Dogma
Please keep your Dogma
from chasing my Karma.
Thanks for turning a simple experiment into a diatribe on belief systems. This is hardly what I call contributing to the pool of universal knowledge. As an engineer I find possible physical explanations for this and many other tweaks. Do I believe all of the tweaks suggested? No. Are some tweaks worth investigating? Yes. But then I am not a Philosopher King.
Art
Please keep your Dogma
from chasing my Karma. Thanks for turning a simple experiment into a diatribe on belief systems. This is hardly what I call contributing to the pool of universal knowledge. As an engineer I find possible physical explanations for this and many other tweaks. Do I believe all of the tweaks suggested? No. Are some tweaks worth investigating? Yes. But then I am not a Philosopher King.
Art
Re: CAPS+ESD
Er, electrostatic DISCHARGE by insulating materials on the underlying components?
Do they explain just how the insulating material came to be electrostatically charged in the first place?
Materials don't just spontaneously become electrostatically charged. Electrostatic charge is an electrochemical process that involves the contact, electrochemical bonding and subsequent separation of two materials. During the separation, one material will tend to strip electrons from the other, leaving one with a positive static charge and the other with a negative static charge.
Nevermind that they never actually established that the components were electrostatically charged in the first place.
Now that's an entirely different context.
Here you have a situation in which there is contact, electrochemical bonding, and subsequent separation of two materials. How much charge results from sepration depends on a number of factors including the work functions of the materials involved. The material you used resulted in a significantly lower work function and subsequently, significantly reduced charge when the LP was separated from the platter.
Fine. But there has yet been any explanation as to how there comes to be an electrostatic charge in the first place. Are people opening up their DACs and rubbing the chips with rabbits fur or something?
se
fdegrove said:
Er, electrostatic DISCHARGE by insulating materials on the underlying components?
Do they explain just how the insulating material came to be electrostatically charged in the first place?
Materials don't just spontaneously become electrostatically charged. Electrostatic charge is an electrochemical process that involves the contact, electrochemical bonding and subsequent separation of two materials. During the separation, one material will tend to strip electrons from the other, leaving one with a positive static charge and the other with a negative static charge.
Nevermind that they never actually established that the components were electrostatically charged in the first place.
Now that's an entirely different context.
Here you have a situation in which there is contact, electrochemical bonding, and subsequent separation of two materials. How much charge results from sepration depends on a number of factors including the work functions of the materials involved. The material you used resulted in a significantly lower work function and subsequently, significantly reduced charge when the LP was separated from the platter.
Fine. But there has yet been any explanation as to how there comes to be an electrostatic charge in the first place. Are people opening up their DACs and rubbing the chips with rabbits fur or something?
se
Re: Mechanical damping
Excuse me? Where exactly is the irony?
se
artnyos said:
Excuse me? Where exactly is the irony?
se
ESD
Steve,
I must say I don't know all the science behind this.
Not even sure the thing treated here IS in fact ESD (that was the explanation as I remember it).
What I can suggest though: give it a try on some coupling caps in
a tube preamp or ss device.It won't do any harm surely?
FWI,people heard a difference between treated and untreated gear at the auditorium.
I,for one don't claim to understand this.
It's certainly not the first time I hear from High-End manufacturers
that the presence of certain chemicals in plastics is deleterious to sound reproduction.I've yet to hear a scientific explanation for this too.
Then again the two topics may well not be related.
The example of the TT platter treatment was just meant to show of the effectiveness of the graphite on a more macroscopic scale.
But I admit it was not well chosen.
Let's all keep an open mind on this and a closed wallet too?
Rgds,
Steve,
I must say I don't know all the science behind this.
Not even sure the thing treated here IS in fact ESD (that was the explanation as I remember it).
What I can suggest though: give it a try on some coupling caps in
a tube preamp or ss device.It won't do any harm surely?
FWI,people heard a difference between treated and untreated gear at the auditorium.
I,for one don't claim to understand this.
It's certainly not the first time I hear from High-End manufacturers
that the presence of certain chemicals in plastics is deleterious to sound reproduction.I've yet to hear a scientific explanation for this too.
Then again the two topics may well not be related.
The example of the TT platter treatment was just meant to show of the effectiveness of the graphite on a more macroscopic scale.
But I admit it was not well chosen.
Let's all keep an open mind on this and a closed wallet too?
Rgds,
Re: ESD
It's not about trying or not trying something. I've no problem at all with trying things. I try many things myself.
What it's about is the fact that simply subjectively perceiving some difference or improvement does not inherently establish any actual audibility.
And for what it's worth, people can hear (or more precisely perceive) differences even when there are no differences. Until psychological factors can be separated out, such results are ambiguous and tell you nothing more than someone subjectively perceived a difference.
Manufacturer claims don't inherently establish any sort of objective reality either.
I AM keeping an open mind. It's actually closed-mindedness that I'm speaking against. When one dogmatically adheres to a singular possibility to the exclusion of other very real possibilities, that's closed-minded in my book.
se
fdegrove said:
It's not about trying or not trying something. I've no problem at all with trying things. I try many things myself.
What it's about is the fact that simply subjectively perceiving some difference or improvement does not inherently establish any actual audibility.
And for what it's worth, people can hear (or more precisely perceive) differences even when there are no differences. Until psychological factors can be separated out, such results are ambiguous and tell you nothing more than someone subjectively perceived a difference.
Manufacturer claims don't inherently establish any sort of objective reality either.
I AM keeping an open mind. It's actually closed-mindedness that I'm speaking against. When one dogmatically adheres to a singular possibility to the exclusion of other very real possibilities, that's closed-minded in my book.
se
Peter Daniel said:And we are all just imperfect human beings.
Absolutely.
It's nothing to be ashamed of or to try and hide from. Hell, I embrace it. When it comes to my enjoyment of reproduced music, I'm a complete Zen Hedonist. The only thing that matters to me in that context are my subjective perceptions, however they may come about. If I happen to subjectively prefer a particular cable simply because it might only LOOK GOOD to me, I could care less.
But as imperfect a human being that I am, I do possess at least some modicum of logic and reason and to that end, I never attempt to assert my subjective perceptions as any sort of universal, objective reality. And I've always been rather puzzled by those who do.
Damn. No "shrug" smiley.
se
Re: Re: ESD
And what gives you the conviction that the differences are only subjective? What gives you the right to say that people hear differences, when there are no differences?
Maybe those people are slightly less imperfect than you? Or just maybe, they are more open minded (or less stubborn? ).
Steve Eddy said:
And what gives you the conviction that the differences are only subjective? What gives you the right to say that people hear differences, when there are no differences?
Maybe those people are slightly less imperfect than you? Or just maybe, they are more open minded (or less stubborn?
).
The right answer is ...
remove the plastic from inexpensive electrolytics, then REPLACE it with plastic marked "Rubycon Black Gate" or "Cerafine" or "Sanyo Os_Con". IT helps if you do this when you are stone cold drunk and blacked out so that you won't remember having done it, but then later you can be pleasantly surprised by the sound of your expensive capacitors.
[Given what is known to happen with semiconductors, and Alps pots, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this hasn't been done by various dishonest suppliers.]
Despite the cynicism shown above, I think it might sometimes be a good idea to mechanically damp electrolytics.
-- mirlo
remove the plastic from inexpensive electrolytics, then REPLACE it with plastic marked "Rubycon Black Gate" or "Cerafine" or "Sanyo Os_Con". IT helps if you do this when you are stone cold drunk and blacked out so that you won't remember having done it, but then later you can be pleasantly surprised by the sound of your expensive capacitors.
[Given what is known to happen with semiconductors, and Alps pots, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this hasn't been done by various dishonest suppliers.]
Despite the cynicism shown above, I think it might sometimes be a good idea to mechanically damp electrolytics.
-- mirlo
Re: Re: Re: ESD
Excuse me? I have no such conviction. Where on earth did you get such a notion?
I said people CAN perceive differences even when there are no differences. Which is NOT to say that ALL perceived differences occur in the absence of actual differences. Only that one cannot know with any reasonable degree of certainty outsidce of gross differences whether one's subjectively percevied differences are due to physics, psychology or some combination of the two.
This fact has been borne out by decades of psychological research. It's simply the way our brains work.
Contrary to the common notion that our ear/brain system is some fabulously accurate objective instrumentation device, our subjective perception of sound is in fact based on interpretation. The brain acts as a blank-filler. A dot-connector. An averager.
Because of this, such things as expectation and the brain's tendency to over-detect can result (again, please note CAN result) in subjectively perceived differences even in the absence of actual audible differences.
The consequence of this is ambiguity. In other words, a subjectively perceived difference cannot automatically be assumed to be an actual audible difference. At least not at this level of minutae.
And maybe you've just completely misunderstood my argument. It's already clear that you've read more into it than is there.
se
Peter Daniel said:
Excuse me? I have no such conviction. Where on earth did you get such a notion?
I said people CAN perceive differences even when there are no differences. Which is NOT to say that ALL perceived differences occur in the absence of actual differences. Only that one cannot know with any reasonable degree of certainty outsidce of gross differences whether one's subjectively percevied differences are due to physics, psychology or some combination of the two.
This fact has been borne out by decades of psychological research. It's simply the way our brains work.
Contrary to the common notion that our ear/brain system is some fabulously accurate objective instrumentation device, our subjective perception of sound is in fact based on interpretation. The brain acts as a blank-filler. A dot-connector. An averager.
Because of this, such things as expectation and the brain's tendency to over-detect can result (again, please note CAN result) in subjectively perceived differences even in the absence of actual audible differences.
The consequence of this is ambiguity. In other words, a subjectively perceived difference cannot automatically be assumed to be an actual audible difference. At least not at this level of minutae.
Maybe those people are slightly less imperfect than you? Or just maybe, they are more open minded (or less stubborn?
And maybe you've just completely misunderstood my argument. It's already clear that you've read more into it than is there.
se
CAPS
Guys,
Surely one doesn't need to tear off the plastic to be able to mechanically damp the resonance of a capacitor?
Am I missing something here?
A well made coupling cap is one you can saw in two and hardly discern between dielectric and plate.No room for vibration there.
With elco's it a different story: you may gain from clamping/damping its casing but doing away with its plastic insulation is a different matter entirely.
Better heat dissaption ?
Come on,caps surely don't get that hot,do they?
As for ESD: I've seen stacked film coupling caps from industry majors such as Roederstein where the plastic casing was treated with a small amount of graphite to render it impervious to static.
Surely they did that for a reason ?
Frankly I'ld like to know why and if people want to try it out to see if they can discern a difference in the way it perform on audio reproduction then I welcome that.
I think psychology and subjectivism can be controlled by blind listenig tests?
My experience is that testing equipment doesn't always reveal what we actually hear.Our mind is the strongest instrument we possess.
We would all benefit if we could do away with cultural and linguistic barriers and share our experience in this field which by its very nature is subjective.
Keep the forum healthy please.
Guys,
Surely one doesn't need to tear off the plastic to be able to mechanically damp the resonance of a capacitor?
Am I missing something here?
A well made coupling cap is one you can saw in two and hardly discern between dielectric and plate.No room for vibration there.
With elco's it a different story: you may gain from clamping/damping its casing but doing away with its plastic insulation is a different matter entirely.
Better heat dissaption ?
Come on,caps surely don't get that hot,do they?
As for ESD: I've seen stacked film coupling caps from industry majors such as Roederstein where the plastic casing was treated with a small amount of graphite to render it impervious to static.
Surely they did that for a reason ?
Frankly I'ld like to know why and if people want to try it out to see if they can discern a difference in the way it perform on audio reproduction then I welcome that.
I think psychology and subjectivism can be controlled by blind listenig tests?
My experience is that testing equipment doesn't always reveal what we actually hear.Our mind is the strongest instrument we possess.
We would all benefit if we could do away with cultural and linguistic barriers and share our experience in this field which by its very nature is subjective.
Keep the forum healthy please.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.