First off, I am not frustrated. More like the line from Elvis Costello - " I used to be disgusted now I try to be amused".
I enjoy a lively argument as long as the rules are the same for both sides and there is in each enough doubt in there own argument to leave room for the possibility that things are not as clear as either would like them to be.
So many assumptions over the years have been found to be wrong. I tend to think that the assumption that digital removes the noise problem is an assumption that has lived for too long.
I would not hesitate for someone to switch polarity on my system and test me. Same as for placing disks in the player of each rip version but those testing rigs are information losers - I bet everything sounds the same by the time it gets to the amplifiers. The DBT as usually configured is ridiculous. One does need to be familiar with the music system to know where to begin and the system must be highly resolving and all of those switches are resolution killers. So I would gladly take a test on my own system with someone making changes.
I know the sound of the old rips at this point. So the next time you are in the Atlanta, Georgia area you are welcome to come over and be the switcher, julf.
I bet after a few sessions you would hear the difference, also.
PS I have no friends with any interest in audio much less audio experiments.
PPS Concerning claims - that is why I offer to send the OS to anyone who would like to give it a try which I would think would temper calling what I said is a "claim". I hoped what I said would be taken as a report while welcoming others to give it a try and hear for themselves if there is something going on.
I enjoy a lively argument as long as the rules are the same for both sides and there is in each enough doubt in there own argument to leave room for the possibility that things are not as clear as either would like them to be.
So many assumptions over the years have been found to be wrong. I tend to think that the assumption that digital removes the noise problem is an assumption that has lived for too long.
I would not hesitate for someone to switch polarity on my system and test me. Same as for placing disks in the player of each rip version but those testing rigs are information losers - I bet everything sounds the same by the time it gets to the amplifiers. The DBT as usually configured is ridiculous. One does need to be familiar with the music system to know where to begin and the system must be highly resolving and all of those switches are resolution killers. So I would gladly take a test on my own system with someone making changes.
I know the sound of the old rips at this point. So the next time you are in the Atlanta, Georgia area you are welcome to come over and be the switcher, julf.
I bet after a few sessions you would hear the difference, also.
PS I have no friends with any interest in audio much less audio experiments.
PPS Concerning claims - that is why I offer to send the OS to anyone who would like to give it a try which I would think would temper calling what I said is a "claim". I hoped what I said would be taken as a report while welcoming others to give it a try and hear for themselves if there is something going on.
Last edited:
That is why science is built on solid evidence, not just assumptions.
Indeed. All it has produced so far is computers, cell phones and the Internet - but I guess they happen to be the trivial cases where that assumption works.
Note that the test I suggested can be done with your own music of choice, and allows you to listen as much and as often as you want, on your own system, before making a choice. No switches required either.
Thank you for the invitation, will keep it in mind.
Sorry to hear. I have a couple of friends in the greater Atlanta area that might be willing to help.
Much easier (and I have suggested it before) - send me a set of tracks that have been ripped with your tuned system, and the same tracks ripped on a low-end un-tuned computer - tracks where you know you hear a difference.
julf,
I would welcome your friends to become audio friends.
Of course science is built upon evidence but this "evidence" can become discredited with greater knowledge, better testing methods, all kinds of things. I am concerned when science is considered some kind of doctrine versus a fluid expansion of knowledge as this knowledge is revealed. Too much scientific fact has become foolishness with time.
There are many awkward periods where something is perceived and there is not yet a way to "prove" it with some set of numbers. Repeatability of a phenomenon is certainly some kind of evidence that something is happening. As I will continue to say just because one does not have the ability to prove something with something other than their senses does not mean it does not exist.
I have offered numerous times to send you an SD card with both old and new. I find the effect is not limited to certain recordings. If that was the case I would think there is something else going on. The effect is heard with every rip I have made. It is a noise that goes missing not some kind of possibly euphonic effect that is heard on some recordings and not others.
My comparison is to the analogue setup where there is none of this same noise. Of course there is the noise of a cartridge scraping the wall of the record along with the impurities in the vinyl and the motor and on and on, but for some reason, either from years of learning to ignore these sounds, even though they are always there or is there something about these noises that are not as annoying to the ear/brain as the digital noise? I use the term digital noise since I have no idea what it is exactly and I know it is not one simple thing. Is it the noise of the CPU? Is it the noise of DC-DC converters and other switching components, crystals, etc. all of the things required for digital systems to work at all?
We will never get rid of that stuff. All we can hope for is to minimize it.
I know I have minimized this noise to a great extent in the ripper but I have no assurance that with time I will become annoyed with the noise that is left. With time I might very well become aware of it again even at a reduced level. This is what happens with music systems. If something works well for the listener one should enjoy it as long as possible because eventually you will become attuned to the errors and the search will begin again to find a way to make it sound "good" again.
One can minimize this possibility by not listening to the system for long periods. I can take just about anything for about an hour! One can talk about how one should just listen to the music and we all try our best to do this but eventually with most systems one thinks they have heard enough. The many distortions become too much to ignore.
At this point I can listen for about three hours and the need for sleep is what makes me turn the thing off. I hope i can retain this for a good long time.
I am under no delusion that I am listening to real music but I can suspend my disbelief, for the time being, long enough to listen as long as I want without being CONSTANTLY reminded that I am experiencing a sad approximation of something real.
I would welcome your friends to become audio friends.
Of course science is built upon evidence but this "evidence" can become discredited with greater knowledge, better testing methods, all kinds of things. I am concerned when science is considered some kind of doctrine versus a fluid expansion of knowledge as this knowledge is revealed. Too much scientific fact has become foolishness with time.
There are many awkward periods where something is perceived and there is not yet a way to "prove" it with some set of numbers. Repeatability of a phenomenon is certainly some kind of evidence that something is happening. As I will continue to say just because one does not have the ability to prove something with something other than their senses does not mean it does not exist.
I have offered numerous times to send you an SD card with both old and new. I find the effect is not limited to certain recordings. If that was the case I would think there is something else going on. The effect is heard with every rip I have made. It is a noise that goes missing not some kind of possibly euphonic effect that is heard on some recordings and not others.
My comparison is to the analogue setup where there is none of this same noise. Of course there is the noise of a cartridge scraping the wall of the record along with the impurities in the vinyl and the motor and on and on, but for some reason, either from years of learning to ignore these sounds, even though they are always there or is there something about these noises that are not as annoying to the ear/brain as the digital noise? I use the term digital noise since I have no idea what it is exactly and I know it is not one simple thing. Is it the noise of the CPU? Is it the noise of DC-DC converters and other switching components, crystals, etc. all of the things required for digital systems to work at all?
We will never get rid of that stuff. All we can hope for is to minimize it.
I know I have minimized this noise to a great extent in the ripper but I have no assurance that with time I will become annoyed with the noise that is left. With time I might very well become aware of it again even at a reduced level. This is what happens with music systems. If something works well for the listener one should enjoy it as long as possible because eventually you will become attuned to the errors and the search will begin again to find a way to make it sound "good" again.
One can minimize this possibility by not listening to the system for long periods. I can take just about anything for about an hour! One can talk about how one should just listen to the music and we all try our best to do this but eventually with most systems one thinks they have heard enough. The many distortions become too much to ignore.
At this point I can listen for about three hours and the need for sleep is what makes me turn the thing off. I hope i can retain this for a good long time.
I am under no delusion that I am listening to real music but I can suspend my disbelief, for the time being, long enough to listen as long as I want without being CONSTANTLY reminded that I am experiencing a sad approximation of something real.
Absolutely. But to discredit something that is very solidly proven, you need very strong evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
But a lot of foolishness has remained mere foolishness.
As long as you make sure there isn't a simple way to explain the discrepancy.
And as I will continue to say, just because your senses tell you something, it isn't necessarily true. Ask any pilot who has done instrument flying training. And Galileo Galilei proved the heliocentric model by using instruments (in his case the telescope) instead of the bare senses (in this case eyes) the ancient greeks held as the supreme authority.
And I have told you, and will tell again, that it would be more useful for you to send one of the recordings to me. Either there is a difference in the ripped files, or there isn't. If there is, we can start looking into what the difference is and what is causing it. If there isn't a difference in the files, but we still hear a difference, then you have disproved many of the most fundamental assumptions in information theory and digital systems (guaranteed to get you the Nobel Price in physics), and came up with a stealth communication method that will be worth billions of dollars if patented.
If there is "digital noise" in your system, it will occur at the digital-to-analog conversion stage, not in the ripping or storage/transmission stage (as there is no "space between the bits" where the noise can hide - a bit is not "almost but not quite 1" - it is either 0 or 1).
What makes you so sure, considering we have gotten rid of it in transatlantic fibre optic links, mobile phones, disk drives, and computer bus interconnects, among others?
Electronics is electronics, there is nothing different about audio electronics, same physics same rules....
We are discussing decoupling caps on ICs for (insert invective here) sake, there is no this or that, it is a well studies area and critical to signal integrity, ne experimenting no messing about learn and read up on decoupling and follow the guidelines, its that simple, if you do something different then provide the empirical data to back it up, sorry but this is one area where amateur behaviour needs to be tamed and previous engineering data followed... We use the same rules for every design we do be it mission critical or pro-audio (we have a few pro-audio customers and I have a close working relationship and friendship with others that are employed full time by a pro audio companies as PCB designers...) we all follow the same decoupling rules, as does EVERY PCB designer and engineer I know covering a wide range of projects from the mundane to the far out... This is an area of no compromise and no messing about, doing it wrong will add noise which is often perceived as a fuller sound.......
As said I have done quite a few layouts and guidance layouts for people, my DIY these days is limited to speaker building, don't have the time or inclination to mess about with the electronics and don't have the kit to take measurements of anything I do modify so cannot determine whether the change is beneficial or not, you cannot use ears and perception only especially when looking at digital circuitry... to busy doing it as a day job and I am happy with my systems as they are currently as I listen to the music not the system ( I have system ranging from yuk (cheep stereo for the missis in the kitchen) to reasonable OB speakers with SET for midrange and a SS amp driving the 4 15" woofers, active crossover.
Last edited:
Its an SD card reader, quite common on plenty of electronics systems....
I am discussing the decoupling of ICs specifically nothing further at the moment if you have some input on IC decoupling please present it and we shall discuss it, you have to learn to walk before you can run and creating the best power delivery system for a circuit is the first step, f you understand how to do this especially with digital you would agree and discuss the finer points of doing this with me, if you don't then you will argue and disagree with me going on about sound quality and this and that....
Do you understand the AC requirements of a DC power supply for digital circuitry?
Thank you for the information and sharing. Your analogue system looks great and it is obvious that you took a great deal of care in building it. This makes it even more interesting to try the SDTrans as you prefer your digital system to analogue now, what is very promissing.
Regarding CD ripping, thank you for your suggestion to share more detail about it. I am definetly interested. It looks like as a starting point I will need a dedicated PC system. I have a laptop with i7 processor, 4Gb RAM and 1Tb SSD drive.
I tried to send emails a couple of times to Jack Yamazaki at CBL29291@nifty.com but unfortunately I got an errow message. Perhaps he has changed his email address.
Regaridng your amps setup if I undrstood you correctly you are using bi-amping. If this is the case could you please share how you have implemented frequency filtering that goes to each of them and how do you manage individual amplifiers gains to keep the overal frequency response of the system coherent.
Last edited:
First off, try this one, this is the last one I got when the SDTrans shipped;
maybe there was a change, I hope so: jack@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp
I forgot to mention one important part of the turntable setup - the PHOENIX Roadrunner and motor controller. I had been using a PS AUDIO ac regenerator to to get the 50 hz my motor needed. When it died I got the PHOENIX stuff and it is a great product. Small in size and it is vastly superior to the regenerator.
Marce, as far as decoupling caps: no one is doubting they are needed but I return to my point that they are there for the shortcomings of the power supply, not because the circuit, itself, wants them, What I am experiencing is with the specific battery setup these are not needed.
I would suspect that if they were needed, especially in the SOEKRIS DAC where I have eliminated all of them in the "audio" circuits, they remain around the FPGA because it requires much less than 3.3 volts so direct battery power is not available there, not with the batteries that work well. Sure I could use some battery but that is not what I am saying. I am not a believer in battery power, per se. I have used other batteries in other applications (mainy SLAs) and found they are simply different than an AC derived supply not better.
All I can say is if the ceramic decouplers were needed in my application and the result of their not being there so dire I do believe it would be immediately apparent that something has gone very wrong. Instead, my perception is exactly the opposite. The sound quality is improved. The noise level is reduced.
I know in your pro applications no one is going to want the fiddliness of batteries but, just for the sake of trying it you should see what happens with one of your circuits when fed by the A123 26650 with as leads as short as possible, as long as it is a 3.3 volts circuit which many digital circuits are.
It would be a quick way to lay it all to rest but I think you find something very surprising.
maybe there was a change, I hope so: jack@mtc.biglobe.ne.jp
I forgot to mention one important part of the turntable setup - the PHOENIX Roadrunner and motor controller. I had been using a PS AUDIO ac regenerator to to get the 50 hz my motor needed. When it died I got the PHOENIX stuff and it is a great product. Small in size and it is vastly superior to the regenerator.
Marce, as far as decoupling caps: no one is doubting they are needed but I return to my point that they are there for the shortcomings of the power supply, not because the circuit, itself, wants them, What I am experiencing is with the specific battery setup these are not needed.
I would suspect that if they were needed, especially in the SOEKRIS DAC where I have eliminated all of them in the "audio" circuits, they remain around the FPGA because it requires much less than 3.3 volts so direct battery power is not available there, not with the batteries that work well. Sure I could use some battery but that is not what I am saying. I am not a believer in battery power, per se. I have used other batteries in other applications (mainy SLAs) and found they are simply different than an AC derived supply not better.
All I can say is if the ceramic decouplers were needed in my application and the result of their not being there so dire I do believe it would be immediately apparent that something has gone very wrong. Instead, my perception is exactly the opposite. The sound quality is improved. The noise level is reduced.
I know in your pro applications no one is going to want the fiddliness of batteries but, just for the sake of trying it you should see what happens with one of your circuits when fed by the A123 26650 with as leads as short as possible, as long as it is a 3.3 volts circuit which many digital circuits are.
It would be a quick way to lay it all to rest but I think you find something very surprising.
Last edited:
No. They are called decoupling capacitors for a reason - they are there to cope with the short surges caused by the circuitry itself. A battery can't help unless you have one next to each circuit.
Or you might just have proven that the noise level really doesn't matter.
Decoupling capacitors are a very important element of any digital (and analogue) power supply, whether the main power is from a battery or any other type of supply.
You need to look at the ac impedance requirements for DC power supplies for digital circuits then you would understand more.... I will try and dig out some links but I am on site so don't have access to my PC.
Digital is used because it can store data without the noise of the electronics having an effect on the stored data, unlike analogue recording where the noise can be recorded.
You need to look at the ac impedance requirements for DC power supplies for digital circuits then you would understand more.... I will try and dig out some links but I am on site so don't have access to my PC.
Digital is used because it can store data without the noise of the electronics having an effect on the stored data, unlike analogue recording where the noise can be recorded.
And if it wasn't so, some of the characters on this web page would be fuzzy (depending on how far from the server you live), spreadsheets would over time develop more and more errors, and programs would work differently each time you start them.
formatcd,
For crossovers and amplification - I am using four amplifiers.
The RYTHMIC subs has there own servo amplifiers.
The SEISMICs are powered by a CREST Pro Class D amplifier of ludicrous power specification for my application.
Both of these are limited by the pair of YAMAHA YDP2006 - Seismics run from 90 to 45 Hz and the RYTHMICS from 45 on down.
Next is the 12" B&C in the round horn from 90 to 500 - using an amorphous core choke make by Dave Slagle - the gap allows adjustment for inductance. Values derived from measuring in room. Only low pass filter. I have tried at times placing a HP single cap on the input but this changes the gain just enough as to make it unusable. To set levels I have adjusted gain here with increased feedback resistor value (with Mr. Pass's blessing).
Next up the JBL 2441 is driven by the FW SIT1 which is somewhat hot-rodded. All of the electrolytic caps on the output have been removed since this is not a full range amplifier; Russian paper/oil caps at the speaker for the crossover and blocking DC. Also changed - the input capacitor which is part of the circuit has been chosen for a 250 Hz HP -this is a copper Vcap.
The Fostex uses a Russian teflon capacitor (the ones with the lightweight casing) for HP. Calculated roll off is for 20K, this is how they are level adjusted. They start, actually, around 10K.
I have found these components to work better than any active crossover I can afford. Don't doubt there are good ones but I have not tried one for the above mentioned reason.
For crossovers and amplification - I am using four amplifiers.
The RYTHMIC subs has there own servo amplifiers.
The SEISMICs are powered by a CREST Pro Class D amplifier of ludicrous power specification for my application.
Both of these are limited by the pair of YAMAHA YDP2006 - Seismics run from 90 to 45 Hz and the RYTHMICS from 45 on down.
Next is the 12" B&C in the round horn from 90 to 500 - using an amorphous core choke make by Dave Slagle - the gap allows adjustment for inductance. Values derived from measuring in room. Only low pass filter. I have tried at times placing a HP single cap on the input but this changes the gain just enough as to make it unusable. To set levels I have adjusted gain here with increased feedback resistor value (with Mr. Pass's blessing).
Next up the JBL 2441 is driven by the FW SIT1 which is somewhat hot-rodded. All of the electrolytic caps on the output have been removed since this is not a full range amplifier; Russian paper/oil caps at the speaker for the crossover and blocking DC. Also changed - the input capacitor which is part of the circuit has been chosen for a 250 Hz HP -this is a copper Vcap.
The Fostex uses a Russian teflon capacitor (the ones with the lightweight casing) for HP. Calculated roll off is for 20K, this is how they are level adjusted. They start, actually, around 10K.
I have found these components to work better than any active crossover I can afford. Don't doubt there are good ones but I have not tried one for the above mentioned reason.
Another case for Mulder and Scully...
The funniest part about claims like those of SandyK is that, if true, they would totally revolutionize modern technology and science, and make their inventors fabulously rich - but the "inventors" don't seem to have any interest in even verifying their findings. It's like saying "OK, I might have invented a perpetual motion machine, but I can't be bothered to do anything about it, as my car already does enough miles mer gallon".
My main listening room system consists of modified Linn Isobariks, actively driven by 4 Hypex nc400's per channel, and using the hypex DLCP digital crossover. The active crossover has totally transformed the speakers.
Marce,
I am not arguing with you. Just giving my thoughts
Just wish you would try it, and with your ability to look deeply into what is happening - you have measurement gear and I do not!
I am not saying EVERYONE should remove their ceramic decoupling capacitors, not saying ANYONE should, just that I did (along with others) and we were surprised (and delighted) by the result.
I would say if the fellow heard a difference with linear supplies I would tend to believe him. I am not using linear supplies except for the CPU and drives but will eventually will power P24 with linear/battery supplies. It makes sense to me that something can happen between the bits that could confuse the downstream components. The addition would be the same but the sound might not.
I am not trying to convince you that I am right since I have no way of knowing. What I would appreciate is someone, with your knowledge and experience AND access to gear, to try this and see what happens.
If I sent you a battery would you give it a try?
I am not arguing with you. Just giving my thoughts
Just wish you would try it, and with your ability to look deeply into what is happening - you have measurement gear and I do not!
I am not saying EVERYONE should remove their ceramic decoupling capacitors, not saying ANYONE should, just that I did (along with others) and we were surprised (and delighted) by the result.
I would say if the fellow heard a difference with linear supplies I would tend to believe him. I am not using linear supplies except for the CPU and drives but will eventually will power P24 with linear/battery supplies. It makes sense to me that something can happen between the bits that could confuse the downstream components. The addition would be the same but the sound might not.
I am not trying to convince you that I am right since I have no way of knowing. What I would appreciate is someone, with your knowledge and experience AND access to gear, to try this and see what happens.
If I sent you a battery would you give it a try?
It would be much easier for you to send either me or Marce a set of tracks ripped with your optimized setup, and a bog-standard PC (as I have suggested a number of times). Why have you not shown any interest in that suggestion?
julf,
I offered to send you a disk when this came up the first time and you were not interested.
PM me a list of music you enjoy and your address and I will send,
The offer of a battery to marce is a completely different thing. I would love for someone who knows how to do such things to connect one of the batteries to a digital circuit and take the requisite measurements to show how it performs.
I offered to send you a disk when this came up the first time and you were not interested.
PM me a list of music you enjoy and your address and I will send,
The offer of a battery to marce is a completely different thing. I would love for someone who knows how to do such things to connect one of the batteries to a digital circuit and take the requisite measurements to show how it performs.
We are obviously into a very different kind of sound.
I would think replacing a complex passive crossover with an active would almost certainly be an improvement. I know of the hypex products but have never heard any of them. Replicating that crossover actively was probably quite an experience!
With first order crossovers as I use I worry that an active could be worse.
Never had the chance to hear, or see for that matter the ISOBARIKs though I know their bass is legendary. Four B139s - first good bass I ever heard was from a B139 as used in the IMF Reference something or other - I think they were labelled differently in the UK. Then I heard horn bass a few years later.