Believe it or not, the Dolby noise-reduction system in the lowly cassette tape had their origins in radio astronomy work, where no hi-fi has gone before?
By: Ringo Bones
Most knowledgeable audiophiles – and probably even most radio astronomers – don’t know that Ray Dolby, of audio tape noise-reduction fame, did his early work in radio astronomy. This little noted and remembered factoid served as the basis for his inspiration in developing the Dolby-B type noise-reduction system. The very system that lifted the lowly cassette tape – developed by Philips as a lowly dictation recording medium – into the realm of convenient high fidelity audio home recording medium, thus earning Ray Dolby enormous wealth.
Ray Dolby’s early work in radio astronomy made him develop his electronic skills in developing ways to extract very weak cosmic signals from background radiation noise – and the increasingly “loud” Earth-based radio broadcast chatter. By the end of the Cold War, many radio astronomy communities had asked Dolby Labs – as a philanthropic gesture – to honor its founder’s origins and further Ray Dolby’s earlier work by applying some of their know-how toward reducing RF noise here on Earth. Particularly at frequencies of interest to radio astronomers.
By the end of 2009, something strange happened. Frank Drake – father of the Drake Equation often used to compute for the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe other than our own – had surmised that given the current trend to fiber-optic bound Internet telecommunications, our planet will soon be invisible to radio telescopes elsewhere in the Universe. Looks like those old Star Trek original series broadcast will soon be the last RF signals that we’ll be “accidentally” sending to space once Internet TV comes on line and gains worldwide acceptance. Looks like Ray Dolby’s noise-reduction system and analog TV signals streaming out into interstellar space will inevitably be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Surround Sound From Just Two Speakers?
The concept gained popularity during the 1990s as three-dimensional stereo or surround sound from two loudspeakers, but is it possible to have surround sound with just your front left and right speakers?
By: Ringo Bones
Older audiophiles would probably credit the 1957 EMI release called the SDDI stereo demonstration LP with its traffic noises, trains and an orchestra as the first two-channel surround sound capable recording. Yes, it has only left and right channels, but this EMI test LP record can project a soundfield behind you without the aid of rear speakers. By the late 1960s, probably by creative accident, Jimi Hendrix made his guitar fly around and behind the listeners head – something two-channel stereo supposedly can’t do – via creative flanging in the song Bold as Love from the album Axis Bold as Love. Unfortunately, no audio engineer during this time has reliably able to do the same with natural / field recordings – i.e. the sound of a bee buzzing in front then behind your head as it sounds in real life – using standard two-channel stereo.
Hence the hi-fi and record industry in the very tail end of the 1960s decided that since the multitudes already have stereo, maybe we’d introduce them to surround sound. And when 1970 came, everyone witnessed the birth of quadraphonic sound – it was called as such because educated people knew Latin in those days. Unfortunately, a format war resulted with many manufacturers introducing their own version of quadraphonic sound / four-channel surround-sound that the buying public became confused – and bought none. A surround-sound system based on a quad system patented by Peter Scheiber – i.e. Dolby Pro-Logic – which is very compatible to existing standard two-channel stereo was introduced too late, thus quadraphonic sound expired with barely a whimper in 1975.
Even though Dolby Pro-Logic eventually became the standard surround-sound format for home theatres of the 1980s, the prospect of getting surround-sound from just two front speakers is just too tempting a concept to ignore. A researcher from the Oxford Institute of Mathematics by the name of Michael Gerzon had been toying the idea at about the time when quadraphonic sound was on the wan that you don’t need four or more loudspeakers arranged around the listener for surround sound. Gerzon had uncovered during his research that it is possible to fool the brain into thinking that a sound lies behind you with just two front-placed speakers. That’s a lot of money and unnecessary boxes saved, thus various companies influenced by the data gathered in Michael Gerson’s research had released their version of two-channel surround-sound that are - fortunately for us audiophiles - compatible with each other. Thus came Thorn EMI Sensaura, OM 3D system and Roland’s RSS system – all three dimensional stereo surround-sound systems that works with just two channels at the beginning of the 1990s.
At around near the end of 1993, the Thorn EMI Sensaura two-channel compatible surround-sound system was announced to the unsuspecting audio world as a surround-sound system that uses your existing standard two-channel stereo. Developed by EMI in their Central Research labs by Dr. Alastair Sibbald and team, Sensaura is an ingenious and complex recording trick that relies on a comprehensive understanding of psychoacoustics to work properly. It processes acoustic positional cues into a recording, in order for the ear / brain system to hear sounds from all around the room. And the end result can work whether recorded on CD, LP or cassette tape – and Sensaura’s effects can only get better the better the recording format sounds. And it even enhances high-resolution digital audio formats like 24-bit 192-Khz sampled DVD-Audio.
Another system with an almost similar principle that had been first made commercially available to the public since 1991 is Perfect Pitch Music’s OM 3D system. Used in their Francinstein Stereo Enhancement System Plus, the OM 3D system uses psychoacoustic cues to position individual sonic images within a 360 degree arc anywhere about the listening position. The OM 3Dsystem has been successfully used on CDs, cassette tapes, and radio broadcasts, it has even been used by musicians and recording engineers to enhance musical styles as diverse as experimental jazz and children’s educational tapes.
Like Sensaura and Roland’s RSS system, OM 3D uses left-right channel time delays to make low frequency sounds appear to come from beyond the boundary of the loudspeakers. In fact low-frequency stereo 3D stereo is relatively easy to create. It is at high frequencies that the 3D system / two-channel surround-sound systems previously mentioned has to be really clever. Because our ear / brain system determines acoustic directions at high frequencies by analyzing the tonal spectrum of a sound as it enters the auditory canal.
Unfortunately, as all of these three-dimensional stereo systems became popular, competing discrete digital surround sound systems – like Dolby digital AC3 and DTS – were introduced during the mid 1990s. Though an overwhelming application of the two competing discrete digital-based surround-sound systems were for movie soundtracks, a majority of audio-store “cowboys” had the brilliant idea of demo-ing The Eagles’ Hell Freezes Over DTS surround encoded DVD to death. Thus making your 1990s era home theatre customer inextricably linking DTS surround-sound with The Eagles’ Hell Freezes Over DVDs.
Since 1990, the audiophile label Chesky had been featuring three-dimensional stereo demo tracks in their test CDs. Though it doesn’t say on the CD liner notes, but many “mainstream” CD recordings that had came my way since 1991 had demonstrated surround-sound capability in my standard two-channel stereo set-up. Like the studio version of Dead Skin Mask by Slayer from their Seasons in the Abyss album when the hapless victim of Ed Gein had been calling him from behind my back even though my stereo only has two front speakers. There are now probably a large number of CDs out there that has already been three-dimensionally encoded that only became apparent if your main front speakers are properly toed in.
By: Ringo Bones
Older audiophiles would probably credit the 1957 EMI release called the SDDI stereo demonstration LP with its traffic noises, trains and an orchestra as the first two-channel surround sound capable recording. Yes, it has only left and right channels, but this EMI test LP record can project a soundfield behind you without the aid of rear speakers. By the late 1960s, probably by creative accident, Jimi Hendrix made his guitar fly around and behind the listeners head – something two-channel stereo supposedly can’t do – via creative flanging in the song Bold as Love from the album Axis Bold as Love. Unfortunately, no audio engineer during this time has reliably able to do the same with natural / field recordings – i.e. the sound of a bee buzzing in front then behind your head as it sounds in real life – using standard two-channel stereo.
Hence the hi-fi and record industry in the very tail end of the 1960s decided that since the multitudes already have stereo, maybe we’d introduce them to surround sound. And when 1970 came, everyone witnessed the birth of quadraphonic sound – it was called as such because educated people knew Latin in those days. Unfortunately, a format war resulted with many manufacturers introducing their own version of quadraphonic sound / four-channel surround-sound that the buying public became confused – and bought none. A surround-sound system based on a quad system patented by Peter Scheiber – i.e. Dolby Pro-Logic – which is very compatible to existing standard two-channel stereo was introduced too late, thus quadraphonic sound expired with barely a whimper in 1975.
Even though Dolby Pro-Logic eventually became the standard surround-sound format for home theatres of the 1980s, the prospect of getting surround-sound from just two front speakers is just too tempting a concept to ignore. A researcher from the Oxford Institute of Mathematics by the name of Michael Gerzon had been toying the idea at about the time when quadraphonic sound was on the wan that you don’t need four or more loudspeakers arranged around the listener for surround sound. Gerzon had uncovered during his research that it is possible to fool the brain into thinking that a sound lies behind you with just two front-placed speakers. That’s a lot of money and unnecessary boxes saved, thus various companies influenced by the data gathered in Michael Gerson’s research had released their version of two-channel surround-sound that are - fortunately for us audiophiles - compatible with each other. Thus came Thorn EMI Sensaura, OM 3D system and Roland’s RSS system – all three dimensional stereo surround-sound systems that works with just two channels at the beginning of the 1990s.
At around near the end of 1993, the Thorn EMI Sensaura two-channel compatible surround-sound system was announced to the unsuspecting audio world as a surround-sound system that uses your existing standard two-channel stereo. Developed by EMI in their Central Research labs by Dr. Alastair Sibbald and team, Sensaura is an ingenious and complex recording trick that relies on a comprehensive understanding of psychoacoustics to work properly. It processes acoustic positional cues into a recording, in order for the ear / brain system to hear sounds from all around the room. And the end result can work whether recorded on CD, LP or cassette tape – and Sensaura’s effects can only get better the better the recording format sounds. And it even enhances high-resolution digital audio formats like 24-bit 192-Khz sampled DVD-Audio.
Another system with an almost similar principle that had been first made commercially available to the public since 1991 is Perfect Pitch Music’s OM 3D system. Used in their Francinstein Stereo Enhancement System Plus, the OM 3D system uses psychoacoustic cues to position individual sonic images within a 360 degree arc anywhere about the listening position. The OM 3Dsystem has been successfully used on CDs, cassette tapes, and radio broadcasts, it has even been used by musicians and recording engineers to enhance musical styles as diverse as experimental jazz and children’s educational tapes.
Like Sensaura and Roland’s RSS system, OM 3D uses left-right channel time delays to make low frequency sounds appear to come from beyond the boundary of the loudspeakers. In fact low-frequency stereo 3D stereo is relatively easy to create. It is at high frequencies that the 3D system / two-channel surround-sound systems previously mentioned has to be really clever. Because our ear / brain system determines acoustic directions at high frequencies by analyzing the tonal spectrum of a sound as it enters the auditory canal.
Unfortunately, as all of these three-dimensional stereo systems became popular, competing discrete digital surround sound systems – like Dolby digital AC3 and DTS – were introduced during the mid 1990s. Though an overwhelming application of the two competing discrete digital-based surround-sound systems were for movie soundtracks, a majority of audio-store “cowboys” had the brilliant idea of demo-ing The Eagles’ Hell Freezes Over DTS surround encoded DVD to death. Thus making your 1990s era home theatre customer inextricably linking DTS surround-sound with The Eagles’ Hell Freezes Over DVDs.
Since 1990, the audiophile label Chesky had been featuring three-dimensional stereo demo tracks in their test CDs. Though it doesn’t say on the CD liner notes, but many “mainstream” CD recordings that had came my way since 1991 had demonstrated surround-sound capability in my standard two-channel stereo set-up. Like the studio version of Dead Skin Mask by Slayer from their Seasons in the Abyss album when the hapless victim of Ed Gein had been calling him from behind my back even though my stereo only has two front speakers. There are now probably a large number of CDs out there that has already been three-dimensionally encoded that only became apparent if your main front speakers are properly toed in.
The Diorama Effect in Stereo Imaging and Soundstaging
First observed as a visual artifact in 3-D cinematography, does the “diorama effect” also occurs in the world of audio?
By: Ringo Bones
Everyone might have very well underestimated the influence of James Cameron’s Avatar. Not only does it help sell a new generation of wide and flat 3-D capable video displays for the home, but also made everyone yet again notice what’s good and what needed improving about 3-D cinematography. Many 3-D cinematography enthusiasts point the blame at the “diorama effect” even though this visual artifact also occurs in prism-equipped binoculars, but does it have an audio equivalent that could give every hi-fi enthusiast a renewed bout with “audiophilia nervosa”?
Having been fortunate enough to acquire the funds to fully indulge myself in the experimenting and upgrading side of purist two-channel – i.e. stereo – audio during the past twenty-one years, a eureka moment finally dawned on me as I watched the 3-D version of Avatar. Especially the scenes of “near contemporary” military hardware and lush tropical fauna where every visual artifact that is incongruent with how our eyes see real life sticks out like a proverbial sore thumb. Which had me realize that two-channel stereo – like 3-D cinematography – has its very own version of the diorama effect that’s seldom discussed in the wider world of audiophile journalism.
Compared to how we hear an unamplified musical performance in nature, many purist two-channel stereo systems that I’ve encountered – especially those with transistor-based amplification – tend to produce a somewhat artificially structured soundstage. A soundstage that has a narrow listening area with imaging that locates recorded musical instruments and voices with a precision that never occurs in a natural unamplified musical performance. In short, an overwhelming number of two-channel stereo systems have the propensity to create an artificially detailed soundstage that sounds too good to pass muster as natural. The audio equivalent of the diorama effect?
Probably due to the way lithe budget integrated transistor amplifiers that became popular during the late 1980s tend to project acoustic images in a somewhat cubist manner, mainly due to the brightness their added switching distortion creates. Good sounding as these units are, audio enthusiasts who can afford experimented with tube based amplification – especially single-ended triode types – to minimize the cardboard cut-out like imaging producing the acoustic equivalent of the diorama effect of their audio system’s imaging and soundstaging capabilities.
Low power can be an issue, especially if you find the 300B single-ended triodes too dull and the even lower powered 2A3 has difficulty driving the speakers you currently have. But these designs are as good at individual precision images as any high-caliber transistor effort, though without that sharp-edge cut-out effect – i.e. the audio equivalent of that 3-D cinematography imaging artifact called the diorama effect. With good single-ended triode designs, you can as if walk around those individual sonic images. An audio refinement to make your stereo system’s imaging and soundstaging capabilities more akin to real life.
By: Ringo Bones
Everyone might have very well underestimated the influence of James Cameron’s Avatar. Not only does it help sell a new generation of wide and flat 3-D capable video displays for the home, but also made everyone yet again notice what’s good and what needed improving about 3-D cinematography. Many 3-D cinematography enthusiasts point the blame at the “diorama effect” even though this visual artifact also occurs in prism-equipped binoculars, but does it have an audio equivalent that could give every hi-fi enthusiast a renewed bout with “audiophilia nervosa”?
Having been fortunate enough to acquire the funds to fully indulge myself in the experimenting and upgrading side of purist two-channel – i.e. stereo – audio during the past twenty-one years, a eureka moment finally dawned on me as I watched the 3-D version of Avatar. Especially the scenes of “near contemporary” military hardware and lush tropical fauna where every visual artifact that is incongruent with how our eyes see real life sticks out like a proverbial sore thumb. Which had me realize that two-channel stereo – like 3-D cinematography – has its very own version of the diorama effect that’s seldom discussed in the wider world of audiophile journalism.
Compared to how we hear an unamplified musical performance in nature, many purist two-channel stereo systems that I’ve encountered – especially those with transistor-based amplification – tend to produce a somewhat artificially structured soundstage. A soundstage that has a narrow listening area with imaging that locates recorded musical instruments and voices with a precision that never occurs in a natural unamplified musical performance. In short, an overwhelming number of two-channel stereo systems have the propensity to create an artificially detailed soundstage that sounds too good to pass muster as natural. The audio equivalent of the diorama effect?
Probably due to the way lithe budget integrated transistor amplifiers that became popular during the late 1980s tend to project acoustic images in a somewhat cubist manner, mainly due to the brightness their added switching distortion creates. Good sounding as these units are, audio enthusiasts who can afford experimented with tube based amplification – especially single-ended triode types – to minimize the cardboard cut-out like imaging producing the acoustic equivalent of the diorama effect of their audio system’s imaging and soundstaging capabilities.
Low power can be an issue, especially if you find the 300B single-ended triodes too dull and the even lower powered 2A3 has difficulty driving the speakers you currently have. But these designs are as good at individual precision images as any high-caliber transistor effort, though without that sharp-edge cut-out effect – i.e. the audio equivalent of that 3-D cinematography imaging artifact called the diorama effect. With good single-ended triode designs, you can as if walk around those individual sonic images. An audio refinement to make your stereo system’s imaging and soundstaging capabilities more akin to real life.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Listener: The Often Ignored Hi-Fi Component?
With a myriad number of tweaks already in under evaluation – and still growing, isn’t it strange that the most often ignored component in the hi-fi experiential chain is the listener?
By: Ringo Bones
Surely, this is yet another topic that won’t become a perennial bone of contention in the annual meeting of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But do we – in the enthusiast’s side of the hi-fi community – find it just a bit strange that we, the listener, is the only major component in the hi-fi experiential listening chain that is not subjected to extensive tweaking. After all, our audio / stereo systems will not be listening to themselves anytime soon, right?
During the past few weeks, I’m beginning to wonder whether those “out-there” kind of tweaks – also referred to as advanced tweaks - are really nothing more than health and wellness tweaks, though not all of them, aimed specifically at us – the hi-fi listener / system owner. These “exotic” health and wellness tips are often referred to as alternative medicine by the Madison Avenue marketing men and they too are often dismissed by staunch objectivists as too “New Age”. Like those advanced tweaks that inextricably works to some degree in improving the sound quality of one’s audio gear. But what are they?
Drinking Polarized Water – a hi-fi tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt. Polarized water in hi-fi tweak parlance is a drinkable water produced by placing a bottle or glass of water contained in a non-magnetic container to the north pole of a moderately-strong magnet - like loudspeaker and guitar pickup magnets - for 2 to 5 minutes. The listener drinks it in order to notice a marked improvement in sound quality of one’s audio gear. I think it works by relieving the stress of the listener. Allowing him or her to be musically more perceptive. As preliminary research by Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, have shown that stressfully purified water can make anyone who drinks it stressful. Maybe I’ll try drinking water purified by gamma radiation via cobalt-60, which is probably the most stressful water purification method that I know of – and has access to - in order to find out if this has a detrimental effect to the sound quality of my audio gear.
The Dreaded Pattern 5 Acupuncture Treatment – this is probably the most extensive and painful of all acupuncture treatments that’s offered to us – i.e. those of us without any lineage to mainland China’s great emperors whatsoever. But this particular acupuncture treatment has the greatest potential to restore the body’s energy and balance, although each one of the 47 or so needles that the acupuncturist had stuck into me felt like a 440-volt electric shock. The treatment did made me feel tired and sore, but after several minutes relaxing while listening to my audio rig, I’ve noticed that I’m hearing details that I never knew my systems lowly price tag had any right to produce.
A Vigorous Workout – it does work so well, especially after sever minutes when your body has assimilated all those endorphins produced during the exercise regimen. This not only makes you feel good, but it makes you feel as if you are listening to a much more expensive audio gear as you relax while listening to your favorite tunes. Better consult your doctor or GP first to find out if your body is up to it though.
A Several Days Fast From Your Audio Gear – this one is a perfect cure to those obsessive-compulsive tweakers. Try “vacationing” or “fasting” away from your audio gear for three days or more by hiking or fishing or doing any outdoor activity on your favorite spot as far from your audio gear as possible. You’ll be surprised how this one improves the sound of your audio gear and reduces your tendency to be an overly compulsive hi-fi tweak.
Of all these hi-fi / health and wellness tweaks that I tried, probably the most transcendent is the Pattern 5 Acupuncture treatment. It is transcendent in a way that it kind of makes you feel more contented of your possessions and the people around you. I wonder if the members of Grateful Dead have tried the Pattern 5 Acupuncture treatment? Anyway, all of them will not only improve the sound quality of your audio gear to some degree, but it also gives you – the listener – a much needed tweak to be better at all the other things that you do.
By: Ringo Bones
Surely, this is yet another topic that won’t become a perennial bone of contention in the annual meeting of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But do we – in the enthusiast’s side of the hi-fi community – find it just a bit strange that we, the listener, is the only major component in the hi-fi experiential listening chain that is not subjected to extensive tweaking. After all, our audio / stereo systems will not be listening to themselves anytime soon, right?
During the past few weeks, I’m beginning to wonder whether those “out-there” kind of tweaks – also referred to as advanced tweaks - are really nothing more than health and wellness tweaks, though not all of them, aimed specifically at us – the hi-fi listener / system owner. These “exotic” health and wellness tips are often referred to as alternative medicine by the Madison Avenue marketing men and they too are often dismissed by staunch objectivists as too “New Age”. Like those advanced tweaks that inextricably works to some degree in improving the sound quality of one’s audio gear. But what are they?
Drinking Polarized Water – a hi-fi tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt. Polarized water in hi-fi tweak parlance is a drinkable water produced by placing a bottle or glass of water contained in a non-magnetic container to the north pole of a moderately-strong magnet - like loudspeaker and guitar pickup magnets - for 2 to 5 minutes. The listener drinks it in order to notice a marked improvement in sound quality of one’s audio gear. I think it works by relieving the stress of the listener. Allowing him or her to be musically more perceptive. As preliminary research by Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, have shown that stressfully purified water can make anyone who drinks it stressful. Maybe I’ll try drinking water purified by gamma radiation via cobalt-60, which is probably the most stressful water purification method that I know of – and has access to - in order to find out if this has a detrimental effect to the sound quality of my audio gear.
The Dreaded Pattern 5 Acupuncture Treatment – this is probably the most extensive and painful of all acupuncture treatments that’s offered to us – i.e. those of us without any lineage to mainland China’s great emperors whatsoever. But this particular acupuncture treatment has the greatest potential to restore the body’s energy and balance, although each one of the 47 or so needles that the acupuncturist had stuck into me felt like a 440-volt electric shock. The treatment did made me feel tired and sore, but after several minutes relaxing while listening to my audio rig, I’ve noticed that I’m hearing details that I never knew my systems lowly price tag had any right to produce.
A Vigorous Workout – it does work so well, especially after sever minutes when your body has assimilated all those endorphins produced during the exercise regimen. This not only makes you feel good, but it makes you feel as if you are listening to a much more expensive audio gear as you relax while listening to your favorite tunes. Better consult your doctor or GP first to find out if your body is up to it though.
A Several Days Fast From Your Audio Gear – this one is a perfect cure to those obsessive-compulsive tweakers. Try “vacationing” or “fasting” away from your audio gear for three days or more by hiking or fishing or doing any outdoor activity on your favorite spot as far from your audio gear as possible. You’ll be surprised how this one improves the sound of your audio gear and reduces your tendency to be an overly compulsive hi-fi tweak.
Of all these hi-fi / health and wellness tweaks that I tried, probably the most transcendent is the Pattern 5 Acupuncture treatment. It is transcendent in a way that it kind of makes you feel more contented of your possessions and the people around you. I wonder if the members of Grateful Dead have tried the Pattern 5 Acupuncture treatment? Anyway, all of them will not only improve the sound quality of your audio gear to some degree, but it also gives you – the listener – a much needed tweak to be better at all the other things that you do.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
What Audiophiles Don’t Know About Polarized Water
Even though the mechanism behind how it improves the sound quality of audio gear is still open to debate, is the audiophile world at large ignoring at their on peril by ignoring polarized water as an audio tweak?
By: Ringo Bones
As a really “out there” audio tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt, the viability of polarized water as a viable way to improve the sound quality of your audio gear did manage to generate a significant cult following in the audiophile community. Even though serious discussion of the “science” behind how it works won’t be a perennial topic in the annual meetings of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But are audiophiles – even the scientific community – ignoring at their own peril on what we can learn about the phenomena behind now polarized water works as a hi-fi tweak?
The polarized water referred to by hi-fi enthusiasts is a north-polarized water that is produced as a result of exposing a bottle or glass of water – usually around 250 to 500 ml – to the north magnetic pole of a magnet (the one marked “N”) for around 2 to 5 minutes. The stronger the magnet, the better. Most recommend drinking the water to make your audio gear sound better. But if we do it this way, does it mean that polarized water is a tweak for the listener, as opposed to the audio component being listened to?
The science behind how polarized water works – and it does work to some degree – has yet to be determined. But there have been recent studies conducted on water that woefully revealed that there is still a ton of stuff that the layman and the scientific community doesn’t know about water – let alone polarized water. Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, whose research on water memory after it is exposed to electromagnetic radiation when he noted that the bacteria in the water manifested the memory properties of water that is being exposed to such electromagnetic radiation.
Prof. Jacob recently uncovered during the course of his research that water is capable of carrying complex information despite of its “apparently” simple molecular structure. The preliminary findings of the professor’s research suggest not only a scientifically verifiable explanation behind the phenomena of homeopathy, but also on a new paradigm of water purification.
Something that is less stressful after Prof. Jacob had found out that stressful water purification can cause unnecessary stress in humans and other organic systems. Does this suggest that Prof. Eshel Ben Jacob’s findings suggest that water is capable of carrying information / properties that humans – maybe some who are perceptive enough – can perceive even though our most sophisticated mass spectrometers cannot?
Back in 1994, I was fortunate enough to hike into a remote watershed in my neck of the woods – a 12-hour “ordeal” from the nearest roadside – and managed to witness something that water supposedly can’t do. Bamboo harvesters accidentally left some bamboo in the pool that formed at the base of a pristine spring often used by them as a convenient “watering hole”. Bamboo cuttings aren’t supposed to sprout into a new plant right? But here, an obviously machete-cut section of bamboo managed to sprout roots and stems after being immersed for more than a week in the pristine pool of a remote mountainside spring – another thing water doesn’t supposed to do. Though I kept away from that place because where I came from, if there’s a near-inexhaustible supply of really clean and free drinking water, there are bound to be well-armed insurgents. But I still remember the inextricably invigorating properties of the water from that particular spring.
Another proof that the human senses are more sensitive than the most advanced mass spectrometer was shown in an episode of Mythbusters. On this particular episode, the Mythbusters team tries to prove that through using charcoal filters used to purify water a cheap low-end vodka can be used to taste like top shelf or high-end vodka. The charcoal filter made the cheap vodka taste much closer to top shelf vodka via charcoal filtration. Inextricably though, the mass spectrometer – which was used during the episode to analyze the various grades of vodka - can’t tell the difference between the cheap vodka, the charcoal-filtered cheap vodka and the high-end / top shelf vodka. The mass spectrometer only show water-diluted ethyl alcohol while a professional vodka tester and even novice bar hoppers can tell – make that taste and smell - the difference between cheap vodka and high-end vodka. So the lesson here is trust your senses, they are better than a 20,000 US dollar Fast Fourier Transform signal analyzer or a 50,000 US dollar nanogram-level mass spectrometer.
As Professor Eshel Ben Jacob pointed out the science behind a newly-discovered mechanism still under investigation that stressful purification of water does make most humans who consume them stressed out. Maybe exposing stressfully purified water to the North Pole of the magnet for 2 to 5 minutes de-stresses it. Making one drinking the water more musically receptive thus enabling polarized water to work as a hi-fi tweak in improving the sound of your audio system.
By: Ringo Bones
As a really “out there” audio tweak often attributed to Peter W. Belt, the viability of polarized water as a viable way to improve the sound quality of your audio gear did manage to generate a significant cult following in the audiophile community. Even though serious discussion of the “science” behind how it works won’t be a perennial topic in the annual meetings of the Audio Engineering Society anytime soon. But are audiophiles – even the scientific community – ignoring at their own peril on what we can learn about the phenomena behind now polarized water works as a hi-fi tweak?
The polarized water referred to by hi-fi enthusiasts is a north-polarized water that is produced as a result of exposing a bottle or glass of water – usually around 250 to 500 ml – to the north magnetic pole of a magnet (the one marked “N”) for around 2 to 5 minutes. The stronger the magnet, the better. Most recommend drinking the water to make your audio gear sound better. But if we do it this way, does it mean that polarized water is a tweak for the listener, as opposed to the audio component being listened to?
The science behind how polarized water works – and it does work to some degree – has yet to be determined. But there have been recent studies conducted on water that woefully revealed that there is still a ton of stuff that the layman and the scientific community doesn’t know about water – let alone polarized water. Professor Eshel Ben Jacob, a physicist from Tel Aviv University, whose research on water memory after it is exposed to electromagnetic radiation when he noted that the bacteria in the water manifested the memory properties of water that is being exposed to such electromagnetic radiation.
Prof. Jacob recently uncovered during the course of his research that water is capable of carrying complex information despite of its “apparently” simple molecular structure. The preliminary findings of the professor’s research suggest not only a scientifically verifiable explanation behind the phenomena of homeopathy, but also on a new paradigm of water purification.
Something that is less stressful after Prof. Jacob had found out that stressful water purification can cause unnecessary stress in humans and other organic systems. Does this suggest that Prof. Eshel Ben Jacob’s findings suggest that water is capable of carrying information / properties that humans – maybe some who are perceptive enough – can perceive even though our most sophisticated mass spectrometers cannot?
Back in 1994, I was fortunate enough to hike into a remote watershed in my neck of the woods – a 12-hour “ordeal” from the nearest roadside – and managed to witness something that water supposedly can’t do. Bamboo harvesters accidentally left some bamboo in the pool that formed at the base of a pristine spring often used by them as a convenient “watering hole”. Bamboo cuttings aren’t supposed to sprout into a new plant right? But here, an obviously machete-cut section of bamboo managed to sprout roots and stems after being immersed for more than a week in the pristine pool of a remote mountainside spring – another thing water doesn’t supposed to do. Though I kept away from that place because where I came from, if there’s a near-inexhaustible supply of really clean and free drinking water, there are bound to be well-armed insurgents. But I still remember the inextricably invigorating properties of the water from that particular spring.
Another proof that the human senses are more sensitive than the most advanced mass spectrometer was shown in an episode of Mythbusters. On this particular episode, the Mythbusters team tries to prove that through using charcoal filters used to purify water a cheap low-end vodka can be used to taste like top shelf or high-end vodka. The charcoal filter made the cheap vodka taste much closer to top shelf vodka via charcoal filtration. Inextricably though, the mass spectrometer – which was used during the episode to analyze the various grades of vodka - can’t tell the difference between the cheap vodka, the charcoal-filtered cheap vodka and the high-end / top shelf vodka. The mass spectrometer only show water-diluted ethyl alcohol while a professional vodka tester and even novice bar hoppers can tell – make that taste and smell - the difference between cheap vodka and high-end vodka. So the lesson here is trust your senses, they are better than a 20,000 US dollar Fast Fourier Transform signal analyzer or a 50,000 US dollar nanogram-level mass spectrometer.
As Professor Eshel Ben Jacob pointed out the science behind a newly-discovered mechanism still under investigation that stressful purification of water does make most humans who consume them stressed out. Maybe exposing stressfully purified water to the North Pole of the magnet for 2 to 5 minutes de-stresses it. Making one drinking the water more musically receptive thus enabling polarized water to work as a hi-fi tweak in improving the sound of your audio system.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Much Ado About Slew Rate
Given that most audio equipment manufacturers seldom – if ever – publish the slew rate ratings of their audio amplifiers, how important does an amplifier’s slew rate rating affect its performance?
By: Ringo Bones
After having the good fortune of visiting a good number of hi-fi shows in the past, I do find it odd that an overwhelming number of audio amplifier manufacturers seldom – if ever – publish the slew rate ratings of their preamplifiers and power amplifiers that they are trying to sell. Of probably thousands of brands and manufacturers out there, I only discovered six audio amplifier products so far that published their slew rate ratings. They are: 1.) Creek 4330R Integrated Amplifier at >40 volts per microsecond, 2.) Audio Research VTM200 Monoblock Power Amplifier (vacuum tube-based) at 40 volts per microsecond, 3.) Audio Research VT200 Power Amplifier (also vacuum tube-based) at 25 volts per microsecond, 4.) Simaudio Moon Rock Monoblock Power Amplifier (solid-state) at 160 volts per microsecond, 5.) Headroom Reference Amplifier Module – a power amplifier for headphones – at 1,300 volts per microsecond, and the 6.) Cinepro 3k6SE Six-Channel Amp with a slew rate rating of 65 volts per microsecond. Given that an amplifier’s slew rate rating is probably the last thing on a typical hi-fi audio amplifier buyers’ mind, what is slew rate anyway and how much of a factor does it play in a typical audio amplifier’s performance?
Slew rate is defined as the rate of change of the output voltage of an amplification circuit. Typically it is expressed as the maximum rate at which the output voltage of an amplification circuit can change in volts per microseconds. If an amplifier, for example, has a slew rate of 1 volt per microsecond it would take 10 microseconds for the output voltage to change from 0 to 10 volts, regardless of the rate at which the input voltage changes. Slew rate ratings also define the bandwidth capability of a typical amplifier design. An amplifier can only amplify a sine wave without distorting it up to a certain frequency as dictated by its slew rate rating. If a sine wave is of too high in frequency for an amplifier to process without distorting it given the amplifiers’ slew rate rating, that amplifier would output a triangular wave signal of higher amplitude instead of a sine wave. Triangular waves contain mostly odd-ordered harmonics by the way.
Audio engineers who would rather “listen” to their amplifier with 10,000-U.S. dollar Fast Fourier Transform analyzers instead of their very own ears tend to disdain in measuring the slew rate of vacuum tube-based amplifiers – especially single-ended triode amplifiers with vanishingly low to zero negative feedback. Because the squashing transfer function typical in these amplifier designs can decrease the odd-order harmonics in the signal they are trying to amplify. A triangular wave being fed into a tube amp’s input may end up looking like a sine wave with a higher magnitude at the output. A good thing about this typical idiosyncrasy of vacuum tube-based amplifiers is that it is not frequency dependent, unlike an audio filter with fixed frequency response. This is probably the primary reason why tube amps – especially ones that don’t use any negative feedback – sound musical and might – with the emphasis on might – give a misleadingly high slew rate rating in comparison to solid-state designs. Despite of all this, how does slew rate play a factor when it comes to the everyday use of our audio pre and power amplifiers?
If you’re fortunate enough to have peeked into a typical high slew rate hi-fi power amplifier, you might have noticed that the “apparent” complexity of its circuit layout and design just to achieve a high slew rate rating may seem a touch of glorious excess, but it is eminently practical. Today’s audio formats – if you’ve already managed to outgrow the typically compressed dynamic range of on-line digital music downloads – demands instantaneous power in order to amplify them realistically as Mother Nature or God in Her infinite wisdom intended.
Since the mid-1990s, the SMPTE movie-soundtrack specifications now permit special effects to peak 20 decibels above the average dialogue level, thus requiring 100 times more amplification power than is needed for dialogue. Using the watt-meter setting of my multi-meter, the average dialogue levels of the DVD of the movie Independence Day in my listening room with my audio system required only 1 to 3 watts of power. But during one of the loudest part of the movie – when the alien saucer blew up the White House – my main amplifiers generated a peak of 250 watts for probably half a second.
This performance – paradoxically - was produced by my 70-watt rated power amplifier equipped with a 300-watt power supply sporting high-speed Schottky Diode / Schottky Barrier Diode rectifiers with Rubicon Black Gate capacitors. This is at a sound pressure level in my listening room that doesn’t preclude casual conversation given that my main speakers has a sensitivity of 93 watts at 1 watt (2.87 volts) at 1 meter. What I’ve learned so far is that not only do you need clean power, you also need it fast in order to produce current music or other audio formats realistically. Though in my case, I tend to gravitate towards the sensitive loudspeaker route. Nonetheless, slew rate ratings is a very important factor indeed when it comes to the realistic sounding playback of recorded music - and movies - in a domestic setting.
By: Ringo Bones
After having the good fortune of visiting a good number of hi-fi shows in the past, I do find it odd that an overwhelming number of audio amplifier manufacturers seldom – if ever – publish the slew rate ratings of their preamplifiers and power amplifiers that they are trying to sell. Of probably thousands of brands and manufacturers out there, I only discovered six audio amplifier products so far that published their slew rate ratings. They are: 1.) Creek 4330R Integrated Amplifier at >40 volts per microsecond, 2.) Audio Research VTM200 Monoblock Power Amplifier (vacuum tube-based) at 40 volts per microsecond, 3.) Audio Research VT200 Power Amplifier (also vacuum tube-based) at 25 volts per microsecond, 4.) Simaudio Moon Rock Monoblock Power Amplifier (solid-state) at 160 volts per microsecond, 5.) Headroom Reference Amplifier Module – a power amplifier for headphones – at 1,300 volts per microsecond, and the 6.) Cinepro 3k6SE Six-Channel Amp with a slew rate rating of 65 volts per microsecond. Given that an amplifier’s slew rate rating is probably the last thing on a typical hi-fi audio amplifier buyers’ mind, what is slew rate anyway and how much of a factor does it play in a typical audio amplifier’s performance?
Slew rate is defined as the rate of change of the output voltage of an amplification circuit. Typically it is expressed as the maximum rate at which the output voltage of an amplification circuit can change in volts per microseconds. If an amplifier, for example, has a slew rate of 1 volt per microsecond it would take 10 microseconds for the output voltage to change from 0 to 10 volts, regardless of the rate at which the input voltage changes. Slew rate ratings also define the bandwidth capability of a typical amplifier design. An amplifier can only amplify a sine wave without distorting it up to a certain frequency as dictated by its slew rate rating. If a sine wave is of too high in frequency for an amplifier to process without distorting it given the amplifiers’ slew rate rating, that amplifier would output a triangular wave signal of higher amplitude instead of a sine wave. Triangular waves contain mostly odd-ordered harmonics by the way.
Audio engineers who would rather “listen” to their amplifier with 10,000-U.S. dollar Fast Fourier Transform analyzers instead of their very own ears tend to disdain in measuring the slew rate of vacuum tube-based amplifiers – especially single-ended triode amplifiers with vanishingly low to zero negative feedback. Because the squashing transfer function typical in these amplifier designs can decrease the odd-order harmonics in the signal they are trying to amplify. A triangular wave being fed into a tube amp’s input may end up looking like a sine wave with a higher magnitude at the output. A good thing about this typical idiosyncrasy of vacuum tube-based amplifiers is that it is not frequency dependent, unlike an audio filter with fixed frequency response. This is probably the primary reason why tube amps – especially ones that don’t use any negative feedback – sound musical and might – with the emphasis on might – give a misleadingly high slew rate rating in comparison to solid-state designs. Despite of all this, how does slew rate play a factor when it comes to the everyday use of our audio pre and power amplifiers?
If you’re fortunate enough to have peeked into a typical high slew rate hi-fi power amplifier, you might have noticed that the “apparent” complexity of its circuit layout and design just to achieve a high slew rate rating may seem a touch of glorious excess, but it is eminently practical. Today’s audio formats – if you’ve already managed to outgrow the typically compressed dynamic range of on-line digital music downloads – demands instantaneous power in order to amplify them realistically as Mother Nature or God in Her infinite wisdom intended.
Since the mid-1990s, the SMPTE movie-soundtrack specifications now permit special effects to peak 20 decibels above the average dialogue level, thus requiring 100 times more amplification power than is needed for dialogue. Using the watt-meter setting of my multi-meter, the average dialogue levels of the DVD of the movie Independence Day in my listening room with my audio system required only 1 to 3 watts of power. But during one of the loudest part of the movie – when the alien saucer blew up the White House – my main amplifiers generated a peak of 250 watts for probably half a second.
This performance – paradoxically - was produced by my 70-watt rated power amplifier equipped with a 300-watt power supply sporting high-speed Schottky Diode / Schottky Barrier Diode rectifiers with Rubicon Black Gate capacitors. This is at a sound pressure level in my listening room that doesn’t preclude casual conversation given that my main speakers has a sensitivity of 93 watts at 1 watt (2.87 volts) at 1 meter. What I’ve learned so far is that not only do you need clean power, you also need it fast in order to produce current music or other audio formats realistically. Though in my case, I tend to gravitate towards the sensitive loudspeaker route. Nonetheless, slew rate ratings is a very important factor indeed when it comes to the realistic sounding playback of recorded music - and movies - in a domestic setting.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Memory Distortion: The Bane of Solid-State Amplifiers?
Some audio purist still claim that solid-state amplification is not truly hi-fi in comparison to it’s thermionic / vacuum tube counterpart, is there a reason behind this?
By: Ringo Bones
During the start of the 1970s, the solid-state transistor-based audio power amplifier started to make the price of high-powered hi-fi amplifiers – i.e. over 50-watts – much more affordable. But many hardcore audiophiles complained that transistor-based audio power amplifier didn’t sound as musical as their thermionic / vacuum tube-based counterparts. Even newer MOSFET devices – whose characteristic curves resembles that of a pentode tube – still didn’t sound quite as musical in comparison to their thermionic brethren during their rollout near the end of the 1970s. But is there a reason – hopefully a scientifically verifiable one – that explains why solid-state amplification (transistors and MOSFETS) don’t sound as good as their vacuum tube counterparts?
Back in the summer of 1997, a French amplifier manufacturer – Lavardin Technologies – announced that they have discovered why solid-state amplification didn’t sound as musical as their vacuum tube-based competition. They called the phenomena “Memory Distortion” which Laverdin Technologies describes it during 1997 as “the greatest discovery in analogue audio design in the previous twenty years”. Memory distortion, Lavardin Technologies says, is responsible for the shrillness and mechanical-sounding artifacts identified in solid-state amplifiers. Unfortunately in the intervening years, my “richer” audio-buddies can only listen to Lavardin Technologies’ amplifiers in hi-fi shows because they are so prohibitively expensive when compared to vacuum tube-based amplifiers of similar power output and features. But they swear that Lavardin Technologies' low-powered integrated amps do sound like they use vacuum tubes as power output devices.
Fast-forward in 2009 when one of my audio-buddies managed to purchase one used – although still very costly – one of those Lavardin Technologies integrated amplifier. It is the 30-watt Lavardin IS Reference which sells for almost 4,000 US dollars when brand new. He got one for a shade under 2,000 US dollars, and say’s its all worth it because the single-pair of transistors used in this integrated amp will last for thousands of years when properly used. And they do sound like vacuum tube amps – vacuum tube amps that could drive speakers with tricky impedance curves. Albeit only within their “meager” 30-watt rating. But despite of the obvious overpricing in electronics engineering terms, why do these amps sound so good?
Given our sample no longer has the company’s warranty and my audio-buddy was generous enough – albeit up to a point – to allow our local hi-fi association a peak inside the innards of Lavardin’s famed integrated amps. A look inside might make every “mainstream” electronic engineers accuse of Lavardin Technologies of recto-cranial inversion. Those mainstream folks usually accuse everyone of encasing the circuits of their designs in some kind of black goop in the name of copyright protection, as suffering from recto-cranial inversion. But these has been proven – probably since the 1980s – that it could improve the sound quality by controlling spurious vibrations from affecting the sensitive circuit layout.
Lavardin did divulge the reason why tubes sound better than transistors, which they used to their advantage in making their solid-state amplifiers sound as good as tubes. It was probably the consensus view of quantum physicists who looked into the differences in operation of vacuum tubes and solid-state devices during the 1990s. According to their findings – though it has been noted in every post World War II vacuum tube-based electronic textbook in existence – which start at the basic fundamental differences between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices.
In a vacuum tube any particular electron – i.e. strictly speaking the electron’s wave function – travels through free space, influenced only by the electric fields caused by the various electrodes in the electron’s wave function’s path within the confines of the tube. The control grid’s field hold’s back a proportional number of electrons from the total number of electrons emitted by the cathode, in which a change in grid voltage change’s it’s field and thereby varies the total number of electrons reaching the anode and hence the resulting anode current.
The velocity of an electron by the time it reaches the anode after being accelerated by the anode’s field is truly mind-boggling. As an example, a tube with a typical anode voltage of 450-volts, the electrons will hit the anode at approximately 28 million miles per hour or about 4% the speed of light – which is around 670 million miles per hour in vacuum. Thus the reason for the vacuum tube’s somewhat high-temperature operation. The electrons which make it past grid are the same ones which – a tiny fraction of a second later – appear at the anode and becomes the signal that drives the load.
In a solid-state device – transistors, MOSFETS, and specially including wire – the electrons have a very hard time traversing the entire length of their intended path. In the solid-state domain, electrons have to fight their way through millions of random fields caused by the atoms in the substrate material – usually at 0.001 meters per second. In which calling it a snail’s pace would be an understatement in comparison to an electron’s speed traveled though a typical vacuum tube. Furthermore, it is not the actual electrons which carry the signal, but the influence one electron on it’s neighbors. The message or signal gets carried akin to a “Chinese Whisper” albeit only with less degradation of the signal – hopefully.
This quantum-mechanical explanation of the radical difference between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices is the claim used by Lavardin in explaining how they minimized memory distortion in their solid-state amplifier designs. According to them, memory distortion has to do with the way musical signals have to slog their way through silicon – akin to being stuck in the mud. Transistors hold previous signals in memory – as in the electron’s wave function. And these “residual memories” or remnants of an electron’s previous state - maybe a few tiny fractions of a second before distort the new incoming signals. The musical signals can’t flee the silicon fast enough. But is this explanation sufficient from a scientific standpoint? After all, if “memory distortion” is about timing errors – assuming that the phenomenon is real in the first place – then why is it that there are several, albeit almost unrelated, ways of eliminating the symptoms caused by memory distortion.
James Henriot of Whest Audio also managed to do the same feat of making solid-state amplifiers more musical by eliminating “analog-domain jitter” via his Whest dap.10 processor. Which most users testify that the Whest dap.10 processor improves their already well-sorted CD playback system’s sound quality by making it sound like a big analog open-reel tape, the one often used in better recording studios. I’ve heard this only in hi-fi shows, but my impression of this product seems like it makes your typical solid-state integrated amp sound like a good vacuum tube amp.
While a Frenchman named Yves-Bernard André of YBA also manages to do the same with his solid-state integrated designs by using various techniques holistically to eliminate the symptoms that make solid-state amplifiers sound “inferior” to their vacuum tube counterparts. From using synthetic diamond powder to damp the circuit boards to the resonance control of every component used. Not to mention minimizing to the absolute minimum the inherent hystersis distortion caused by a transistor’s ferromagnetic enclosure. Even though YBA products – as with most French integrated amps - are typically priced way above a typical hi-fi enthusiast is willing to pay, Yves-Bernard André’s holistic approach to designing his solid-state based audio components seems to have removed the symptoms of what we know of as memory distortion.
LFD Mistral MOSFET-based integrated amplifiers also managed to eliminate the symptoms of memory distortion through attention in circuit layout. By orienting the resistors of their LFD Mistral integrated amps in phase on the master board. The resistors on both channels are identically oriented which they believe – and some owners of LFD Mistral integrated amps – is important to stereo imaging. So does the orientation of the wiring and the fuses. Unfortunately, this attention to detail in parts layout doesn’t lend itself well to mass production machinery used in making mobile / cellular phones and i-Pods. But the resulting product is nonetheless spectacular. LFD Mistral integrated amplifiers are often compared to single-ended triode amplifiers in terms of sound quality.
So what does this all mean? Well, it seems like the holistic tweaking techniques utilized by Yves-Bernard André and the LFD Mistral does seem to improve the sound quality of your typical solid-state audio gear – even ones using integrated circuit IC amplifiers. While the Lavardin Technologies may be on to something in explaining the phenomenon of memory distortion, James Henriot’s forays into analog-domain jitter will probably need the collaboration of other scientist with access to the very state of the art testing gear to explore further the phenomena of analog-domain jitter. Who knows that it might result in better and cheaper laptops and mobile phones ten years from now? Maybe memory distortion is just a symptom of bad circuit layout in the production of solid-state gear. Often easily solved via enclosing critical parts in a faraday cage - or by the use of exotic and boutique capacitors like Rubycon Black Gates or Philips-sourced French Blue capacitors.
By: Ringo Bones
During the start of the 1970s, the solid-state transistor-based audio power amplifier started to make the price of high-powered hi-fi amplifiers – i.e. over 50-watts – much more affordable. But many hardcore audiophiles complained that transistor-based audio power amplifier didn’t sound as musical as their thermionic / vacuum tube-based counterparts. Even newer MOSFET devices – whose characteristic curves resembles that of a pentode tube – still didn’t sound quite as musical in comparison to their thermionic brethren during their rollout near the end of the 1970s. But is there a reason – hopefully a scientifically verifiable one – that explains why solid-state amplification (transistors and MOSFETS) don’t sound as good as their vacuum tube counterparts?
Back in the summer of 1997, a French amplifier manufacturer – Lavardin Technologies – announced that they have discovered why solid-state amplification didn’t sound as musical as their vacuum tube-based competition. They called the phenomena “Memory Distortion” which Laverdin Technologies describes it during 1997 as “the greatest discovery in analogue audio design in the previous twenty years”. Memory distortion, Lavardin Technologies says, is responsible for the shrillness and mechanical-sounding artifacts identified in solid-state amplifiers. Unfortunately in the intervening years, my “richer” audio-buddies can only listen to Lavardin Technologies’ amplifiers in hi-fi shows because they are so prohibitively expensive when compared to vacuum tube-based amplifiers of similar power output and features. But they swear that Lavardin Technologies' low-powered integrated amps do sound like they use vacuum tubes as power output devices.
Fast-forward in 2009 when one of my audio-buddies managed to purchase one used – although still very costly – one of those Lavardin Technologies integrated amplifier. It is the 30-watt Lavardin IS Reference which sells for almost 4,000 US dollars when brand new. He got one for a shade under 2,000 US dollars, and say’s its all worth it because the single-pair of transistors used in this integrated amp will last for thousands of years when properly used. And they do sound like vacuum tube amps – vacuum tube amps that could drive speakers with tricky impedance curves. Albeit only within their “meager” 30-watt rating. But despite of the obvious overpricing in electronics engineering terms, why do these amps sound so good?
Given our sample no longer has the company’s warranty and my audio-buddy was generous enough – albeit up to a point – to allow our local hi-fi association a peak inside the innards of Lavardin’s famed integrated amps. A look inside might make every “mainstream” electronic engineers accuse of Lavardin Technologies of recto-cranial inversion. Those mainstream folks usually accuse everyone of encasing the circuits of their designs in some kind of black goop in the name of copyright protection, as suffering from recto-cranial inversion. But these has been proven – probably since the 1980s – that it could improve the sound quality by controlling spurious vibrations from affecting the sensitive circuit layout.
Lavardin did divulge the reason why tubes sound better than transistors, which they used to their advantage in making their solid-state amplifiers sound as good as tubes. It was probably the consensus view of quantum physicists who looked into the differences in operation of vacuum tubes and solid-state devices during the 1990s. According to their findings – though it has been noted in every post World War II vacuum tube-based electronic textbook in existence – which start at the basic fundamental differences between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices.
In a vacuum tube any particular electron – i.e. strictly speaking the electron’s wave function – travels through free space, influenced only by the electric fields caused by the various electrodes in the electron’s wave function’s path within the confines of the tube. The control grid’s field hold’s back a proportional number of electrons from the total number of electrons emitted by the cathode, in which a change in grid voltage change’s it’s field and thereby varies the total number of electrons reaching the anode and hence the resulting anode current.
The velocity of an electron by the time it reaches the anode after being accelerated by the anode’s field is truly mind-boggling. As an example, a tube with a typical anode voltage of 450-volts, the electrons will hit the anode at approximately 28 million miles per hour or about 4% the speed of light – which is around 670 million miles per hour in vacuum. Thus the reason for the vacuum tube’s somewhat high-temperature operation. The electrons which make it past grid are the same ones which – a tiny fraction of a second later – appear at the anode and becomes the signal that drives the load.
In a solid-state device – transistors, MOSFETS, and specially including wire – the electrons have a very hard time traversing the entire length of their intended path. In the solid-state domain, electrons have to fight their way through millions of random fields caused by the atoms in the substrate material – usually at 0.001 meters per second. In which calling it a snail’s pace would be an understatement in comparison to an electron’s speed traveled though a typical vacuum tube. Furthermore, it is not the actual electrons which carry the signal, but the influence one electron on it’s neighbors. The message or signal gets carried akin to a “Chinese Whisper” albeit only with less degradation of the signal – hopefully.
This quantum-mechanical explanation of the radical difference between vacuum tubes and solid-state devices is the claim used by Lavardin in explaining how they minimized memory distortion in their solid-state amplifier designs. According to them, memory distortion has to do with the way musical signals have to slog their way through silicon – akin to being stuck in the mud. Transistors hold previous signals in memory – as in the electron’s wave function. And these “residual memories” or remnants of an electron’s previous state - maybe a few tiny fractions of a second before distort the new incoming signals. The musical signals can’t flee the silicon fast enough. But is this explanation sufficient from a scientific standpoint? After all, if “memory distortion” is about timing errors – assuming that the phenomenon is real in the first place – then why is it that there are several, albeit almost unrelated, ways of eliminating the symptoms caused by memory distortion.
James Henriot of Whest Audio also managed to do the same feat of making solid-state amplifiers more musical by eliminating “analog-domain jitter” via his Whest dap.10 processor. Which most users testify that the Whest dap.10 processor improves their already well-sorted CD playback system’s sound quality by making it sound like a big analog open-reel tape, the one often used in better recording studios. I’ve heard this only in hi-fi shows, but my impression of this product seems like it makes your typical solid-state integrated amp sound like a good vacuum tube amp.
While a Frenchman named Yves-Bernard André of YBA also manages to do the same with his solid-state integrated designs by using various techniques holistically to eliminate the symptoms that make solid-state amplifiers sound “inferior” to their vacuum tube counterparts. From using synthetic diamond powder to damp the circuit boards to the resonance control of every component used. Not to mention minimizing to the absolute minimum the inherent hystersis distortion caused by a transistor’s ferromagnetic enclosure. Even though YBA products – as with most French integrated amps - are typically priced way above a typical hi-fi enthusiast is willing to pay, Yves-Bernard André’s holistic approach to designing his solid-state based audio components seems to have removed the symptoms of what we know of as memory distortion.
LFD Mistral MOSFET-based integrated amplifiers also managed to eliminate the symptoms of memory distortion through attention in circuit layout. By orienting the resistors of their LFD Mistral integrated amps in phase on the master board. The resistors on both channels are identically oriented which they believe – and some owners of LFD Mistral integrated amps – is important to stereo imaging. So does the orientation of the wiring and the fuses. Unfortunately, this attention to detail in parts layout doesn’t lend itself well to mass production machinery used in making mobile / cellular phones and i-Pods. But the resulting product is nonetheless spectacular. LFD Mistral integrated amplifiers are often compared to single-ended triode amplifiers in terms of sound quality.
So what does this all mean? Well, it seems like the holistic tweaking techniques utilized by Yves-Bernard André and the LFD Mistral does seem to improve the sound quality of your typical solid-state audio gear – even ones using integrated circuit IC amplifiers. While the Lavardin Technologies may be on to something in explaining the phenomenon of memory distortion, James Henriot’s forays into analog-domain jitter will probably need the collaboration of other scientist with access to the very state of the art testing gear to explore further the phenomena of analog-domain jitter. Who knows that it might result in better and cheaper laptops and mobile phones ten years from now? Maybe memory distortion is just a symptom of bad circuit layout in the production of solid-state gear. Often easily solved via enclosing critical parts in a faraday cage - or by the use of exotic and boutique capacitors like Rubycon Black Gates or Philips-sourced French Blue capacitors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
