SY
But the 'contolled listening tests' i asume proved that your amps sounded all the same, right? They obviously then won't benefit from resonance control or any kind of improvement anyway. For someone with so many patents and general contributions to science and technology you seem to be killing time in a most unproductive way here.
peter
But the 'contolled listening tests' i asume proved that your amps sounded all the same, right? They obviously then won't benefit from resonance control or any kind of improvement anyway. For someone with so many patents and general contributions to science and technology you seem to be killing time in a most unproductive way here.
peter
You assume wrong.
Yes. In amps that weren't microphonic to begin with, it made no difference at all that I could hear, so I've stopped bothering with it. In amps that were microphonic, it helped a great deal. But then I got older and wiser and stopped using parts that are inherently microphonic in those applications (as opposed to under artificial test conditions), unless absolutely necessary. I've got some Nuvistors to sell...
In my preamp, I do use resonance control for the input stage tubes in the phono amp.
SY said:
I also have some top hats to sell.
So it seems like SS gear shouldn't show much microphonics, yet I spent last year researching that subject and my findings are that this is not the case. No mater how heavy or damped the unit is, it will always present sonic variations when different approaches to its resonant state are applied. I made countless experiments and I simply cannot disregard that. And BTW, every part is microphonic (to a certain degree).
It might be, that it also depends on a setup and associated equipment that those changes are more or less detectable.
By saying that the "resonances" will have no effect on electrical behavior and the downside is merely sociological you are closing the path and desire for other people to experiment and checking the existance of those occurances by themselve.
Experiments without controls are not well-designed experiments, and their conclusions should not be trusted a priori, at least not without replication under proper controls. I know plenty of people who fervently believe in crystal healing because of their "experiments." I'm waiting for someone to demonstrate efficacy with any sort of control, but I'm not holding my breath. SE will pardon me for borrowing his favorite example, but why have you not experimented with freezing your photograph? The guy did the experiment and he reported what he "heard." He doesn't have a reputation as a liar.
GOOD solid state gear shouldn't. I can show you examples that do. It's best to test and not prejudge. And the test is either a direct test for microphonics or a controlled sensory test to detect whether the microphonics are perceptible.
SY said:
Many people dismiss the photograph experiment, yet this is actually a perfect opportunity to test ones psychological bias. If after freezing photograps a person can actually hear the difference it means that person is susceptible to psycological biasing. OTOH if no difference is perceived it means the psychological inclinations in that person are not really that strong. So if that person can hear any differences in the gear that the resonance state was altered or difference in capacitors or wire direction, it can only indicate that it's more than merely psychological influence and the tricks your brain is playing on you. It is much oversimplified, but I believe it makes some sense.
So I can barely wait to try those infamous photograph experiments and see myself how apt I am to that. Merely talking about it makes me excited
The only problem is that I don't have a color photograph from my youth, so I'm might not experience the most intense sonic presentation.
That does not follow. If you like, I can direct you toward some general references on experimental design for sensory research and deeper explanations of the effects of experimenter bias, placebo, expectation effect, nocebo, and the like.
The reality is that ALL of us, including this hyper-rationalist, are susceptible to psychological implications as long as we have a human brain. My assumption is that you're not a Turing construct.
BTW, the experiments can be multiplexed. Condition A is a heatsink insulator you don't like and no photo in the freezer. Condtion B is your favorite heatsink insulator AND your photo in the freezer. If you show a valid differentiation, then it's up to you and the other Peter to fight about whose tweak did the trick.
Peter Daniel said:So I can barely wait to try those infamous photograph experiments and see myself how apt I am to that. Merely talking about it makes me excited
The only problem is that I don't have a color photograph from my youth, so I'm might not experience the most intense sonic presentation.
would someone mind explaining to us uninitiated what you are talking about...
mike
Because each of us, as individual humans, is susceptible, consciously or unconsciously, to different biases and expectations. I had a girlfriend who was a brilliant woman, a trained biochemist. But she believed strongly in astrology and would not use the same standards of evidence to examine those beliefs that she would use to look at the actions of monoamine oxidase inhibitors on neural function in humans. Sitting around one evening, I mentioned some stuff that was going around at the time about "remote viewing." Her reaction: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Turing Construct: a computer simulation of a human being that is so well crafted as to be able to fool a human into believing that the "person" with whom he's communicating is an actual human.
It all started as a peaceful discussion as why Raka's system doesn't show GC to be vastly superior or at least different to a Denon amp.
Of course good things don't last and a bored scientist jumped in to spoil all the fun. Now it's back to freezers, photos and Turing constructs. Having had the misfortune to grow up in a household of physicists i know from experience they won't give up until everyone unconditionally surrenders (or simply runs away from the boredom) to their superior scientific methods.
It's alot more fun to argue with a Turing machine.
cheerio
peter
OT, sorry
Gee, first time I've heard that. This afternoon.
The cork thing is only about 6 years old. www.neocork.com if you've got a morbid curiosity. It came out of some work I was doing on wire and cable. The consulting winemaker thing goes back to '95 and I have exactly one client who produces all of 400 cases a year (hell of abusiness, isn't it?). In the intervening years, I did electronics and instrumentation.
Gee, first time I've heard that. This afternoon.
The cork thing is only about 6 years old. www.neocork.com if you've got a morbid curiosity. It came out of some work I was doing on wire and cable. The consulting winemaker thing goes back to '95 and I have exactly one client who produces all of 400 cases a year (hell of abusiness, isn't it?). In the intervening years, I did electronics and instrumentation.
Well, well, well....
I see you all have spare time enough
Probably every sentence has it's true, but I can't find it, poor me.
I am an engineer, so many jokes can apply to me, some of them really good. I can understand things easily, because I was trained to, that means that if everything has it's cause or leit motiv, it can be deducted or measured, even leading to explanations like suggestion, placebo, no-cebo, si-cebo and maybe-cebo.
This is not to make me out like a superbrain, but to explain my point of view. I can understand that an amp could suffer from microphonics, because I've seen this in many other devices (i.e. TT), but in my system this doesn't show up. The idea river has to flow to another direction, that maybe is that I have a bottleneck other place. Action: find it. I don't discard that putting a 10kg brick on the amp could affect the sound, I simply negate that, today in my system, it does. I don't discard that a cap can sound different, or a connector, or whatever.
That being said, I found things that are MUCH MUCH more critical (and no subjected to biasing) in my sound chain, that will continue being of paramount importance once the bottleneck is disolved. Those things are in no particular order: Speakers positioning, head height (eh, I mean correlated to tweeter
, not head size... ) source quality, ambiental noise, mood, and sound pressure.
I have made the AB test again, with a written report. I will save you all the text (it's a great effort, because I write lovely reviews), and let's go to the core.
I detected that GC was a better player, no doubt. More meat in the violin sound, dynamic, lively, and so on. I was happy, and then I discovered that my test had an error. The input of the denon was the digital of the DVD, so the DAC of the denon was playing. I amended this and the input for both amps was the analog output of the DVD.
Again went the test, and the differences were really difficult to pick up, but again my beautiful GC was ahead. Very slightly. More crisp and crunchy sound of the strings and less cavernous sound in the voices. Very, very slight differences. I was almost happy. GC was the winner, but only marginal.
Before I disconnected the setup, I remembered that I could use my laptop signal generator to check the gain of both amps, and give the last bit of "rigor". I adjusted it and off you go, GC, show what you can do.
Well, my tears are still dropping. I couldn't distinguish nothing. Even more, I changed my opinion several times about who was the winner. Before this I was hearing just the advantages of a louder sound. Eh, gainclonie, let's go home, you've done what you could, and it's ok.... don't cry, everything is fine now.
I'll use the GC, but because I'm proud of it, and because It can perform as good as a Denon. (not worse, not better, unfortunately)
Could somebody of you make the AB, GC vs other?
PS: Nobody has listened to the Sostacovich concerto, have you? bad boys.
I see you all have spare time enough
Probably every sentence has it's true, but I can't find it, poor me.
I am an engineer, so many jokes can apply to me, some of them really good. I can understand things easily, because I was trained to, that means that if everything has it's cause or leit motiv, it can be deducted or measured, even leading to explanations like suggestion, placebo, no-cebo, si-cebo and maybe-cebo.
This is not to make me out like a superbrain, but to explain my point of view. I can understand that an amp could suffer from microphonics, because I've seen this in many other devices (i.e. TT), but in my system this doesn't show up. The idea river has to flow to another direction, that maybe is that I have a bottleneck other place. Action: find it. I don't discard that putting a 10kg brick on the amp could affect the sound, I simply negate that, today in my system, it does. I don't discard that a cap can sound different, or a connector, or whatever.
That being said, I found things that are MUCH MUCH more critical (and no subjected to biasing) in my sound chain, that will continue being of paramount importance once the bottleneck is disolved. Those things are in no particular order: Speakers positioning, head height (eh, I mean correlated to tweeter
, not head size... ) source quality, ambiental noise, mood, and sound pressure.I have made the AB test again, with a written report. I will save you all the text (it's a great effort, because I write lovely reviews), and let's go to the core.
I detected that GC was a better player, no doubt. More meat in the violin sound, dynamic, lively, and so on. I was happy, and then I discovered that my test had an error. The input of the denon was the digital of the DVD, so the DAC of the denon was playing. I amended this and the input for both amps was the analog output of the DVD.
Again went the test, and the differences were really difficult to pick up, but again my beautiful GC was ahead. Very slightly. More crisp and crunchy sound of the strings and less cavernous sound in the voices. Very, very slight differences. I was almost happy. GC was the winner, but only marginal.
Before I disconnected the setup, I remembered that I could use my laptop signal generator to check the gain of both amps, and give the last bit of "rigor". I adjusted it and off you go, GC, show what you can do.
Well, my tears are still dropping. I couldn't distinguish nothing. Even more, I changed my opinion several times about who was the winner. Before this I was hearing just the advantages of a louder sound. Eh, gainclonie, let's go home, you've done what you could, and it's ok.... don't cry, everything is fine now.
I'll use the GC, but because I'm proud of it, and because It can perform as good as a Denon. (not worse, not better, unfortunately)
Could somebody of you make the AB, GC vs other?
PS: Nobody has listened to the Sostacovich concerto, have you? bad boys.
Hahaha, you are right !
I have read it in so many ways that I forgot how is it actually.
Besides, he is a fiend of mine, so I'm familiar with him.
It's just as well that I didn't suggest to listen to "Chaicovsky", or it was "Tchaikhovski", or maybe Chaiskovich? Ahhh..well, I got it Txaikoski, yes, that's it.
I have read it in so many ways that I forgot how is it actually.
Besides, he is a fiend of mine, so I'm familiar with him.
It's just as well that I didn't suggest to listen to "Chaicovsky", or it was "Tchaikhovski", or maybe Chaiskovich?
Ahhh..well, I got it Txaikoski, yes, that's it.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.