Wow, it's nice to "see" you again! Been a while.
In any event, I'm unaware of any verifiable audible differences that are not accompanied by measurable differences, though (especially in the case of transducers) analyzing the measurements and correlating them with subjective impressions is not always trivial. The reverse isn't true, though; one can measure all kinds of things that cannot be demonstrated to be audible.
Yes, nice to be back plonking around the DIY halls!
Geez, I even saw Frank here the other week.I personally think we frequently develop new measurement techniques that throw light on audible somethings. Jitter might be a good example. That not unusual developmental path---new measurement technique explaining something previously audible---suggests measurement doesn't cover the field, or at least that's what I infer. And FWIW, I don't doubt we can measure things we cannot hear.
All true John - especially the delight of wringing the best possible performance out of a truly handicapped vehicle. Along with the thrashed mini I mentioned earlier, I have strong memories of driving my VW Kombi around Marble Arch in the wet... in third gear... sideways... And having so much fun, we did it again!
If I'd been in a Porsche, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had the manic grin on my mug. In fact, the servicing of Porsche vehicles (mostly aircooleds) was decidedly unpleasant since it meant road testing and that in the middle of London was a highly compromising activity.
The kombi was a hopelessly underpowered, poor handling compromise of a vehicle, but I love it to this day. Which puts it in the same league as my current hagerman/6j5 preamp and EL36 amp. It ain't no blowtorch, but I love it becuase I built it and the compromises are mine (intellegent and otherwise!).
For the petrol heads - come to NZ! Currently no smog or any other limits on what you do engine-wise (or anything else essentially), but an engineer must certify for road safety.
Last edited:
Can anyone think of a measurement technique that, upon its appearance on the measurement stage, corroborated an audible artifact claimed to be audible before the measurement appeared? Surely there must be many examples.
And back to the other of my queries: what evidence have we that the current spate of measurements and techniques covers the entire audible field?
And back to the other of my queries: what evidence have we that the current spate of measurements and techniques covers the entire audible field?
Actually, I can think of one relevant example. A while back, Cyril Bateman measured capacitor noise using a technique he developed for just that occasion. He measured noise properties of various capacitor types and dielectrics. Quite interestingly, his results, almost to a tee, corroborated generally held notions by those who, prior to Bateman's tests, had only their ears to rely on. Among other things, Bateman's test results matched the generally accepted hierarchy of capacitor dielectrics (from better to worse: teflon, styrene, propylene, mylar, etc.).
I realize I was asking to prove a negative. I did so to demonstrate a point: we have no basis to confidently assert that measurement covers the audible field. I would think a good scientist would recognize this uncertainty as scientific, for it is based on sound logic.
Combine this logic with my assertion that new measurements appear that explain audio differences previously claimed to be audible, and one has a pretty good working hypothesis that admits there's a region where measurements give way to ears.
Last edited:
I am going to comment about jitter. I think that we have improved digital equipment playback by lowering jitter, and it was not easy to do this. It took a lot of engineering and working around the initial standards produced by Sony et al. We have made progress and it should not be forgotten that we had to fight for it.
Cyril Bateman did some very good measurements. However, many of these measurements were done by others over the years, and decades before he came on the scene. It is a little like when Barrie Gilbert rediscovered the theory in Matti Otala's paper on PIM, 15 years later, and ran with it. He was not polite to Matti in doing this. It is the same between Cyril Bateman and Walt Jung and me. He discounted the differential subtraction test that we published, because he did not really understand it. He sort of dismissed it, to Walt's and my wonder, but that's the way the world works. At least, some measurements are easily available to engineers, and maybe, just maybe, they might pay attention to them.
There is only one specific to audio measurement instrument and that's your ears. The "entire audible field" is not a daunting or particularly challenging division in measurement science and existing techniques work swimmingly with it. What one is capable of or chooses to do with the data it provides is another matter entirely. As per your specific example, consider that these different types of caps already existed for good reason, of which likely only the audio nutter community was oblivious to. As such Batemen had no choice but for his findings to reflect what was already known. He also didn't measure noise but non linearity or distortion. More recently noise has been demonstrated in parts often neglected for the effect but never really denied, however the ears wouldn't let it go but you still can't say they got there first. Yes, of course you can prove a negative.
Bateman measured capacitor distortion, not noise.
One of the things he concluded was, within their somewhat limited range of available values, C0G ceramic were among the best. This also agrees with Pease's capacitor dielectric absorption measurements of years ago. If you want to see the correlation between that position, argued from solid results of measurements, with the typical audiophile view, see this thread. I don't see good correspondence there at all.
Last edited:
Andy_C nobody denies that COG capacitors work pretty well. However, that is NOT the most popular ceramic capacitor that has been used over the decades.
It is true that I steered toward polystyrene and mica, however Mark Levinson through Tom Colongelo, used COG for comp caps, etc. The problem was and still is the PHYSICAL SIZE of COG ceramic caps, and the limitations in absolute value. They may OK, but they are NOT cheap, or small, or anything else that really special. If they had been they would have most probably selected for analog computers, rather than polystyrene, during their heyday.
Please don't look for prejudice, where there is none. When I first started to work with Mark Levinson, we used plain ceramic caps for comp and bypass caps. Who knew of any problems? Perhaps very large value caps were suspect, you know, the 2uf type, but between 5-100,000pf, ceramics ruled the day. It was only when I was shown the problem in early 1974 by Tektronics engineers, did I start making independent measurements, and then I showed a B&K engineer,and he published something on it, then I finally put it in my 1978 IEEE paper. Before this, even the non-linearity of the usually used ceramic caps was ignored by just about everyone. In fact, in 1977, I had to PROVE it to an engineer at HK by taking a ceramic cap off of HIS bench and measuring it with HIS ST analyzer on HIS bench. I literally had to rub his nose in it, much like I have to do around here, sometimes. DA was also seriously ignored, for audio, until Dick Marsh noted it in 1978 while working at Lawrence Livermore Lab while designing government equipment. Bob Pease and his measurements, while quite good, came later.
It is true that I steered toward polystyrene and mica, however Mark Levinson through Tom Colongelo, used COG for comp caps, etc. The problem was and still is the PHYSICAL SIZE of COG ceramic caps, and the limitations in absolute value. They may OK, but they are NOT cheap, or small, or anything else that really special. If they had been they would have most probably selected for analog computers, rather than polystyrene, during their heyday.
Please don't look for prejudice, where there is none. When I first started to work with Mark Levinson, we used plain ceramic caps for comp and bypass caps. Who knew of any problems? Perhaps very large value caps were suspect, you know, the 2uf type, but between 5-100,000pf, ceramics ruled the day. It was only when I was shown the problem in early 1974 by Tektronics engineers, did I start making independent measurements, and then I showed a B&K engineer,and he published something on it, then I finally put it in my 1978 IEEE paper. Before this, even the non-linearity of the usually used ceramic caps was ignored by just about everyone. In fact, in 1977, I had to PROVE it to an engineer at HK by taking a ceramic cap off of HIS bench and measuring it with HIS ST analyzer on HIS bench. I literally had to rub his nose in it, much like I have to do around here, sometimes. DA was also seriously ignored, for audio, until Dick Marsh noted it in 1978 while working at Lawrence Livermore Lab while designing government equipment. Bob Pease and his measurements, while quite good, came later.
Last edited:
The clowns in the "best opamp" thread brough up this link. The involuntar humor makes it worth mentioning in this thread.
Some people really don't know when to stop bullchipping.
IC Chip No Good for Audio
Some people really don't know when to stop bullchipping.
IC Chip No Good for Audio
What can I say. It's the Golden Rule: those who have the gold make the rules. And in this case, Burson have the gold. They can spew any nonsense they like because as soon as you want to put them right the audiophools will fall over you en masse. It may not be possible to fool all of the people all of the time, but you can get darn close!
jd
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.