of increasing the high harmonics when it is
>used to suppress the low harmonics,
This is not completely true. If the amplifier's phase margin is less than
45 degrees, there is peaking near the gain cross over frequency. If a
harmonic is within this band, it tends to get boosted by the peaking.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
John Popelish
Agreed. I also failed to mention the production of new harmonics by
intermodulation.
--
John Popelish
John Woodgate
wrote (in <3FBC34BD...@rica.net>) about 'A little feedback worse
than none at all?', on Thu, 20 Nov 2003:
>I think the important fact to keep in mind is that negative feedback
>does not have much chance of increasing the high harmonics when it is
>used to suppress the low harmonics,
Kevin has already explained how feedback does indeed create high-order
harmonics which were not present in the open-loop condition, by
intermodulation (in the non-linearity in the forward path through the
amplifier) between fed-back harmonics and the fundamental or other fed-
back harmonics.
The difference between KA and me on this point is basically that KA says
that the high-order harmonic amplitudes monotonically decrease as the
feedback factor is increased, where as I don't agree that it's
monotonic.
Kevin Aylward
> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>
>> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
>
>
> Actually, this one :)
> Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the
{snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever}
> Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle,
> surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals:
> DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was
> what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress.
> The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a
> breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and
> plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186]
>
However, I agree with this point. It is why I have came up with:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html
"Understanding" itself requires consciousness, therefore consciousness
cannot be "understood" without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is intrinsically
unsolvable as it is self referral.
I admit, I have been pretty much ignorant of what people were doing in
this field. They missed this trivial fact, and have spent years pissing
about on an unsolvable problem.
{snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever}
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>
>>> hey, problem, what problem ?, the 'web-gen."
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>> I don't think you know where I'm coming from. I am not alone in my
>> view of physics. There are many well respected physicists that
>> reject the daft add-on interpretations of QM. e.g Leslie
>> Ballentine's text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development", of
>> Simon Frazer Univesity, with the Quantum Ensemble Interpretation.
>
> I couldn't care less where 'you're coming from'
> It's your feeble quality of arguments, the sheer lack of
Since you have *not* refuted *any* of my arguments, it is clear just who
is lacking in has feeble arguments, knowledge and ability. Making such
vacuous, unsupported claims, does not make them valid.
> knowledge, the obnoxious condescendending style,
> that tells us enough about you.
You mean you don't like being proven wrong.
>
> Confronted with the simplest of simple, no freshman in
> physics would have any problem with, like the doppler
> question i put to you, you couldn't get it right, simple.
What the $#@% are you going on about. This is damn lie. What *exactly*
did I say that was incorrect? I made a comment on Doppler. Clearly you
did not have sufficient knowledge to do the calculations yourself, so I
had to do them for you. Then your ignorance showed that you didn't even
understand such a basic calculation.
You make a &*%$ing claim here that I did not understand anything, yet
you made no argument *whatsoever* to refute my calculations. Your claim
is baseless. Explain exactly what I got wrong, or retract your lie.
> Never mind you conveniently neglected to inform us
> what bearing this effect, with any musical signal only having
> such magnitude at oh, say, 1 % of the time, actually has
> on the perceived sound.
Because I assumed that you had some knowledge of the Bessel series
expansion of an FM wave. Sadly I was mistaken. You comment here of "only
1% of the time", shows you have not got the *slightest* idea of the
mathematics involved here. Your a rank amateur. Let me put you in the
picture.
V = Vp.sin(Wc.t + m.sin(Wm.t))
This generates a whole series of *continuously* present frequencies, the
magnitude of each harmonics weighted by m. The peak value of the
frequency shift is the value that one uses to calculate what the
spectrum spread is, essentially by Jn(mf). You don't just go, oh well,
its only that for a bit of the time, so the frequencies are only on for
a bit of the time. You obviously have done no graduate maths whatsoever,
so stop making daft claims on things that you can't possible understand.
It is well known that frequency modulation is far more audibly
detectable that harmonic distortion. I will leave it you as an exercise
to look up what the amplitudes of the harmonics of an FM wave when it
has a *peak* modulation index of 0.3%.
>And then the whole raft of
> unoutspoken beliefs you hold,
And just art thous unoutspoketh beliefs spoketh?
> most of them blatantly wrong,
> eg. that perception of distortion is simply a linear additional
> effect, so how can 0.1 % of X be noticiable when there is
> 1 % of Y....
I said no such thing. Your just making this up as you go along. What I
did say was that if distortion was below 0.01%, it is inaudible.
I made no claim whatsoever that there was a linear relation between
distortion and perceived audio detriment. *Show* me such a quote, or
retract your lies.
The deal here, is that you have failed to refute anything I have said,
therefore you simple lie about what I have said. The record is clear on
this for all to see. All your doing here is embarrassing yourself.
>
> In fact, you remind me a lot of the athropologists of the
> old days, who did nothing but reasoning about their findings
> from their 'superiour white man' position, ascribing any
> find to stupidity, primitivity, etc.
> For instance, there was this tribe who had this ritual,
> where if someone got seriously ill, it ended with hanging
> a particular produce from a tree, near a river, for seven
> days, then brew some medicine from that.
> Stupid, placebo effect, etc.
> Until some biochemist tracked this story and found out
> that precisely these circumstances promoted the growth
> of a mold that had very penicilline-like effects...
My comments are made by my years of experiance in said subject matters.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/founder.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/studiomaster/Studiomaster.htm
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html
The fact that you are lacking in any such qualifications is evidence of
your inability to understand my knowledge, not that mine is lacking.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
MDHJWH
> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> :
> : "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> : news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> :
> : : >>
> : : >> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
>
>
> Actually, this one :)
> Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical
Wonderful stuff !!!!!!
...................................was it Cicero who said "He has the
dust of a thousand libraries in his mind"
Ayn Marx
Ruud Broens
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: > news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
: >>
: >> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: >> message news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: >>>>> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
: >
: >
: > Actually, this one :)
: > Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the
:
: {snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever}
:
: > Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle,
: > surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals:
: > DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was
: > what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little progress.
: > The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a
: > breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and
: > plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186]
: >
:
: However, I agree with this point. It is why I have came up with:
: Kevin Aylward
: salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
: http://www.anasoft.co.uk
: SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
: Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
: Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
:
Now why is it, that I have a little piece of paper here in front of me
scribbled in the middle : "Kevin will quote the disregard bit"
and around that : ..but will he get the point that 'true' scientists
take a look across the borders of their own discipline..?
:)
Kevin, have to admit, you've got the balls, but..have you got the moves ?
Rudy
Ruud Broens
"MDHJWH" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message : > "Ruud Broens"
<bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: > news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
: > :
: > : "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
: > : news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: > :
: > : : >>
: > : : >> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
: >
: >
: > Actually, this one :)
: > Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the sabbatical
: > year that Dick had spent as a 'graduate student' in biology.etc
snip,..
:
: Wonderful stuff !!!!!!
: ...................................was it Cicero who said "He has the
: dust of a thousand libraries in his mind"
:
: Ayn Marx
Hi there, MDHJWH,
yes, it was, thanks Kevin, for having me check out
if something was readily available on the web.
I have been known to run up ye 'old IQ barometer
quite a bit,
but that don't mean nothin' to me,
in most matters that *matter*
i consider females to be simply streets ahead
of us testosteron-drivein' machines
Tiz why i like their company..
What do you think, MDHJWH,
is there hope yet
for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward
if he hires a female co-writer
to make it pallatable ?
:-)
Rudy
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:MOFvb.112$V15...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>> Ruud Broens wrote:
>>> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>>>
>>>> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> message news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
>>>>>>> What particular quantum physics "findings" did you have in mind?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, this one :)
>>> Feynman had got to know [biologist James] Watson during the
>>
>> {snip as nothing to do with the question whatsever}
>>
>>> Feynman held up the pad he had been doodling on. In the middle,
>>> surrounded by all kinds of scribble, was one word, in capitals:
>>> DISREGARD. That, he told Goodstein, was the whole point. That was
>>> what he had forgotten, and why he had been making so little
>>> progress. The way for researchers like himself and Watson to make a
>>> breakthrough was to be ignorant of what everybody else was doing and
>>> plough their own furrow. [pp. 185-186]
>>>
>>
>> However, I agree with this point. It is why I have came up with:
>>
>
> Now why is it, that I have a little piece of paper here in front of me
> scribbled in the middle : "Kevin will quote the disregard bit"
> and around that : ..but will he get the point that 'true' scientists
> take a look across the borders of their own discipline..?
Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design,
i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years.
I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy.
I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass.
I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass.
I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass.
I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain
human behaviour.
I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on
occasions.
I write and record all my own backing midi tracks.
I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs.
You appear to be claiming that I am stuck in one box. I trust the above
will clarify how sadly misguided and worthless your views are. Its
certainly clear just who has "A little knowledge that is worse than none
at all" in this NG.
And do let us all know when you actually find any errors in:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
Ruud Broens
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: > message news:MOFvb.112$V15...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: >> Ruud Broens wrote:
: >>> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: >>> news:3fbe693b$0$129$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
: >>>>
: >>>> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
: >>>> message news:0m1vb.68$eL...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
: > Now why is it, that I have a little piece of paper here in front of me
: > scribbled in the middle : "Kevin will quote the disregard bit"
: > and around that : ..but will he get the point that 'true' scientists
: > take a look across the borders of their own discipline..?
:
: Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design,
: i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years.
:
: I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy.
: I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass.
: I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass.
: I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass.
: I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain
: human behaviour.
: I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on
: occasions.
: I write and record all my own backing midi tracks.
: I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs.
:
: You appear to be claiming that I am stuck in one box. I trust the above
: will clarify how sadly misguided and worthless your views are. Its
: certainly clear just who has "A little knowledge that is worse than none
: at all" in this NG.
Temper, temper. He you know about the high blood-pressure statistics, too ?
Nah, won't enter that typical male thing there, curriculum peeing contest.
Just a final recap then:
))"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk>
news:QpJub.220$pu6...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
))[snip]
))> Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
))> sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of
))> its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is.
))> It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable.
))How many boards do you need to pull out of HAL9000 before it
))looses it's consciousness ;)
))--
))Thanks, Frank.
(---- here Frank puts to you a humorous but also very to the point
(---- question. At what point *do* you consider a machine running
(---- algorithms, adaptive neural nets, etc. to be conscious / self -
(----aware / capable of multiple decisions under the same 'input'
(----condition (no random gen., puleasz), etc, etc.
no simpel mapping there, eh, 'all in the wash' won't help us very much
there, now, will it ? Ahh, but it 'just happens' all there is to it, some
'critical mass'. have an estimate there, at your choosing, say of
MB of memory use, # lines of code, # of nodal net points, whatever,
where you can definitely say: he, we've got consciousness right
here, it's happening !
,then see how that computes with say the brainsize of a worm,,
or where, in fact, would *you* say in the animal kingdom
'starts' conscious behaviour ?
Now, any genius if read about (many) or have had the pleasure to meet in
the flesh (3) would be only too happy, to debate such a question..Kevin--?
Technical
: Adding in the
: standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
: whatsoever that your claim is supported.
You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having
this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so.
Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so
PA drivers, couple of months old.
(*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....)
hm, bit of trouble there rendering
to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs..:)
you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid:
at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less
in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics
just appearing. <snippet end
Now your kind of thinking would not easily lead you onto an original
thought, such
as this guy's, don't wanna bother lookin it up, surely out there, who added
some
2H distortion to an amp, theorising that tube amplifiers sounding so good
could
be because the generated distortion cancels (some of) the drivers'
distortion.
Simple, clear, elegant followed by measurement -science- look it up,
will ya ?
Oh dear, the doppler thing. keeps bothering you, eh ?
false assumpion one there:
drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels.
He, done some measurements there, lately ? brand name, type,
protocol & results please.....soory kevin, cone break-up will make
the math somewhat more complicated there, no ?
And you still haven't told us, where that sin was in your li'lle form..
Next...
Know what, I think, for your sake, better to really end it, this time
here.
Bye
Rudy
N. Thornton
Hi Ruud.
A nice account.
> New ideas do not come from committees,
I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both
methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of
the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each
has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style
of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress.
The reason most people produce only minor progress is thats all theyre
able to do. This is the same thing as you said, put differently, that
they dismiss anything threatening, thus blocking their own path. And
that is an entire mindset no less. It is not a minor block to
sidestep, it is what makes people limited, what differentiates the
movers from the mediocre. One can not get free from the mindset that
limits people easily, it is a mindset not a thought.
Its late and I'm probably as clear as mud... to break out of the
mindset one is taught is something few manage. And that, to me, isnt
just about electronics, but the many seemingly unrelated ideas that
impact on how I approach tronics. Ie to grasp a subject one has to
grasp other subjects: in the case of electronics one has to grasp
concepts of business and the people.
Bed.
Regards, NT
This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical
matters.
Ruud Broens
"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.03112...@posting.google.com...
: Hi Ruud.
:
:
: A nice account.
:
: > New ideas do not come from committees,
:
: I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both
: methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of
: the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each
: has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style
: of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress.
Of course. But it was particulary humourous in light of
: No it doesn't. That's why I mentioned it. You must have missed my bit
: about "popular descriptions of physics".
--One would hardly call Feynman a bantam popular paperback writer--
and
> books, colleges, the accumulated findings of generations
> of people, many of whom no doubt a lot smarter than either
> you or me,
The truth, most are not.
--Must be a publication on self-inflating ego coming forth from
KA...brrrr.:)
: The reason most people produce only minor progress is thats all theyre
: able to do. This is the same thing as you said, put differently, that
: they dismiss anything threatening, thus blocking their own path. And
: that is an entire mindset no less. It is not a minor block to
: sidestep, it is what makes people limited, what differentiates the
: movers from the mediocre. One can not get free from the mindset that
: limits people easily, it is a mindset not a thought.
:
: Its late and I'm probably as clear as mud... to break out of the
: mindset one is taught is something few manage. And that, to me, isnt
: just about electronics, but the many seemingly unrelated ideas that
: impact on how I approach tronics. Ie to grasp a subject one has to
: grasp other subjects: in the case of electronics one has to grasp
: concepts of business and the people.
:
: Bed.
:
:
: Regards, NT
:
: This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical
: matters.
Don't let me keep you from it :)
Rudy
Phil Allison
> : Adding in the
> : standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
> : whatsoever that your claim is supported.
>
> You should take up some german lessons, Kevin.
** Ruud should see a psychiatrist, a nice German one !!!
>They *are* having> this reputation for thoroughness,
** Ruthlessness and and insanity are their real fortes.
> Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so
> PA drivers, couple of months old.
> (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....)
> hm, bit of trouble there rendering
> to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs..:)
> you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid:
> at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less
> in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics
> just appearing. <snippet end
** How the HECK does some PA driver (size , identity ??) operating at a
few watts input, restricted to an 80 Hz low frequency limit have the
*slightest thing* to do with hi-fi speakers at higher input levels and all
audio frequencies ????????????
Ever heard of comparing apples with apples - Ruud ?????
> Oh dear, the Doppler thing. keeps bothering you, eh ?
> false assumption one there:
> drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels.
> He, done some measurements there, lately ? brand name, type,
> protocol & results please.....sorry kevin, cone break-up will make
> the math somewhat more complicated there, no ?
** Cone break up ( so called) does not cause FM of the input signal.
The Doppler effect does.
It also causes harmonic distortion of a single frequency.
see: http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/Doppler1.html
.......... Phil
Ruud Broens
:
: "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
: : :
: : Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design,
: : i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years.
: :
: : I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy.
///i like to cook. spice islands brand spices are magical
: : I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass.
///not been playing bridge much, lately
: : I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass.
: : I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass.
many other things..
: : I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain
: : human behaviour.
///djeez, for the life of me, can't explain what i'm doing here, myself
: : I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on
: : occasions.
: : I write and record all my own backing midi tracks.
: : I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs.
Bonus points, extra for the music things. mean it.
Now for a challenge, could make you a nice revenue (well, at least
GBP 20).
Along with all my postings in this thread there are typo's.
Or are they ?
Now, write me a program, that parses a text (say, whati'm about to post
or e-mail) and can generate some subtle changes in words, order,
letters in such a way, that it
relates to the subject of the text, yet may convey an altogether
unexpected second (..third) layer of 'meaning'
relates to the 'style' of the included original post to create
some humorous tone
has the option of subsequently loadable sets of rules/
neural net weighing factors?/anything if it works to
work in many languages, making possible things like
cross language jokes
A link to the program, I 'll be a good sport and buy it
-on your word - 'on the spot'
(well, not if it's GBP 17.500, obviously:)
Is there snooker on today ?
Rudy
Kevin Aylward
> "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:<3fbeb05f$0$118$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
>
>
>
> Hi Ruud.
>
>
> A nice account.
>
>> New ideas do not come from committees,
>
> I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both
> methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of
> the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each
> has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style
> of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress.
>
> The reason most people produce only minor progress is thats all theyre
> able to do. This is the same thing as you said, put differently, that
> they dismiss anything threatening, thus blocking their own path. And
> that is an entire mindset no less. It is not a minor block to
> sidestep, it is what makes people limited, what differentiates the
> movers from the mediocre. One can not get free from the mindset that
> limits people easily, it is a mindset not a thought.
The reason for this, is of course, because our brains are Darwinian
Machines, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html. That
is, they operate by variation, selection and replication. Natural
selection of memes is a slow process. The Darwinian process results in
us preferentially coping popular memes, and rejecting unpopular memes,
because those selections, by assumption, are the memes that are
replicating the fastest. "What we observe mostly, is that which
replicates the most". So, our brain cant operate in any other way.
Snippet from above link.
********
Electronic Engineer as a Darwinian Machine
An Electronic Engineer copies existing circuits into his brain. He than
varies those circuits to obtain new ones. He than analyses them to
select the good ones. It is held that no other fundamental process are
required. An Electronic Engineer is thus a Darwinian Machine, as are all
of us.
**********
>
> Its late and I'm probably as clear as mud... to break out of the
> mindset one is taught is something few manage. And that, to me, isnt
> just about electronics, but the many seemingly unrelated ideas that
> impact on how I approach tronics. Ie to grasp a subject one has to
> grasp other subjects: in the case of electronics one has to grasp
> concepts of business and the people.
Thats correct.
>
> Bed.
>
>
> Regards, NT
>
> This thread reminds me of my discussions with Kevin on medical
> matters.
I don't recall that one.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
"Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
Kevin Aylward
What part of "I have proven that consciousness can not be derived" do
you have trouble with?
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/understanding.html
""Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
without referring to itself for the explanation,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral"
Your question is intrinsically unsolvable.
>
> Now, any genius if read about (many) or have had the pleasure to meet
> in the flesh (3) would be only too happy, to debate such a
> question..Kevin--?
>
> Technical
>> Adding in the
>> standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
>> whatsoever that your claim is supported.
>
> You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having
> this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so.
> Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so
> PA drivers, couple of months old.
> (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....)
> hm, bit of trouble there rendering
> to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs..:)
> you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid:
> at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less
> in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics
> just appearing. <snippet end
Phil trashed your argument here, so no point on me commenting.
>
> Now your kind of thinking would not easily lead you onto an original
> thought, such
> as this guy's, don't wanna bother lookin it up, surely out there, who
> added some
> 2H distortion to an amp, theorising that tube amplifiers sounding so
> good could
> be because the generated distortion cancels (some of) the drivers'
> distortion.
Nonsense. No realistic chance of cancellations at all. Cancellations
require high accuracy, i.e. A-B.
Tube amps sound good, imo, because it just happens that some types of
distortion can sound cleaner, inaddition to othe fcators such as good
transient dynamic range. This is well known. There are products on the
market that add HF distortion to clean up old recordings.
> Simple, clear, elegant followed by measurement -science- look
> it up, will ya ?
>
> Oh dear, the doppler thing. keeps bothering you, eh ?
> false assumpion one there:
Oh?
> drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels.
> He, done some measurements there, lately ? brand name, type,
> protocol & results please.....soory kevin, cone break-up will make
> the math somewhat more complicated there, no ?
> And you still haven't told us, where that sin was in your li'lle
> form..
>
Again, Phil trashed your argument here, so no point on me commenting.
> Next...
> Know what, I think, for your sake, better to really end it, this time
> here.
> Bye
Yeah right on. *Nothing* you have said so far has been correct or
useful.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
MDHJWH
Snip<.....
> I cant help but offer an elementary point, and that is that it is both
> methods that produce results, not just one or the other. The sum of
> the progress we have today has come from using both approaches. Each
> has significant pros and cons, and tends to produce a different style
> of result. But clearly both have produced plenty of progress.
Idead, however,whilst I agree with the dangers of working as a member
of
an academic community, tying one's research to its literature and
observing its procedures, it is
something of a balancing act. The most obvious danger of not
following the literature is that one may
end up simply re-inventing the wheel. There is also a more subtle
problem, particularly in philosophy, that most abstract of
disciplines. And that is the issue of making sense at all. I have for
a long time been against the notion of "private sense." The only
touch stone of sense is communal
interchange. Even then there is the possibility of a group going off
on a romp of its own divorced from the rest of humanity; perhaps this
is what happened to German philosophy: does Heidegger really make
sense or is he just a grotesque imposition? However, I allow that one
can ask what constitutes philosophical sense. Indeed we must.
But this is where the balancing act comes in, because the novel is
always going to appear more or less
obscure to those who first encounter it. The new disrupts established
patterns of thought and with them disrupted it is a while before we
can find our way around again. I also allow that some great
innovations, or renovations of thought, have come from those who
worked in a relatively isolated way. Wittgenstein comes to mind
here.( though it is odd to say that someone living in Cambridge was
"isolated") I suppose it was a self-imposed distancing of himself from
those around him.
In the end, every utterance is novel, even if it is just a
matter of using an utterly standard form of words on a given occasion:
that moment has not occurred before and while not recur. How do we
understand anything, see its point on a given occasion, or whatever?
Of course, apart from new words, the neologist most often working by
combining parts from other words, e.g. "metrosexual", one can have
current words involved in new constructions, and poetry is the best
illustration of this. What I am talking about is the creativity of
human language, a matter of which Chomsky made much. And there is not
only the creativity of the speaker, but the correlative creativity of
the hearer. Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can
understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years
as children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only
a finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty?
There's my pleasant way off-topic Sunday afternoon philosophical
sermon, or rant. (depending on how happy you bottle-heads are with
it.)
Ayn Marx
N. Thornton
"Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:<3fbfe2af$0$213$1b62...@news.euronet.nl>...
> "Kevin Aylward" <kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
> : Lets get this straight shall we. My basic "trade" is analogue design,
> : i.e. my basic discipline, I have ben doing this for over 20 years.
> :
> : I have have wrote a 100k spice program that people buy.
> : I have done graduate level general relativity, A pass.
> : I have done graduate level Quantum Mechanics, B pass.
> : I have done graduate level Quantum Statistics, A pass.
> : I have uniquely constructed a gene-meme replicator theory to explain
> : human behaviour.
> : I have been playing electric guitar since I was 11 and still gig on
> : occasions.
> : I write and record all my own backing midi tracks.
> : I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs.
> :
> : You appear to be claiming that I am stuck in one box. I trust the above
> : will clarify how sadly misguided and worthless your views are.
The above only tells us about Kevin, not Ruud.
> Just a final recap then:
> ))[snip]
>
> ))> Consciousness is simple a result that occurs when systems get
> ))> sufficiently complicated. However, although it is *only* a function of
> ))> its mass-energy parts, it can not be derived from its parts. It just is.
> ))> It is an example of a Goedel system. True, but not derivable.
>
> ))How many boards do you need to pull out of HAL9000 before it
> ))looses it's consciousness ;)
>
> ))--
> ))Thanks, Frank.
>
> (---- here Frank puts to you a humorous but also very to the point
> (---- question. At what point *do* you consider a machine running
> (---- algorithms, adaptive neural nets, etc. to be conscious / self -
> (----aware / capable of multiple decisions under the same 'input'
> (----condition (no random gen., puleasz), etc, etc.
>
> no simpel mapping there, eh, 'all in the wash' won't help us very much
> there, now, will it ? Ahh, but it 'just happens' all there is to it, some
> 'critical mass'. have an estimate there, at your choosing, say of
> MB of memory use, # lines of code, # of nodal net points, whatever,
> where you can definitely say: he, we've got consciousness right
> here, it's happening !
> ,then see how that computes with say the brainsize of a worm,,
> or where, in fact, would *you* say in the animal kingdom
> 'starts' conscious behaviour ?
Consider even the brain of a moth, brain smaller than a pinhead. Yet
capable of quite a bit, consciousness, and much more.
Consider the complexity of the entire internet, with all the computers
that are online at any one moment, each with its own added complexity.
Any sign of consciousness there?
> : Adding in the
> : standard 1% to 10% of normal speaker THD/IMD, and there is no chance
> : whatsoever that your claim is supported.
>
> You should take up some german lessons, Kevin. They *are* having
> this reputation for thorougness, gruendlichheit, justly so.
> Here is a snippet from a review of a dozen or so
> PA drivers, couple of months old.
> (*&uu^6..stzen....error in line 2270....)
> hm, bit of trouble there rendering
> to text all them wasserfall spektrum mlssa graphs..:)
> you'll have to make do with my text description here i'm afraid:
> at 100 dB SPL, all drivers produced 0.5 % 2H distortion or less
> in the 80-1000 Hz region. 3H well below that, higher harmonics
> just appearing. <snippet end
Without any further information these 2 views are perfectly
compatible. It is interesting that such a result should be limited to
just 1kHz, a mere 1/20th of the audio band. To my mind that brings up
too many questions to make the figure of good use.
> false assumpion one there:
> drivers move from 20-1000 Hz as a piston. At all levels.
Many types of drivers are never piston like.
Regards, NT
MDHJWH
>
> What do you think, MDHJWH,
> is there hope yet
> for a decent publication coming from Kevin Aylward
> if he hires a female co-writer
> to make it pallatable ?
And what kind of publication is it you refer too young man ?
These days 'decent' covers a multitude of sins !
W e hope it's nothing with phalic overtones such as :- "Trans
Inductance in Single Ended Triodes'
Ayn Marx
John Woodgate
wrote (in <a7076635.03112...@posting.google.com>) about 'A
little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
>Any sign of consciousness there?
Haven't seen any, have you? The structure of the Internet might be
compared with that of a bee hive, but there isn't a strong central
control paralleling the queen's pheromones.
I think it's more likely that machine self-awareness will emerge, if at
all, from a single computer which has many sensors sampling its
environment. Once it can 'make sense' of its environment (whatever that
means in detail[1]), it can then recognize 'self' and 'not self', and
the rest should follow.
[1] We know it's some form of high-level cognitive function, because
sufferers from autism can't do it. More research in this area could
advance our understanding of what the conditions for machine self-
awareness to emerge actually are.
Paul Burridge
<kevindotayl...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I have developed my own unique mathematical proofs.
I'm sure you have, Kev. ;->
John Woodgate
wrote (in <808df0f8.03112...@posting.google.com>) about 'A
little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
>Chomsky was much impressed by the fact that we can
>understand a potential infinity of sentences, yet in only a few years as
>children, when we learn our first language, we are exposed to only a
>finite number of them. Whence this capacity to deal with novelty?
I don't see it as a big deal at all. Language is a way of coding thought
for transmission to others. One might as well wonder how it comes about
that if you learn 26 characters in Morse code, you can send and receive
messages of unlimited length and complexity.
Patrick Turner
MDHJWH wrote:
Ah, Sundays.
Ppl ask me
"howya goin?",
and I answer,
"By car..."
I get
"Huh?"
"Yeah, when I work out why I am, I'll tellya how I am,
but meanwhile, I have to think about the question, its sunday".
On monday to saturday, I know my direction OK.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
MDHJWH wrote:
An SET amp using a 211 tube can be a subconscious threat
to any female wandering into a male listening dominion.
The 211 is hot, large, and glows and pulses with life, and upstanding,
( and delightful!)
But the best things in life, including sex, are unnerving, and judging
by the sheer mountains of books, paintings, and music about love,
then sex is a threat, but one which few will ignore for long.
Now we have the symbol of the male phallus hitting us in the eye every time we
see a tube, but what is the audio equivalent of the female equipments?
Patrick Turner.
Kevin Aylward
> I read in sci.electronics.design that N. Thornton <big...@meeow.co.uk>
> wrote (in <a7076635.03112...@posting.google.com>) about 'A
> little knowledge worse than none at all?', on Sun, 23 Nov 2003:
>
>> Any sign of consciousness there?
>
> Haven't seen any, have you? The structure of the Internet might be
> compared with that of a bee hive, but there isn't a strong central
> control paralleling the queen's pheromones.
>
> I think it's more likely that machine self-awareness will emerge, if
> at all, from a single computer which has many sensors sampling its
> environment. Once it can 'make sense' of its environment (whatever
> that means in detail[1]), it can then recognize 'self' and 'not
> self', and the rest should follow.
>
> [1] We know it's some form of high-level cognitive function, because
> sufferers from autism can't do it. More research in this area could
> advance our understanding of what the conditions for machine self-
> awareness to emerge actually are.
Its a difficult problem. But for me, I am reasonably convinced it must
use many independent processors. A single computer won't cut the
mustard. The human brain is of the order of 100 Billion little Darwinian
computers all interconnected in a very complicated manner. Sensors by
themselves are not key. We can have someone becoming deaf dumb and
blind, but still being conscious. However, with no inputs whatsoever, in
the long run, I think consciousness would probably collapse by running
amuck.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html