Joe, Because you took the time to type all that in, I feel encouraged that your last sentence “I'm out of here” is in fact false, and you'll check in to see if anyone took note. I certainly did, and I'm going to respond sentence-by-sentence, if you don't mind.
I am under impression that this forum is called DIY AUDIO, because we are here to share our experience and help others who are into this hobby with our findings.
Yes, it is exactly that. We are here to report … what we find, what knowledge we've acquired that might apply to different reported issues, cool stuff, and so on.
Looks like folks like you and some other folks are here to argue about our experience? It is not hard to admit that some times there is not a reasonable explanation behind some effects.
Yes, both statements are true: people come here to report, others come to reflect, yet more come to learn, and even more come to bounce their own experience, theories, book-knowledge and empirical business against all that.
This doesn't mean they don't exist.
No one says they don't! Its just the case that very very, VERY many of the directional-wire and unicorn horn capacitor diëlectric “findings” evaporate when subject to hard, dispassionate double-blind-testing procedures. The “golden ear” types hate it. The “aficionados” despise it. But it remains true.
I believe the facts, not explanations.
This is where we differ, Joe. I, being of the “analytic, theoretic, very-old, and well-experienced” can vouch for many a 'finding' that is real, that doesn't have a good theoretic, analytic or scientifically justified cause. All kinds of serendipitous stuff happens when substituting components. VERY OFTEN the real effects are straying away from signal amplification accuracy and linearity … and unintentional (but serendipitously beneficial) distortion is added. Hence … well obviously, hence.
Explanations can only help understanding the facts.
You are pretty much right, good sir. But explanations based in more-or-less conventional electrical engineering theory at least have two added benefits beyond “understanding”. They are [1] allowing abstraction and [2]giving rise to high-confidence predictions. These two, hand-in-hand, are the very backbone of this DIY art. Its not enough to just adduce that changing out some bias resistor for another one “does something good” (or bad, or indifferent!), but that the value-changes, the composition changes, the topology changes … might have been what cause the effect. Which can then be used to infer that greater (or lesser) changes along the same lines might be even more (or less) beneficial.
They don't prove them.
Mmm, no perhaps not. But perhaps they do, especially when the pair of features just listed are included. If the theory used to confer an authentic reason to the effect makes a prediction about a future change that'd have some other (greater, lesser, or just different altogether) effect … is actually tried … and the prediction is proven, well … the underlying theory is given a good “shot in the arm” of its authenticity. But, should it not, well … that certainly undermines the proffered theory! Falsification-thru-experimentation-of-a-hypothesis is the very backbone of all Science.
Witnessing the facts prove them.
Witnessing “the facts” doesn't actually prove the facts, but rather that there was an observer recording her impressions of “the facts” as given. Its subtle, but also substantially different.
I also am with you about some explanations being stupid.
Without a doubt, many are. I'm pleased that you are open to the possibility.
Not all of them.
And that too is correct.
Example - continuous crystal structure of copper conductor....also forming that structure also called "breaking in".
Mmmm… yes, but mostly NOT for the “audiophile glossalallia” usually given. Physically 'moving' and connecting, and disconnecting, and reconnecting, and repositioning a bunch of equipment has the decidedly negative function of smooshing around a bunch of oxides on the connectors between them. Internally, as for example, in tube-amplifier equipment, just moving the darn things causes thumps (they're heavy), which microscopically change the position of various valves in their sockets. Again, smooshing the oxides around. As these junctions are exposed both to voltage gradients and current flows, many of the imposed oxide particles are welded on the nano-scale to the base metals, changing the resistance and especially the anisotropic (not-homogeneous) conduction of them. The equipment thus “burns in”.
At least — if you read that — you have to admit: there ARE sophisticated physics-and-electricity-and-mechanics based reasons to justify the “breaking in changes things” observation! One cannot abstract much from it, except “burn in your equipment for XXX hours after making changes…”. But still, backed by solid physics, it is good advice.
At least — if you read that — you have to admit: there ARE sophisticated physics-and-electricity-and-mechanics based reasons to justify the “breaking in changes things” observation! One cannot abstract much from it, except “burn in your equipment for XXX hours after making changes…”. But still, backed by solid physics, it is good advice.
Have you ever built anything audio? I guess - yes, have you ever experimented with different parts including direction of caps, resistors, or wires or you are here to argue? You can not argue without having facts! Correct me if I am wrong.
Now, now. We try hard here NOT to be too combative, Joe. Tone it down a bit.
Science helps a lot to show us a preliminary expectations for certain design or circuit.
Yes, and it does way more too… it gives a HUGE amount of supporting theory, detailed theory, to answer questions about placement of components, routing of wires, the use (or not) of twisting, or braid-shielding the wires at various locations in the equipment. It does all sorts of things like that, that the average DIY audiophile isn't really terribly interested in.
The rest is tests and trials.
Yep.
Have you spent some of your precious time trying different approaches and mods on your system, instead of denying based on science.
Yes. ALL OF US HAVE. Again, … without being combative, lad.
Hiding your lack of experience( or should I say experimenting) behind science is convenient and sometime convincible, but that's works for newbies and and some not very experienced guys.
Umm… no. Usually — but not always — it takes decades of experience, of learning, of RE-learning, of trial, failure, trial, semi-success, trial-failure and then occasionally trial-success to “get it right”. Hard earned, hard won.
Sooner or later their curiosity will push them to try one of this "snake oil" nonscientific mods or pieces of equipment and when they hear the difference than you nonbelievers, deniers and scientist will tell them that science says - they are wrong? As I said you read science how the music should sound.
Again, combative, Joe. Just assume that those of us who decry the “magic snake oil” approach do so, because in double-blind tests, almost every time, the snake-oil theory disappears.
Yes, it is exactly that. We are here to report … what we find, what knowledge we've acquired that might apply to different reported issues, cool stuff, and so on.
And please continue to do this reporting. Those of us who've got different experiences will say their say. And whether you LIKE their say or not, is basically immaterial. What is important is that we all learn from each others findings. Snake oil or not.
You don't listen, you don't experiment, you don't look for something new and better.
Joe… combat… not good.
You are very pragmatic and feel comfortable in your shell.
No shell, Joe.
Anyway, I'm letting the rest of it go.
Come back down from railing us on our ATTEMPT to use scientific and statistically double-blind testing to ferret out the purported snake oil magnificence from … no-effect, and we'll be on good discussing terms. Continue to pillory those here who actually know what they're talking about, and its not going to go well. For them, and for you.
Just saying,
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
It may depend on the method of listening.
For example some ear buds are extremely dc sensitive.
So any dissimilar junction will introduce the thermocouple effect hence dc.
Ie different wire types, leadframe interconnects, solder bridge connection etc.
If the zfoil is feedback resistor then the effect is amplified.
For example some ear buds are extremely dc sensitive.
So any dissimilar junction will introduce the thermocouple effect hence dc.
Ie different wire types, leadframe interconnects, solder bridge connection etc.
If the zfoil is feedback resistor then the effect is amplified.
Last edited:
I would guess that I've built more bits of audio gear with z foils in the signal path than most people. I finished my 33rd Paradise build yesterday and it has z foils for the 4 riaa resistors, as usual.
With a following wind, on a good day, listening through Stax headphones I 'think' that 'maybe' i can just hear a tiny difference between dale Rn 0.1% and tx components 0.1% naked foils. And that's 'think' and 'maybe'. I certainly wouldn't bet any money on being able to blind ABx the effect.
I know one thing though, I sure as **** couldn't tell any difference from reversing the orientation of them.
Imo that's just pure fantasy.
With a following wind, on a good day, listening through Stax headphones I 'think' that 'maybe' i can just hear a tiny difference between dale Rn 0.1% and tx components 0.1% naked foils. And that's 'think' and 'maybe'. I certainly wouldn't bet any money on being able to blind ABx the effect.
I know one thing though, I sure as **** couldn't tell any difference from reversing the orientation of them.
Imo that's just pure fantasy.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.