Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz

On a sunny day (Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:43:08 +0000) it happened
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in
<1r2m054.1q0xoeb13sbyfqN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>

On 7/11/2024 1:50 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
 
[...]

LTSpice - in the right hands -
can help you understand what's going on on the bench quite a lot faster
than bench work on it's own.

 
It can help you understand what *should* be going on but bench work shows
you what is really going on and it is up to you to understand why.

 
But quite a lot of what you need to understand in bench work is captured
by a decent simulation, and a whole lot faster than you can capture it
on the bench.
 

learning by benchwork is slower because it is complicated by having to
deal with reality.

 
Simulations capture quite a lot of what is going on on the bench.
 
Sometimes the reality you have to deal with is easier to dig out of a
well-set up simulation because you can fiddle with stuff in the
simulation that you can't twiddle on the bench.
 
A great deal of electronic design is getting the right concepts
together, and while bench work is usually a safer way of doing that, it
can also be quite a lot slower.

>
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make, it is slower but safer and
more comprehensive.
>
>

The subjectivist audio people get quite sentimental about what their
golden ears tell them. Peter Baxandall was an objectivist.

>
Most of the fundamental progress in quality audio has been done by
objectivists.   Subjectivists enjoy playing about with it, but they
rarely discover more than a small part of the truth and usually
misunderstand the fundamentals of the process.
>
When PGAH Voigt invented the moving coil cutterhead (which was later
'stolen' by Arthur Haddy to become the Decca FFRR system and then
'stolen' again by Arnold Sugden to become the Connoisseur cutterhead),
he didn't have a signal generator or an objective source of sound.
Rather than rely on subjective effects, he equipped a piano with a
weight which could be dropped on the keys to generate a consistent sound
so that he could make objective measurements.
>
The BBC did a great deal of objective research on loudspeakers because
they found that different studios and microphones sounded better on
different loudspeakers and they weren't content to just accept this as
subjective audio folklore.  That research gave us a step improvement in
the quality of loudspeaker drive units.
>
I recently did a great deal of work to get the best bass response from a
loudspeaker in a small cabinet.  When I demonstrated it to a group of
record enthusiasts, one of them complained that it was playing notes
that weren't on the records.  I eventually discovered that he had always
listened to those records on a clockwork gramophone which, in spite of
its huge exponential acoustic transformer,. lost the bottom couple of
octaves.

Speakers and room acoustics...
I have some, everything is different, should be.
I liked the Quad electrostats, just have some chaep bass-reflex boxes now.
Much on bluetouth headphones these days listening to teefee.
Also when I practice playing on my keyboard, big Sennheiser HD201 headphones,
can make mistakes without upsetting Annie Whan.
Else Annie starts singing along at times.