Get used to it, differing materials (elements and compounds) just 'sound different', in addition to the mechanical and soakage (DA) distortion mechanisms discussed above.
Upstream and downstream elements (components) add their own noise behaviours which further modify (modulate/intermodulate) the sound signal behaviours of the particular components in question.
Think in terms of energy transfer (Heyser) with identifying signatures (dynamically changing noise spectrums) imparted by the materials of the component in question.
All these individual noise signatures modulate and intermodulate each other adding up to a both frequency and time dependant 'chaotic' behaviour, otherwise called voicing or signature of a particular stage and/or system.
I have cable clamp on filters and filter material formulation that can be placed at signal or power inputs and outputs or anywhere in the circuit that restores 'order' in this 'not randomness', clarifying sound and effectively substantially removing these individual circuit element 'sounds'.
What remains is standard amplification nonlinearities (HD/IMD/PIM but markedly subjectively lessened) and this can be described as a 'character' but not a 'voicing', and can be remarkably 'transparent' and true to the source regardless of the quality level of the equipments used in the signal chain.
In other words, just about any piece of junk (portable radio cassette/shelf system etc) can be made to sound pleasing, and when dealing with High End (100k+) systems the change is very agreeable improvement in intelligibility/detail/timbre and overall pleasantness of the inroom sound, such is to be expected when the mechanisms are understood.
The same applies to 'treated' live PA sysyems, the result is elimination of 'nasties' in the reinforced sound and interestingly beneficial change in audience mood and participation.
I also have a guitarist and bass player team who have been running such filters on amplifier power and signal feeds long term....they together have a uniquely clean, clear and powerful sound and now will not play without these filters.
The first point of what I am saying is that every element (resistor/capacitor/semiconductor/pcb/wires etc) in a system adds it's own 'presence' into the overall sound, and can be partially explained by temperature/voltage/current/time dependant nonlinearities, but not fully explained.
My second point is that these individual 'presences' modulate and intermodulate each other therefore the effect of a change out of any particular passive or active component can cause a seemingly disproportionate change in system throughput, this does accord with standard HD/IMD theory, but there are deeper level mechanisms afoot.
The takeaway of all of this is that seemingly small changes (any particular component) at the source end of a signal chain like electric guitar can cause major subjective changes in the final system output.
Dan.
Upstream and downstream elements (components) add their own noise behaviours which further modify (modulate/intermodulate) the sound signal behaviours of the particular components in question.
Think in terms of energy transfer (Heyser) with identifying signatures (dynamically changing noise spectrums) imparted by the materials of the component in question.
All these individual noise signatures modulate and intermodulate each other adding up to a both frequency and time dependant 'chaotic' behaviour, otherwise called voicing or signature of a particular stage and/or system.
I have cable clamp on filters and filter material formulation that can be placed at signal or power inputs and outputs or anywhere in the circuit that restores 'order' in this 'not randomness', clarifying sound and effectively substantially removing these individual circuit element 'sounds'.
What remains is standard amplification nonlinearities (HD/IMD/PIM but markedly subjectively lessened) and this can be described as a 'character' but not a 'voicing', and can be remarkably 'transparent' and true to the source regardless of the quality level of the equipments used in the signal chain.
In other words, just about any piece of junk (portable radio cassette/shelf system etc) can be made to sound pleasing, and when dealing with High End (100k+) systems the change is very agreeable improvement in intelligibility/detail/timbre and overall pleasantness of the inroom sound, such is to be expected when the mechanisms are understood.
The same applies to 'treated' live PA sysyems, the result is elimination of 'nasties' in the reinforced sound and interestingly beneficial change in audience mood and participation.
I also have a guitarist and bass player team who have been running such filters on amplifier power and signal feeds long term....they together have a uniquely clean, clear and powerful sound and now will not play without these filters.
The first point of what I am saying is that every element (resistor/capacitor/semiconductor/pcb/wires etc) in a system adds it's own 'presence' into the overall sound, and can be partially explained by temperature/voltage/current/time dependant nonlinearities, but not fully explained.
My second point is that these individual 'presences' modulate and intermodulate each other therefore the effect of a change out of any particular passive or active component can cause a seemingly disproportionate change in system throughput, this does accord with standard HD/IMD theory, but there are deeper level mechanisms afoot.
The takeaway of all of this is that seemingly small changes (any particular component) at the source end of a signal chain like electric guitar can cause major subjective changes in the final system output.
Dan.
Great, now go and read what I actually said. I very carefully limited the scope of my statements to the facts as supported by measurement by relatively competent people.
In essence,
a) that capacitors are (unsurprisingly) imperfect in a number of ways.
b) whether this will have an effect depends on your application.
Again: I like well designed double blind tests.
But I have spent much time over the past few years dealing with confounding factors; papers that "proved" all sorts of things (mostly the bias or the niaivity of the authors) and, hardest of all, having to "fess up" to my own subconscious biases in research design.
It has made me particularly aware of the "unknown unknowns" and the "should have knowns". As well as the flaw of "common knowledge", particularly in professional cliques (e.g. emergency department doctors).
By definition "double blind" testing results in skewed participant behaviour (as they know they are being tested), doubly so if the participants are self-selecting (and therefore likely to be audio "fools").
My real problem with "double blind" testing in the context of "audio voodoo" is that we're testing for something for which there is no supporting theoretical framework. Therefore we have no idea whether we're reproducing the alleged phenomena or not. Or masking behind something else.
All we are doing is creating is performance theatre.
Which is great for polarizing opinions and selling magazines. But not so good for progressing knowledge.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.