That depends on your what you are looking for.
If you want to build a reputation in the audiofools community, or to sell stuff to snobs and idiots (and God knows, the Mother of Stupidity is always pregnant) then you can resume complaining about scientists being obtuse and stone deaf regarding your extraordinary claims. That will do pretty well.
If you want to be accepted and endorsed by the scientific community, then you'd better play by the rules.
There's of course always the option of anarchy and rebellion. I'd leave that to teenagers.
Not really. If a claim is plausible, then you may get some traction before you finish all the details of the proof.
Listen, I know what the rules are. You can go back and read all of my posts on the subject. There has been nothing but talk, talk, talk about "proper tests" and all I have ever said that there are no real results that are readily available. If the AES has done any meaningful tests, they are stingy with their documentation. No, I am not going to shell out $50 (or whatever it costs) to see what that documentation looks like. And since the moderators are so pissy about copyright rules, it'll never show up here, not even as an abstract. And know, I am not going to shell out the $30,000 or more to conduct what I would consider a comprehensive test nor am I going to take time out of my 70hr work weeks to satisfy someone else's demands for free.
John
Last edited:
Hi SY,
That is probably the understatement of the century..
I will be using them in my new GM70 based monoblocks, I do think they are worth the expense, and they can be recycled into new projects when the current one has outlived its usefulness if handled with a little care. In this case though, the current amplifier will not be cannabalized as I intend to keep using it elsewhere.
If no proof is produced, the result is the same, extraordinary claim or not.
But you're right as far as that others will be more interested in your claim, if it sounds plausible, and thus it may turn easier to produce the proof.
Magura
Hi John,
I will definitely give that a try at some point.. FWIW My amplifiers evolved sonically over the first several hundred hours of use, and about the only explanation I can come up with is changes in those coupling capacitors which the manufacturer indicated were to be expected.
Come on John, you're asking for the result before he has made the test.
The documentation I dare to expect he is going to publish, once he has a result to publish.
I am not going to point out every single case, to each person, of people crossing the line in this thread, so judge for yourself if you crossed the line of reasonable behavior.
If you feel hit by what I wrote, it was probably meant for you, if not, it wasn't
The point was a request to make it comfortable and friendly in this thread, as it should have been.
Magura
Hi Kevin,
Any idea which electrical properties, the manufacturer indicated should change over time?
Magura
Good points, however I do have some experience in this area, and burn in is always a feature of devices used in high rel applications (aerospace, space, critical military applications) because this is how you weed out failures (parametric and gross) before the device is placed into service in a critical application (like space) where service or replacement is not a viable option. (Redundancy is often built in, but is intended for late service life usage)
I don't have any good answers to this conundrum but have come to consider film caps and the more exotic electrolytic types as requiring burn in for optimum performance. I think this is what is termed in science as "empirical observation" and when I indulge in such endeavors I try to employ a scientific approach even if it is my ears I am relying on to make that determination.
Anyone who believes that there is any passive component that matches the ideal components of circuit theory or spice is IMO naive.. Is it remotely possible that some capacitor parameters do change for the better over some period of use? This is certainly true for a lot of electrolytic caps where you may be able to measure differences (improvements) in ESR and leakage after some hours of usage.
My burn in technique consists of patiently waiting for whatever is going to happen to happen over some period from hours to hundred of hours. FWIW In most cases the biggest changes seem to occur in the first few hours of operation.
Hi Kevin,
Any idea which electrical properties, the manufacturer indicated should change over time?
Magura
Hi Magura,
No unfortunately the manufacturer did not provide any information on electrical parameters that might change over time, just some subjective comments about what changes I would hear. I did not do any measurements prior to installation or post installation, (other than verifying leakage R>10M and cap values within their tolerance range) and am not sure I could make measurements that would shed any light on the issue in any event. I will also admit to not reading the manufacturer's information until much later at which point it seemed to reflect my subjective experience.
I was referring to what happens during the first few dozen hours of usage where sometimes particularly with devices that sat on a shelf for a while there were measurable improvements in both leakage and ESR. (Electrolytics still deteriorate slowly whilst sitting on the shelf, despite many improvements in chemistry) Obviously over the life of an electrolytic cap the reverse would be true.
This is a known for electrolytic caps, as the ESR goes down, and so does the leakage, but this happens in minutes in the cases I've measured.
For film caps, I find it hard to see what should change? PTFE is about as stable a material, as they come.
The same could be said about PP.
PS and PET does absorb moisture, but I find it hard to believe that we can get the moisture out of those materials, by applying a signal, it simply requires more power to heat the cap, and heat is required to get the moisture out of the material.
SY, this is your field, can you come up with other factors, that could influence the dielectric?
Magura
Changes in dielectric constant and tan losses due to dielectric polarization and absorbtion effects. Could be an issue in high K ceramic caps, very little in some film caps (probably as audible as 1ppm of distortions), but certainly not in teflon caps. See Cyril Bateman's work, http://techdoc.kvindesland.no/radio/passivecomp/20061223155246643.pdf
Come on John, you're asking for the result before he has made the test.
The documentation I dare to expect he is going to publish, once he has a result to publish.
I am not going to point out every single case, to each person, of people crossing the line in this thread, so judge for yourself if you crossed the line of reasonable behavior.
If you feel hit by what I wrote, it was probably meant for you, if not, it wasn't
The point was a request to make it comfortable and friendly in this thread, as it should have been.
Magura
I was asking for documentation pertaining to what the test protocol was going to be. It's all a big secret right now.
Your post was directed at me, so what's wrong with me thinking you were a little misguided?
John
Last edited:
For someone that thinks that those of us that listen intently are delusional, you seem to have used this fact to promote your amplifier design!
http://www.synaesthesia.ca/listening.html
Talking out of both sides of your face here are you
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.