Distortion vs. Perception

Each of us responds to different lies, and hence our differing hi-fi tastes. Out of this however, we have a guiding principle, and it’s not about the false distinction between "musicality" and "accuracy".  I would hope that the last concert you attended was both accurate and musical.  

I think a more meaningful term is musical engagement and this can’t be defined – much like the old saying:  “I can’t define it, but I know when I see it”.

Recent conversations with customers reminded us of an interesting perceptual experiment carried out by Pete Millet. More on that in a moment.

Just Enough

In setting up a vinyl rig, you’ll get 90% “there”, going by the numbers (geometry, azimuth, VTA/SRA, nominal tracking force). The magic lies in the tuning – varying things like tracking force by .05g, minimizing anti-skate, and yes, even varying cartridge mounting torque.

Compromise any of these tuning elements and you compromise the dynamic presentation – what differentiates the bowing technique between two violinists for example.

One of my client de-programming activities involves encouraging customers to dial back their anti-skate.  This is a subject for another post, but suffice to say that I’m in Frank Schröder’s and Peter Lederman’s camp with respect to applying minimal anti-skate. 

If that’s not enough to encourage you to try this, AJ Van den Hul commented that a disproportionate number of cartridges he receives for inspection show excess stylus wear on the outer face of the cartridge (evidence of excessive anti-skate).

So, applying the just enough rule to tracking force or anti-skate means you might occasionally mis-track, but the payback is a more realistic dynamic presentation.  The “no free lunch” rule applies, and sometimes, a little spice is nice.

Are You Hearing What I’m hearing?

We’re all individuals and “process” music differently.  I find it interesting – how different individuals articulate what they’re hearing.

Take for example a component with a lower noise floor. I might describe this component as rendering better insight into the artist’s interpretation – the subtle nuances in their technique, their phrasing, rhythmic pacing and such. I might respond to the spatial presentation. 

More than one individual has commented about such a presentation as having “more detail” or perhaps “more treble”.

While neither description is wrong, and both interpretations are likely a result of “hearing” the same thing (or close enough to the same thing), I question how useful a response like “more treble” is. 

Tell me how you respond to the performance.  When was the last time you attended a concert and described it in terms of midrange or treble?

The Sound of Distortion

Pete Millet gave a presentation at the European Triode Festival several years ago.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, the ETF is an invitation only event where manufacturers advanced hobbyists gather for a weekend of experimentation and information sharing. 

Pete wanted to explore how we respond to distortion and he developed a circuit that injected various harmonic profiles into the signal of a single ended amplifier. 

As you’d expect, responses were varied and some individuals preferred a bit of odd-order distortion (but not too much).  Even if you’re not technically inclined, I think you’ll find his comments to be provocative.

Pete’s presentation can be found here (note:  the website comes up as “not secure” – no SSL / https: format).  If you’re uncomfortable venturing there, you can download the PDF file from our website by clicking here.

So yes, musical engagement can be different things to different people ... but you already knew that.

I think that keeping this "engagement" principle in mind, guides the talented designer to create a component that goes beyond technically competent and ventures into the transcendent.