sm: ""
I'm still trying to fathom what difference it makes if a wire or circuit does not respond at 50 khz when the signal is inherently bandwidth limited to 20 or 25 khz and has practically no energy near those extremes even so.""Very good questions. I've no problem with your questions..
How does one guarantee that two independent circuits will maintain temporal accuracy at the 2 to 5 uSec level for a correlated signal when one circuit has the additional burden of a large, uncorrelated signal.
The simplest way is to simply make the circuits capable of nanosecond accuracy.
Justification for that kind of overkill, can be either the "sounds better" style, ala jc, or via actual reproducible testing, my approach as well as what you demand.
I've been going through the test requirements to perform the latter, and find many shortcomings in methodology to date.
sm: ""
I am also trying to understand what difference it makes if both channels are attenuated by a decibel or 20 decibels at 50khz or 200 khz if they still arrive at both ears at the same relative times as they would if they were not attenuated at all.""
I've not mentioned IID, nor relative level. Don't forget, a lowpass by nature asymptotically approaches a non zero delay, but audibility of that would be more jj's domain.
sm: ""
But above all else, I am trying to find out how a circuit which is slew rate limited at the phono preamp output gain stage to 1V/microsecond would affect the sound of a phonograph record when the most pathological case I can invent for a signal would limit it to 0.1V/microsecond and would usually be far, far, less that that. I don't understand why 1Volt/microsecond is not good enough but 5 Volts/microsecond is fine. Where is the measured data? Where are the calculations? Where is any evidence one way or the other?""
You ask that of jc, you won't get any...historically. His nature of course, and his income as well. (gotta eat).
I point out the shortcomings in understandings and test capabilities which I would need to overcome to answer to my satisfaction.
sm: ""
I do not take anyone's "word for it" without at least some quantitative explanation.""
I would expect nothing less.
sm: ""
And I don't accept unclear analogies or comparisons of circuits where there are many simultaneous variables operative where someone picks out a single one to make a case for a predetermined conclusion.""
Hey look...if you don't like a piss poor analogy, that's your problem..Hey, I did warn ya..:-)
Really, what I was trying to point out via example, was a system that treated a small signal differently depending on (essentially) the DC operating point. While present design techniques are far superior to a gross example such as that, very little is done regarding the small signal response while the operating point is slewing at or near the system capability. Measurement of that is not gonna be easy.
sm: ""
So I ask again, where are my assumed data or calculations wrong?:""
Well for me, the thinking that ITD/IID is of no concern for imaging is entirely incorrect...I believe you just stated it looser than you meant.As for JC's numbers, I cannot answer.
I believe it is not necessary to state that these discussions I consider quite valuable..thanks.
Cheers, John
