Hey Arty,
Just got around to watching the video you linked to. Looks like fun and I'm going to play around with it someday. I vaguely remembered something similar but couldn't put my finger on it. Searching through my history I found it. I downloaded these pics as a different way to re-build some crossovers I working on. I won't be rolling my own for this project, but those in the picture don't look all that sophisticated.
Just what I need - another area of interest. Not sure if I should thank you or complain - but thanks for the info.
_
DTQWT-mkII
_
Just got around to watching the video you linked to. Looks like fun and I'm going to play around with it someday. I vaguely remembered something similar but couldn't put my finger on it. Searching through my history I found it. I downloaded these pics as a different way to re-build some crossovers I working on. I won't be rolling my own for this project, but those in the picture don't look all that sophisticated.
Just what I need - another area of interest. Not sure if I should thank you or complain - but thanks for the info.
_
DTQWT-mkII
_
Attachments
Last edited:
My 2 cents. I think that the larger a cap is the slower it charges and discharges. Which may account for the change in sonic quality. I'm with Sy on the WIMA's they sound good and they're inexpensive. That said I spent some real money on a set of Mundorff silver in oil coupling caps for my big tube amps and there is a noticeable difference. But then I was replacing Solens so it wasn't a fair comparison.
By the way, that's 2 cents Latvian...
By the way, that's 2 cents Latvian...
Rotation, physics; the rest, engineering. Like I said, bring some evidence to the table and the claims will be taken seriously.
Hi Sy,
you're still too vague...BTW
In my subjective experience rolled capacitors and film resistors do sound slightly different according the direction they're mounted.
At least for capacitors, thanks to the outer foil, there is a direction that measures and sound different.
And, please, I'm not saying a resistors or a capacitors behaves correctly only in one direction.
They works and measure perfectly, obvioulsy, in both direction, simply there is a slight audible difference according direction.
Can you, please, explain why it would be against physics and engineering?
If you're getting no measurable difference (your words were "measure perfectly") and are claiming audible differences with NO ears-only listening, what you have there is a claim with all the evidentiary weight of UFO abductions. Like I said, come back with evidence (measurable differences in the "plausible" range or solid ears-only listening tests) and you might convince rational people that there's something going on.
'Measure perfectly' has to be intended as 'perfectly in specs' not 'no measurable differences'.... sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
We're all rational, please don't create such contraposition.
I'm simply reporting my experience, with all its limits, no evidence is needed to discuss about it and BTW everyone can try and refute or confirm it.
I've simply asked why you think this experience is impossible according physics... is it so difficult to explain?
Sy,
Again not with a desire to refute the validity of test results, would you accept an agreement of a large percentage of the twenty RC builders as credible?
I have to repeat I was extremely skeptical that rotating a cap or caddock resistor would produce a change in the sound. Let me suggest that if you have a comparable amp, please try a few swaps and report what you hear.
I am still interested in a link to your article on test procedures which could be used openly in the RC tuning process.
Again not with a desire to refute the validity of test results, would you accept an agreement of a large percentage of the twenty RC builders as credible?
I have to repeat I was extremely skeptical that rotating a cap or caddock resistor would produce a change in the sound. Let me suggest that if you have a comparable amp, please try a few swaps and report what you hear.
I am still interested in a link to your article on test procedures which could be used openly in the RC tuning process.
IOW, no evidence.
You have a circuit which measures "perfectly," though I'll allow that this probably means "good enough to be well below established audible thresholds for sonic transparency of a box of gain." You made unspecified measurements which do or do not (depending on which post) show differences which may or may not be within your measurement repeatability (unspecified). You claimed audible differences due to factors that invoke properties (e.g., resistor directionality) that lie outside of any known physics. You present no listening evidence for it.
So, we're back to chasing fairies and UFOs. Again, if that's how you want to spend your time, energy, and money, that's your right, but don't expect that rational people will believe any of this until you come up with actual, you know, data and evidence.
You have a circuit which measures "perfectly," though I'll allow that this probably means "good enough to be well below established audible thresholds for sonic transparency of a box of gain." You made unspecified measurements which do or do not (depending on which post) show differences which may or may not be within your measurement repeatability (unspecified). You claimed audible differences due to factors that invoke properties (e.g., resistor directionality) that lie outside of any known physics. You present no listening evidence for it.
So, we're back to chasing fairies and UFOs. Again, if that's how you want to spend your time, energy, and money, that's your right, but don't expect that rational people will believe any of this until you come up with actual, you know, data and evidence.
It was not done by ear alone. There's a LOT of literature in sensory science going back more than a century about this- this is why ALL serious sensory analysis (whether listening, smelling, tasting, touching) is done with blind controls. I'm not going to rehash this here; see for example:
Toole, Floyd. 2008. “Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms,” Elsevier.
Martin, Geoff. 2011. “Introduction to Sound Recording,” available through www.tonmeister.ca | home
Lipshitz, Stanley and Vanderkooy, J. 1981. "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 29 (July/Aug.), pp. 482-491.
Toole, Floyd. 2008. “Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms,” Elsevier.
Martin, Geoff. 2011. “Introduction to Sound Recording,” available through www.tonmeister.ca | home
Lipshitz, Stanley and Vanderkooy, J. 1981. "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 29 (July/Aug.), pp. 482-491.
Sy,
again with this contraposition... is like saying I'm not rational... sincerely it's offensive, IMHO.
As I've told I've simply reported a subjective experience, with all associated limits.
Sadly I don't own the measurement tools that would be needed.
If you don't want to try, no problem, I don't need to convince anyone.
But since you're convinced that such experience is against laws of physics (I disagree, obviously) it would be nice if you explain...
Last edited:
Clave, you are confusing "subjective" with "uncontrolled." Given that your English is far better than my Italian, I can't really criticize you for missing that linguistic subtlety.
Ears-only testing is absolutely subjective, but it allows you to determine if there really is a difference in the sound waves hitting your ears that you can perceive.
Ears-only testing is absolutely subjective, but it allows you to determine if there really is a difference in the sound waves hitting your ears that you can perceive.
Sy,
As a moderator and an audio affectionado, it is hard for me to believe you feel the intent and interest of hobbyist and beginners is any less significant than those with greater experience and knowledge. Everyone starts somewhere.
I will purchase the volume if and when I have cash to do so, but demeaning those who engage in a genuine pursuit of expanded knowledge (resulting in a better audio experience) leaves me at a loss.
From what I have discovered so far we are all going to end up at the same place - the only purpose for the technology is the enhancement of the quality of what reaches one's ears and brain. Techniques and methods will vary but we are all using the facilities at hand in that pursuit.
It would be my hope that you might rethink how you could more effectively communicate in a more straight forward manner, if your intent is to aid other in this "Hobby" for us - be they novices or veterans.
As a moderator and an audio affectionado, it is hard for me to believe you feel the intent and interest of hobbyist and beginners is any less significant than those with greater experience and knowledge. Everyone starts somewhere.
I will purchase the volume if and when I have cash to do so, but demeaning those who engage in a genuine pursuit of expanded knowledge (resulting in a better audio experience) leaves me at a loss.
From what I have discovered so far we are all going to end up at the same place - the only purpose for the technology is the enhancement of the quality of what reaches one's ears and brain. Techniques and methods will vary but we are all using the facilities at hand in that pursuit.
It would be my hope that you might rethink how you could more effectively communicate in a more straight forward manner, if your intent is to aid other in this "Hobby" for us - be they novices or veterans.
Last edited:
A scope and multimeter aren't sufficient, but with a well equipped junk box one can build the rest of a pretty good test setup. After measuring the usual things, one should look at stray capacitance between the part and a ground plane. One should look at high frequency performance, edges and linearity with higher currents. If you can't think of at least a dozen parameters to measure on any passive part, you're not using your imagination!
I brought up the "factor X" because it's a common counter argument in the "that can't be measured" discussions.
The big problem is that you'll know everything that's reasonable to know about the part, but not be able to correlate it with the audible performance. Worse, under better controlled conditions the audible differences tend to disappear. To my knowledge, almost nobody can tell the difference between entire amplifiers that have been matched for frequency response and level, much less individual circuit components. The usual caveats apply- not clipping and specs on the better side of good. 1970 amps using 2N3055s need not apply, though they might still do well.
The contributions of the mind are too hard to control!
I brought up the "factor X" because it's a common counter argument in the "that can't be measured" discussions.
The big problem is that you'll know everything that's reasonable to know about the part, but not be able to correlate it with the audible performance. Worse, under better controlled conditions the audible differences tend to disappear. To my knowledge, almost nobody can tell the difference between entire amplifiers that have been matched for frequency response and level, much less individual circuit components. The usual caveats apply- not clipping and specs on the better side of good. 1970 amps using 2N3055s need not apply, though they might still do well.
The contributions of the mind are too hard to control!
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.