Thanks, X-PRO for you enlightening input. We both face the same problems. In fact, the ONLY way that CTC could use silver wire was a long break-in on the spool. My now departed business partner, Bob Crump, used to use his garage to break-in the silver wire, his finished cables (of many different metals), and even amps, in his garage. When the police noted the excess use of electricity for a single person dwelling, they raided his garage, thinking that it was a POT FARM. However, Bob hardly even drank alcohol, much less used pot, so they went away empty handed and shaking their heads. These are the subtle 'tricks or tweaks' that we use to make our products best. Others might CRYO, which could be faster and even better in many cases.
In my experience, it is the circuit design and proper shielding that makes 85%-90% of resulting sound. All of those resistors, air wires etc. do not help for worse electronic design, when compared to a better one. This is just my listening experience when comparing several prorotypes even against very well known and respected products, which emphasized use of special components, burning in etc. To me, these are marginal issues discussed here.
It does seem, to me at least, that the better products require proportionally longer break in time. It's like the product's ability to reveal nuances allows you to hear the consequences of insufficient break in more easily.
George Cardas on his site proposes that's it's due to draining electrons or ions out of insulators, Better insulators require longer drain times. He mentions that products not used for some time will require a fresh break in possibly for less time. I concur I have heard interconnects that were just fine become coarse from lack of use (not plugged in) they recover much faster than the original break in cycle.
In the tube days there was good reason to allow for warm up. With modern solid state gear (mine at least) it sounds better after a short warm up cycle. Is this just temperature stabilization or a version of fresh break in?
George Cardas on his site proposes that's it's due to draining electrons or ions out of insulators, Better insulators require longer drain times. He mentions that products not used for some time will require a fresh break in possibly for less time. I concur I have heard interconnects that were just fine become coarse from lack of use (not plugged in) they recover much faster than the original break in cycle.
In the tube days there was good reason to allow for warm up. With modern solid state gear (mine at least) it sounds better after a short warm up cycle. Is this just temperature stabilization or a version of fresh break in?
Well show us a REALLY GOOD topology, PMA, something new or improved? I would like to learn from it, just like you have learned from my examples. Shielding? Show me how to cost effectively better screen my audio components. Really, show me something that I haven't considered, and show me why it might be important. This would be valuable and useful.
PMA said:
I'll relate some of my experiences in CRT projector modification.
At one point, near the end run of that work, I proposed to folks that changing the horizontal deflection yoke wiring on their tubes was critical.
They laughed at me.
I ended up having to explain that, if all the other modifications were done, then the subtle differences created by the changing of the yoke wire out to something that is more complimentary to the 'perfection' of signal transfer, for that given signal and it's environment..this would bring about a noticeable change and a positive one. some folks actually got around to figuring out how to clean up their big CRT PJ's to the point that this change become a big one, on the order of 1-2% of subjective change in image fidelity.
Again,... But, and a BIG BUT..ONLY if all the other work was done to make it noticeable. To bring this previously subtle change, to a point of now..prominence.
When you tweak a circuit in layout, power supply, implementation, vibration control, proximity to other fields and conditions, parts, etc..then the subtle stuff becomes QUITE prominent, as it's the last vestiges of 'fault' that lie in the system.
It is essential to learn how to do all of the rest first..and that's a big-backside pile of time and work. No substitute here for work..no..the opposite, you've got your work cut out for you.
Then..you take all the subtle tweaks..add them together..and they add up to a quite BIG change..toward and into the direction you wish to go, which is that last little bit..on the road to perfection.
It's an art. You gotta work at it.
PMA said:
Why Pavel,
that still leaves 10-15%, maybe not a whole lot of difference in the consumer grade show, but i reckon in the big boys toy department it's a struggle for each percent on the richter scale.
(whenever i have people over for dinner i turn the central heating down. I call's it the cerebral boost, also helps to prevent them from cleaning out the liquor storage)
john curl said:
John,
It is possible I am incorrect. But I can only look at the evidence. The fact that people, let's say 'drift' with their opinion and perception to accomodate internal conflits is documented in perhaps hundreds of studies, some better than others but a lot following rigourous scientific methods. I am pretty sure that the phenomenon is an accepted fact in behavioural science.
It works EVERY TIME. In buying cars, in relationships, in advertising, hell, there are lots of succesfull businessmen that are rich because they know how to exploit it. Therefore, there is undeniable, overwhelming evidence that it is the listener that is burning in, not the equipment.
Now let's look at the other side. I am not aware of ANY reasonably scientific study or measurements that document a genuine burn-in phenomenon, meaning that the transfer function, THD level, whatever you want to use, changes from an initial value to something else during the first few hour, days, weeks, except for mechanical parameters in loudspeakers. The only 'evidence' we have is anecdotal from people saying that they clearly hear the equipment changing after such a period. But it's anecdotal only, if you compare it with the mass of stringent studies documenting the 'people burn-in' it's no comparison.
And you know, the reaction of people that they clearly heard a change is also well documented and expected. It's not that people are in some way dishonest or deluded. We genuinely are convinced that we do hear those changes. That's what makes it so stubborn. It requires an extraordinary leap of open-mindedness to allow for the possibility that things are NOT as you clearly hear them.
It is part of our defense against life, as it were. It's part of our way of being convinced, deep inside, that we are smart, important, that we matter. Unfortunately, there are some that do not have that defense and have minds so open that they see how futile and trivial their existence actually is. Those people are mostly living in serene buildings, tended by white-clothed professionals and called 'patients'.
We are not patients. We matter in the grand scheme of things, don't we? The world would be a lot worse off without us, isn't it?
We are pretty smart, we are a boon to humanity. We KNOW. I know. You know. Yet we know contradicting things. So one of us is wrong. I'm convinced it's you
Can we have an impartial referee who straighthens us out in this burn-in thing? Yes. Science, the scientific method, the documented studies. The circle is closed.
Jan Didden
GRollins said:
You are absolutely right Grey. I work as an audio engineer in telecom related business and use a Head and Torso simulator with Artificial Ear daily. I recently saw study by big telecom companies where about 100 people's ear impedances were measured by placing a reference microphone in their ear canal and playing them stepped sine tones. The result showed considerable variance in peoples "ear frequency response" as well the ear resonance frequencies varied a lot.
That made me wonder if there would ever be a chance to make a loudspeaker taht would please all the audiophiles
Ergo
janneman said:
Jan, any serious electronics engineer should be very familiar with this "burn-in" phenomenon. Take a datasheet for a precision voltage reference, a precision resistor, a precision crystal oscillator. More often than not these would include some data on what is called a long-term stability. Again, in many cases the most significant change occurs in an initial break-in period of a few hundred hours. As for electrolytic capacitors, even for a cheapest one the manufacturer would note in the datasheet that the parameters shown would be valid ONLY after a certain time with a rated voltage applied.
I enclose a couple of graphs - from LM399 and Panasonic FC capacitors datasheets just to illustrate the point. As you may see, the leakage current may need 100-500 hours to stabilize and so does the reference voltage.
Alex
Attachments
Grey, I do NOT have to prove my practical experience to you. It is too difficult, but I KNOW that it is possible to see changes at an atomic level. Crystals realign, even move toward or away from each other. Sometimes a fragment that doesn't fit will be pushed out of the way. This can happen in real time over hours or days, EVEN without current flowing through it. I have seen electron microphotographs of this from a PURE COPPER surface. Think what an applied current could do.
I can not speak of any audible consequences caused by "draining" insulators. The phenomena is however quite real and documented. In the coarsest sense it is known as dielectric absorption. The phenomena is a continuously logarithmically decreasing flow, when does the last electron leave?MikeBettinger said:
john curl said:
It had to do with running 8" and 9" NEC, Barco, Electrohome, and Sony projectors at their limits, which was a stable and clear 'near perfect' 1080P resolution level. In a horizontal yoke wire..the cable is immersed in huge fields, both static and signal, and it is near metals. Vibration, as well-thus motor effects. I proposed the swapping out of the wire by a multi-stranded Teflon insulated wire, with a specific stranding type and 'lay', which I then proceeded to do. I designed the wiring a specific way for a specific reason, and it seemed to work out.
This stabilized the horizontal line drawing, with respects to the timing start issues (actual beginning and stability of that draw) and then the decay period which emphasized the draw across the tube face. So, from flatline to peak and stable, like a square wave..then decay down to whatever (in value) to draw the spot across the tube face. At 1080P, each line must follow the last in utter perfection, so that the line is placed exactly 'so' in each line. Then, across all three tubes. At 1080P, a subtle change in image fidelity..when viewed at 8 feet across from about 10 foot distance, this has the seeming effect of moving the chair back a foot or so, as it brings more 'clarity' and fidelity to the image, with regards to being able to 'see into' the image. This, on all fronts. Focus, sharpness, color fidelity, color gradations, etc. The same kind of effects as one sees in extreme audio. But the video versions. I had hardcore video fanatics drop in, one of them..came in ..saw the image fidelity, gulped real hard, and went outside and sat on the porch. Nearly had a heart attack. To this day, I've never seen anything equal it.
But this was only really visible, when one had rebuilt or re-executed the entire rest of the Projector. over 600 parts, done as a 'single cause analysis' methodology, on the one example, over a two year period.
I shared a few conversations and secrets with Chris Stevens. I wonder how he's doing. One has to be careful with CRT circuits in ways that don't really count in audio. For example, in audio, you can over do the capacitance in a PS, and maybe suffer with a bit of strange harshness, or loading/phasing behaviour. With the CRT units, it can be a recipe for fire, due to the frequencies involved.
It was when I had really perfected the 1080P image, and also perfected my HTPC (rebuilt motherboards, clocking systems, mechanicals, vibration, etc) , with respects to all things, including custom wiring and everything in signal transfer hard wired, and then custom trimming the loading on each separate R-G-B channel..and the H and V signals..I then began to play with (and had already been playing with) the idea of a 'perfect' aspect of the 'upscaling'..and finding those ratios..and exploring the rationale of the whole thing.
I came up with the reasons behind why 1080P upscaling of DVD's worked best..and published that. I was ridiculed. For about 2 years.
Now the 1080P upscaling is on nearly every DVD player you can buy. Why? well, the video quality, it's better - can't you see?
I don't believe I've ever met Joe Kane.
I'm also still sitting on about 5 years worth of exploratory surgery on digital projector technology, which no-one seems to have yet 'discovered' most of it. It is of a similar nature as the CRT work.
All the little tweaks that can take any digital video projection display and make it brutally obvious that folks are watching something that exists in an entirely different world and different level. I spent about 6 years developing a quite decent understanding of 'psychovisuals' and how that relates to technological needs, with regards to achieving the that which the eye needs to see, to understand a better image. Once again, over 5 years of single cause analysis experiments in video technology..day in, day out, 7 days a week...all done at the cutting edge.
No one cares. Oh well. Yet they all clamor about asking for the 'best image'. I'd like to dump it all on one company, someone good enough to do something with it. The usual response I get is that I'm some sort of fruitcake.
Well, after spending several hours looking intently at two of the wrong reference books, '61 Electron microscopy and Analysis 1981', and '147 Electron Microscopy and Analysis 1995', I finally found the RIGHT reference book: 'Electron Microscopy of Interfaces in Metals and Alloys' by CT Forwood and LM Clarebrough, and herein we find on pp 314-325., '6.4.1 Faulted Defects Generated by the Movement of Boundaries in Electron Microscope Specimens' Read this and be amazed. The specimen is 99.999% Cu at room temperature, and the machine turned off between viewings. The first image was initial, the second after 20hr, the third after 3 days
"In fact, defects of this type are sometimes observed to 'pop out' of the specimen and others to be generated as the boundary continues to move."
Good enough for me.
"In fact, defects of this type are sometimes observed to 'pop out' of the specimen and others to be generated as the boundary continues to move."
Good enough for me.
janneman said:
Jan, as usual, you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Science lags experience--it doesn't lead it.
ergo said:
You are absolutely right Grey. I work as an audio engineer in telecom related business and use a Head and Torso simulator with Artificial Ear daily. I recently saw study by big telecom companies where about 100 people's ear impedances were measured by placing a reference microphone in their ear canal and playing them stepped sine tones. The result showed considerable variance in peoples "ear frequency response" as well the ear resonance frequencies varied a lot.
That made me wonder if there would ever be a chance to make a loudspeaker taht would please all the audiophiles
Ergo
I've seen many, many posts here related to hearing tests in the sense of frequency response curves. This is actually a bit of a red herring. Why? Let's say that person X is tested and found to be down 2dB at something like 3kHz. He hears a violin. That 2dB dip is there, but because it's always there a violin reproduced with perfectly flat response will sound the way violins always sound to him live and he will recognize it as right. If the response is +1dB and he hears it, he will say that it's too much. If it's -1dB, he'll hear it and recognize it as such. Given that flat frequency response is a trivial issue in audio reproduction, it isn't something worth obsessing over.
(For what it's worth, I had my hearing checked early last year and my "frequency response" is just fine, thank you. I'm something like 1dB down on one side at some midrange-ish frequency [I've actually got the graph here somewhere], but that's normal for me. It's been that way since day one.)
It's a trivial observation that peoples' ears (the external part) vary drastically in shape. Any idiot with half a functioning brain can see that. Given that the external ear's function is to channel sound into the ear canal, is it so hard to imagine that one person's external ear might be more efficient at gathering details than another's? I mean, really, it's long been known that the external ear gathers sound and that the shape matters. Want to experiment? Gently pull your ears outward from your head. Hear the sound change? Push flat against your skull. Hear the sound change? There's more to it than "frequency response." You'll perceive all sorts of things differently.
A more telling hearing test would be the ability to discriminate a tone partially masked by another tone. Now, that might be worth looking into. I have yet to think of a way to measure any of the things I suggested as variables above, though any one of them would be far more important to the recognition of high end audio phenomena than mere "frequency response."
It is astonishing how willfully blind people are to the idea that there might be others whose hearing differs from theirs. And it might (god forbid) even be better....gasp, perish the thought!
Grey
P.S.: I am absolutely certain that there are people with hearing better than mine. I don't worry about it. I'm sure that Michael Jordan plays basketball better than I do, too. Even now that he's retired. Should that bother me? Not at all. Ditto for hearing. I seem to hear better than average. Am I the last possible data point on the bell curve? Not bloody likely. I hear what I hear and I work with that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.