MikeBettinger said:
Each time a company treats its customers like a horde of imbecils ready to digest whatever cr*p they are shoveling down their throats I refuse to grant any benefit of doubts about their business and moral profile.
But I'll make an exception and tell that I'd rather believe that somebody may enjoy the sound of 10% distortions (in particular after paying $350,000 (three hundred fifty thousand dollars) for a pair of those amps) than believing about those pebbles doing a iota for removing the RF/noise/etc... And that's because I'll always take Claude Shannon over JC's blank endorsements.
john curl said:
Again specific claims about changes in picture quality on your TV's. I have mentioned before, from personal experience, you don't need trained subjects to agree on even tiny delta's in color balance/hue. Their claims are easily disproven, my 60 bucks your TV? Of course I have to be there.
janneman said:
Bouncing back to an earlier point about bypassing-
Reading through the serial above I'm left more with the thought that the models don't remotely match the real devices. Enough so that I'm not sure any of the info in the series can be duplicated in real life. The general theme, that PSRR vanishes at high frequencies is obvious from the mfr's plots. But going beyond that with the simulations leaves me asking what happens with real parts?
The world changes
Starting with the windup gramophone and charting the improvements to audio quality, initially the curve was steep as new technologies were adopted. The term HiFi was first applied to equipment that used basically the same technology as mantle radios but the specifications were much better especially the frequency range covered.
HiFi gear measured better and sounded better, there was no dispute over this, if you could afford it you brought it. Measurements and subjective quality were in agreement.
The situation is different today, something has changed.
Starting with the windup gramophone and charting the improvements to audio quality, initially the curve was steep as new technologies were adopted. The term HiFi was first applied to equipment that used basically the same technology as mantle radios but the specifications were much better especially the frequency range covered.
HiFi gear measured better and sounded better, there was no dispute over this, if you could afford it you brought it. Measurements and subjective quality were in agreement.
The situation is different today, something has changed.
What has really happened, in my opinion, is that we have gotten off track as to what makes quality hi fi. It isn't just throwing money at a design, although that often helps. I now maintain that it is not only circuit topology or a good looking case, but layout and parts quality. I would not have thought this 30 years ago, but I have now proven it to my own satisfaction, now. Those of you who don't agree, well go your own way. It is not for me to convince you.
John Curl
I do agree that some are off the track by equating expensive gear to HiFi. IMHO the improvement curve is flattening and it is easier to go sideways than ahead. You may not agree with this but I think the curve is getting flatter because we are getting closer to our hearing limitations.
I do agree that some are off the track by equating expensive gear to HiFi. IMHO the improvement curve is flattening and it is easier to go sideways than ahead. You may not agree with this but I think the curve is getting flatter because we are getting closer to our hearing limitations.
john curl said:
Scott, do you know what a Shakti Stone or a 'Brilliant Pebble' device actually is?
Have you even tried to find out?
I bet you do not know this your self, John
And Scott is probably less interested than us average diy, to even want to know or find out.
( not speaking for me here, as i am more into audio that can be explained in numbers, data & figures
whether these numbers, data & figures are describing electronical facts
or
the way our human senses + brain perception apparatus work )
These devices DO something.
It can be shown that they do, by lab measurement or listening.
The do some thing. Yeah. True.
Every object, that can be known to man does some thing.
/ Lineup 2008
Either as passively/actively in an electronical circuit
= some function that can be defined in some quantity of this function = a work this object does.
If you have the numbers and the units used as an outcome of a shakti or whatever you call it
then please post the tests setup + results,
so we may examoine the validity of your test.
Thanks.
When we refer to some results, works or papers/articles
we usually do this by telling name of a person + year first published.
for example:
This and that.
by Robert Cordell 1985
The do some thing. Yeah. True.
Every object, that can be known to man does some thing.
/ Lineup 2008
The other way any object, real or abstract, doessoem thing,
is creating images in our brain.
We have an image or perception of GOD, ALLAH, even if we have not seen him, at least not lately, as far as I know
And if some body did see him, he is dead.
Because 'no man can see JAHVE, GOD .... and so survive to tell'.
Even any REAL Object with no funtion other than its existens.
So called dead objects.
They do some things .. to quote John Curl.
If they did no thing = nothing.
We would not even know & have an image for them.
Humble Regards - in the light of modern science
& not by any magical mystery tour introduced by audio gurus or likes
Mr. Lineup, Sweden August 2008
Managing Director and Owner of
Lineup Audio Lab & Modern Scientific Audio Researches [MSAR]
lineup said:
now, some believe in extra terristerial = ET (from outer space)
others do not - more down to earth = grounded in facts
where would we put this poor john curl? .. on a scale
one ET believer or more down to earth and the muddy soil we all dwell in
he takes care of any microscopic detail of technical construction
yet, he believes he can listen and decide his designs details from there
Lineup - really do not get this man called john curl
but still he wouln't want to miss john curl opinions on audio
Regards to all music lovers
named john or anything else more fancy
fredex said:
I haven't heard about this, but it does bring back something I read about a few weeks ago, called 'cross-modal matching'. It's a proven phenomenon describing the 'crosstalk' of one sense into the other. For instance, we are more sensitive to LF sounds if they are associtaed with a large black object, and less sensitive if it is associated with a small bright object. So, it may be a completely honest thing, caused by neurological make-up.
It may also have to do with tubes often being reported as 'warm sounding'.
Cross modal matching works also backwards, causing crosstalk on command signals. That's why you clech your teeth when you try to loosen a stuck crew, for example.
Jan Didden
1audio said:
Demian,
I agree that there may be a large rift between the simulations done by Castor-Kendall and real devices. But I think it does highlight the often unexpected interactions between capacitor parameters, layout/wiring, amplifier PSRR and a few others.
It does provide a physics basis that if you change a capacitor for another type, it could strongly change the ripple and oscillatory bursts on a supply line, which in turn could be audible. I know, a lot of 'could', but the engineering base is there.
It also means that layout and the particular amp topology plays as large a role as the cap itself.
Still, it does not explain why, if the cap is more expensive than the one it replaces, sound always seems to improve. That's illogical.
Jan Didden
@syn08: eh, don't post such links without any warning! The measurements can cause severe frightening 
However the case is nice.
@Lumba: you made me grap my notes from an acoustics lecture (held for recording engineering students):
To throw out some facts: the ear has a dynamic range of about 60dB only. It adjusts automatically to the max sound pressure and anything below -60dB relative to max is not perceived. Example: orchestra-fortissimo can reach 110dB, in the same moment 50dB ambient noise is not perceived at all.
It is true however that the ear can adjust itself over a range of about 140dB, but as said only in windows of 60dB at any time.
Your 2nd statement is correct, at about 4khz the ear is most sensitive since the inner ear forms an acoustic resonator at this frequency.
Have fun, Hannes
However the case is nice.@Lumba: you made me grap my notes from an acoustics lecture (held for recording engineering students):
To throw out some facts: the ear has a dynamic range of about 60dB only. It adjusts automatically to the max sound pressure and anything below -60dB relative to max is not perceived. Example: orchestra-fortissimo can reach 110dB, in the same moment 50dB ambient noise is not perceived at all.
It is true however that the ear can adjust itself over a range of about 140dB, but as said only in windows of 60dB at any time.
Your 2nd statement is correct, at about 4khz the ear is most sensitive since the inner ear forms an acoustic resonator at this frequency.
Have fun, Hannes
Quote from Syn08
Most likely none. What you described shows only that the Stereophile and The Absolute Sound subjective tests are not worth the paper ...
In the case of Stereophile, what I do like is the fact that Michael Fremer or Art Dudley etc do their subjective review and we get all these adjectives about wonderful sound, ultimate amp etc. And then, along comes John Atkinson and does a set of measurements and they publish both the subjective stuff (call it what you will) and the engineering stuff right next to each other. And John Atkinson's tests are consistent and have been for years. To my mind, there is a great balance here that you do not get in other audio magazines.
There was a great one about 2 years ago on the Zanden CD player. Michael Fremer could not get enough of it, and Atkinson trashed it technically (it was really bad). I think it was the most expensive CD Stereophile had ever tested - but I might have got this point wrong.
So, in the case of Stereophile, if you are a non-technical person, drool over the pictures ands buy based on on the subjective assessment. If you are technically savvy, buy on both the technical assessment and the subjective.
I guess I would not be buying that $350k amp even if I had the money!
Most likely none. What you described shows only that the Stereophile and The Absolute Sound subjective tests are not worth the paper ...
In the case of Stereophile, what I do like is the fact that Michael Fremer or Art Dudley etc do their subjective review and we get all these adjectives about wonderful sound, ultimate amp etc. And then, along comes John Atkinson and does a set of measurements and they publish both the subjective stuff (call it what you will) and the engineering stuff right next to each other. And John Atkinson's tests are consistent and have been for years. To my mind, there is a great balance here that you do not get in other audio magazines.
There was a great one about 2 years ago on the Zanden CD player. Michael Fremer could not get enough of it, and Atkinson trashed it technically (it was really bad). I think it was the most expensive CD Stereophile had ever tested - but I might have got this point wrong.
So, in the case of Stereophile, if you are a non-technical person, drool over the pictures ands buy based on on the subjective assessment. If you are technically savvy, buy on both the technical assessment and the subjective.
I guess I would not be buying that $350k amp even if I had the money!
janneman said:
Care to back that up? I can certainly provide examples of the opposite; Michael Samra's perpetual hyping of the cheap Russian K40Y-9 PIO, members mourning the loss of Panasonic's ECQP(U) film-foil, and the generally excellent reports on the sonics of FC, FM and a few other electrolytic caps from the same manufacturer, all easy to confirm on AA. Remember, counter-examples are of no value when the claim is 'always'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.