bear said:
How about this. Some of us are of the opinion that casual, anecdotal, uncontrolled listening is just that, a personal experience, that is only valid for oneself, an experience that, because of the many perceptive factors involved, can be very different for someone else even with the same equipment and music. In that perspective, my or your listening experience is irrelevant for someone else, so why should it be discussed and analysed here, unless this is a thread about perception.
Does that make some sense?
Edit: corrected spelling
Jan Didden
Joshua_G said:
It would be useful if you could add why you think this.
For the sake of clarity before the question is asked, that does NOT mean I am implying you are wrong or that I don't agree, just that the statement on its own reads like a personal opinion and I am sure you can back it up with why it is (probably) the best.
janneman said:
Listening is a _subjective_ experience in any case, be it a casual or a controlled (less or more, mostly less
) one.Even if a large population of data is sampled, it is not sure if the results are valid for every member (inside or outside the tested group), so at the end everybody has to do his own tests.
While a lot of members do obviously participate in this field just for intellectual/technical reasons, others are mainly interested in the impact of technology soundwise.
Hifi/audio is closely related to human perception, at least as long as it is an imperfect reflection of reality.
bear said:
ROFL
1) You evidently haven’t the slightest interest in understanding what other people are either saying or thinking and are far to wrapped up in pontificating your own point of view and subjectivist baloney, partly buttressed with the erection of straw man arguments to define what others allegedly say and think.
2) That freaking headphone issue was put to rest two pages ago but you can’t see the forrest for the trees. The reality is relatively mundane and nothing special, but the pollywaffle production continues unabated.
3) As for my ignoring of your vague request for subjective equipment evaluations on my part, it has nothing to do with being “afraid”. Refer to (1)
Jakob2 said:
Ground loop coupling which is a form of common impedance coupling is a technical term used in the analysis of the classical case of two electronic boxes with their supply and communicating via a connection cable. This is the case of all audio systems.
There are a lot of different solutions depending on signal bandwith, existing EMI and so on. I am interested to understand the sonic impact of the rather conflicting solutions.
It seems that people are more interested in giving opinions on components. It is alway easier to say that this resistor sounds better.
JPV
PMA said:
Of course inductance matters and it should be minimized.
Star-shaped ground routing is only the topology, not the whole story.
alansawyer said:
In star-shaped grounding routing, all ground traces, from all components, connects together in one point only. This minimizes the possibility of ground currents along few paths simultaneously, which is more likely to occur when all components are connected to a ground buss, at various points along the buss.
JPV said:
Once more, the techniques for eliminating ground loops, having lowest possible impedance for supply and ground paths and separating signal ground path from the supply ground path are the things that impact the sound for the better.
When all else is equal, good grounding will give good sound and vice versa.
As for music reproduction.
Listening to music is a subjective experience.
Music reproduction systems are aimed, or should be aimed, at serving this very subjective experience.
It is the experience of so many audiophiles all over the world that the generally used measurements in themselves are unable to tale how a system component may sound.
Consequences? Each to ones' own.
Listening to music is a subjective experience.
Music reproduction systems are aimed, or should be aimed, at serving this very subjective experience.
It is the experience of so many audiophiles all over the world that the generally used measurements in themselves are unable to tale how a system component may sound.
Consequences? Each to ones' own.
JPV said:
JPV,
I think it's almost impossible to map ground loop issues directly to audibility. As I see it, the best we can come up with is to map ground loop issues to hum, noise, distortion, stability, EMI susceptability etc. That in itself will be a tall order. Then, the next step would be to map the, say, increased noise or distortion to audibility, and I think that will be easier than the first step.
BTW Did you get my email on the TM5000?
Jan Didden
The 'ground noise voltage' I have shown is audible, and influences low level details, low volume listening. It affects localization, and bass perception. Subjectively it affects midrange spectrum mostly. Bass perception is usually more about midrange spectrum, rather than bass amplitude frequency response. The difference compared to proper grounding is audible, and explainable.
Please review the image, and tell me where would you connect the load return - to SIGGND, or to PWRGND?
This simulation tries to describe real circuit issue, and simulation result quite fits to measurement.
500uF are on-board capacitors, amp is an 'ideal' for simplicity, but it is not important at the moment.
It is a high bias amp, more than 1A at idle, so the ripple is always high.
This simulation tries to describe real circuit issue, and simulation result quite fits to measurement.
500uF are on-board capacitors, amp is an 'ideal' for simplicity, but it is not important at the moment.
It is a high bias amp, more than 1A at idle, so the ripple is always high.
Attachments
Regarding grounding systems...
In developing circuit boards, is it a good practice to have good clear well routed signal traces on one side and filled ground plane on the other side? Or is it better to have the ground connections directed routed?
Curious what the experienced builder have learned.
-David
In developing circuit boards, is it a good practice to have good clear well routed signal traces on one side and filled ground plane on the other side? Or is it better to have the ground connections directed routed?
Curious what the experienced builder have learned.
-David
PMA said:
I can't see a reason to connect it to other than PWRGND, at the point of the red dot, along also with the caps that are shown connected to PWRGND. Do you have reason to connect to SIGGND ? Another alternative would be to use an additionaql channel amp to "amplify" ground and connect to load to the active ground thereby passing the current to the power rails. This seems to be a common approach in headphone amplifiers.
PMA said:
As it is drawn, it seems OK. The signal at OUT exactly follows that at IN, measured against the 0V point if I read that correct. All the other stuff will have an impact on PSRR and such, but not on the signal directly.
The question is, can you connect the input source as drawn?
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.