XELB said:
The "ticks & pops" are a question of taste and tolerance
In some records they give a special "color" to the music, and I can't imagine a old record of Luis Armstrong without the "ticks & pops". hehehe
But even in new records, such as Patricia Barber - Companion (1999), I prefer the sound of the vinyl instead of the CD.
And as I told you, I don't have any fancy TT. ( Rega P3 + Cartridge Benz Gold + 2ºHand Preamp Rega )
Hi XELB,
I agree with you entirely, and I grew up with vinyl and listened to it for many years, long before any CDs became available.
As you might have seen from my comments, I carry out a lot of listening tests, and I have about 20 vinyl records which I have also duplicated on CD format, deliberately.
Whilst modifying CD players/DACs etc., I sometimes found it very instructive to play both mediums 'synchronised', and switch back and forth between the two. This method has proved beneficial, as usually I prefer to have a 'yardstick' or reference to continually make comparisons with, as memory is not always very good when assessing any potential 'sonic' changes.
However, I still prefer vinyl for most 'enjoyment' listening, and the only downsides are with lesser convenience and some surface noise, which is mainly taken care of as I have a record-cleaning machine.
I don't wish to cause anyone any offence here, but (IMHO) if someone cannot immediately tell the difference between a vinyl record playing, and any CD, then either their system or their experiences must be vastly different from my own.
Regards,
I've participated in too many A-B tests, blinded and sighted, and some people have much more difficulty in detecting any difference at all, even if the difference is there and obvious.
That's why in the end of the day, the statistics of these tests mean nothing, conclusions can not be taken this way.
So, Marius (demogorgon) didn't hear any difference when he tried snubbers.
So what?
That's no big deal, and doesn't prove that the difference isn't there.
The same if you can't measure any difference. I just means that YOU couldn't measure any difference, with the methods you used.
Also, no values, no circuit, no nothing is declared for his 'tests'.
Nobody's trying to prove anything here, Charles Hansen opened THIS thread to report his findings.
What happened next is sad.
Please understand one thing: if you build anything related to audio and try to sell it, it will unavoidably be listened, compared and on the long term it will only have success and reputation if it sounds good, at least for the asked price.
If you don't understand this, you are in the wrond side of the field, go build some car alarms or something else.
That's why in the end of the day, the statistics of these tests mean nothing, conclusions can not be taken this way.
So, Marius (demogorgon) didn't hear any difference when he tried snubbers.
So what?
That's no big deal, and doesn't prove that the difference isn't there.
The same if you can't measure any difference. I just means that YOU couldn't measure any difference, with the methods you used.
Also, no values, no circuit, no nothing is declared for his 'tests'.
Nobody's trying to prove anything here, Charles Hansen opened THIS thread to report his findings.
What happened next is sad.
Please understand one thing: if you build anything related to audio and try to sell it, it will unavoidably be listened, compared and on the long term it will only have success and reputation if it sounds good, at least for the asked price.
If you don't understand this, you are in the wrond side of the field, go build some car alarms or something else.
demogorgon said:the human ear is quite error tolerant
I think the important fact is that the ear seems to be more tolerant of some errors than others. In my opinion, if you don't know what errors to invest your effort reducing then your time is not well spent.
Ok, so there's a spectrum of 'types' of people. Way at one end are those that care only about the best sound (whatever that is) and don't care why anything might sound 'better' than something else. They're not even interested in considering whether or not they really hear a difference at all; getting maximum pleasure from the music is all that matters. In my assessment, there aren't all that many people living way down at that end of the spectrum.
At the other end are those that believe that if there is no apparent reason for two devices to sound different, then they don't. That any testimony of a detectable difference - or worse, that the device with poor specs sounds better
- must be disregarded as that of a lunatic. It seems that there are more people living at this end of the spectrum than the other. At least they're more vocal around here. What makes thie last group of people so intolerable to me is that they seem to believe they already understand all the problems and hence all the answers. This group of people, the ones that think they are WAY smarter than the rest seem (to me) to be way more foolish simply because they are incapable of considering that there might be more to the situation than what is obvious (to them.) That's the characteristic of a fool, not a wise individual.
Now recall my opening paragraph. Anyone that believes they fully understand which errors the ear is most sensitive to and which it is not is probably living at the foolish end of the spectrum.
Then of course there's the huge space in between the two extremes. That's where most of us reside. We're willing to consider that the problems of reproducing music might not be the same problems encountered in other areas of electronics. Perhaps we are willing to consider that our collective understanding of human hearing is not as solid as Ohm's law. We might be willing to consider the experimental result of others, and if they're interesting results we might try reproducing the experiment ourselves. If we reproduce the same results then we might try to understand them. Then, even if we can't come up with a solid explanaition, we probably won't toss the results away just yet.
Does that make us wise? Not necessarily, but at least we understand that we still have some learning to do.
-- Dave
Dave Cigna said:
Hello Dave.
gonna make this brief, as i'm off to bed.
No, i dont consider myself "better than anyone else". i'm probably "better than a lot, and "worse" than a lot, like most other, but to tell you the truth, i really dont give a flying ****.
Neither do i claim to be all knowing.
And last, but not least, an objective stance on a given problem, does not involve a "point of view" in which only a given sum of considerations can fit. it involves looking at ALL considerations, and with the help of established facts boile the whole picture down to the problem, and the parameters that are involved in the solution to that problem.
trying to be objective is not the contrary to subjectiveness, being objective doesent alow for subjectiveness to enter the problemsolving process. and that's engineering. not placing caps and resistors at random.
it's all so very logical.
I'd say thats why some people has to attack it.
demogorgon said:
Marius, that is probably what you have done and I agree that's not correct.
Look what can happen if you know what you're doing:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=862935#post862935
Eva said:
I don't know his layout and the exact parts used after the regs.
I don't have those problems, and I've used those snubber values after LM317 regs (on a discrete line preamp, and even on a phono pre).
Just figure that out, if the phono pre is silent with these snubbers applied to LM317/337 regs, must be a miracle, no? Must be the lack of an electrical fence...
Also, slightly different snubber values after LM338 regs, feeding a power amp (others have built this PSU without a single problem).
QUOTE:
To me, it looks pretty much like he has managed to make his regulator oscillate and now it is acting as an AM/FM receiver and picking up the RF EMI caused by the HV switcher of the electric fence. I'm always puzzled at the extreme naiveness of the human being.
Hi,
I am sorry to say that (to me) this looks like a complete misunderstanding of reality here, and it suggests a certain lack of familiarity/experience with what happens in the real world.
Clicks and pops can be picked up for a whole host of reasons, and unshielded cables are a very well-known possibility, to name but one. There is no reason, save perhaps for attempting to cast doubts on the usefulness of snubbers, to suggest that there is any oscillation, anywhere, in this instance. It is just as likely that the addition of a snubber here has improved the transient response of the amplifier, now sufficiently to reproduce some albeit unwanted interference, which, due to a lower rise-time previously, was simply masked.
To seriously diagnose only *oscillation* here as a result of these symptoms, indicates either some hidden agenda at worst, or possibly a simple lack of experience in trouble-shooting.
I may be entirely wrong in this guess, but knowing of personal security problems in that country, and having carefully read what was said, this electric fence could well surround a large area in which the poster resides, and it is probably also quite high.
If so, this would be almost like a Faraday Cage in effect, except that instead of *preventing unwanted intrusions* like RFI etc. like a conventional Faraday Cage with its 'quiet' and well-grounded all-encompassing shield, it is actually *transmitting pulses* throughout its entire surface area, all around the listening environment. It would be almost like having a local transmitter with its aerials completely surrounding your home!
Under these circumstances, it is hardly any wonder that some unwanted disturbances occur, and I am rather surprised that it doesn't occur at all times, whether there are any snubbers in any circuits or not.
Regards,
To me, it looks pretty much like he has managed to make his regulator oscillate and now it is acting as an AM/FM receiver and picking up the RF EMI caused by the HV switcher of the electric fence. I'm always puzzled at the extreme naiveness of the human being.
Hi,
I am sorry to say that (to me) this looks like a complete misunderstanding of reality here, and it suggests a certain lack of familiarity/experience with what happens in the real world.
Clicks and pops can be picked up for a whole host of reasons, and unshielded cables are a very well-known possibility, to name but one. There is no reason, save perhaps for attempting to cast doubts on the usefulness of snubbers, to suggest that there is any oscillation, anywhere, in this instance. It is just as likely that the addition of a snubber here has improved the transient response of the amplifier, now sufficiently to reproduce some albeit unwanted interference, which, due to a lower rise-time previously, was simply masked.
To seriously diagnose only *oscillation* here as a result of these symptoms, indicates either some hidden agenda at worst, or possibly a simple lack of experience in trouble-shooting.
I may be entirely wrong in this guess, but knowing of personal security problems in that country, and having carefully read what was said, this electric fence could well surround a large area in which the poster resides, and it is probably also quite high.
If so, this would be almost like a Faraday Cage in effect, except that instead of *preventing unwanted intrusions* like RFI etc. like a conventional Faraday Cage with its 'quiet' and well-grounded all-encompassing shield, it is actually *transmitting pulses* throughout its entire surface area, all around the listening environment. It would be almost like having a local transmitter with its aerials completely surrounding your home!
Under these circumstances, it is hardly any wonder that some unwanted disturbances occur, and I am rather surprised that it doesn't occur at all times, whether there are any snubbers in any circuits or not.
Regards,
I'm sorry but the hypothesis in question is on topic, and neither suggests nor implies any lack of understanding, familiarity, skill/experience (did you leave anything out?)... or hidden agenda, neither in part, or in whole.
In fact it was a concise response to the problem at hand, something "new" that just showed up, it wasn't there before the snubber was "thrown" on, but the fence was, which in my view makes your theory the furthest fetched.
It seems more likely drawn up with the intent of belittling someone because they doen't share your opinion, but I'm sure I'm wrong.
It only makes sense to look towards the snubber first before discussing UFO excited faraday cage transmission.
Also the big difference he's hearing could easily be a euphonic effect brought on be HF resonance, which fits well with Eva's theory, in fact.
This is not an argument about the importance of listening, and should not be continued along that path... leads to nowhere. It stands to reason just about anyone on this forum "listens". Seriously.
This is an argument of a snubber being a "corrective network" which in order to work properly, one needs to know what they're correcting for, this is best and really only done via measurement.
As someone who's said you believe in measurement "and" listening, I can't see why you would continue this when he plainly did not measure for his corrective network, and instead threw on a few values that others have used, without even the first clue as to how it works!
Would you give a blind man a spray gun to paint your car with too, and blame the poor result on it having been a cloudy day?
With all respect, get real, you can't have this both ways.
Cheers,
Chris
In fact it was a concise response to the problem at hand, something "new" that just showed up, it wasn't there before the snubber was "thrown" on, but the fence was, which in my view makes your theory the furthest fetched.
It seems more likely drawn up with the intent of belittling someone because they doen't share your opinion, but I'm sure I'm wrong.
It only makes sense to look towards the snubber first before discussing UFO excited faraday cage transmission.
Also the big difference he's hearing could easily be a euphonic effect brought on be HF resonance, which fits well with Eva's theory, in fact.
This is not an argument about the importance of listening, and should not be continued along that path... leads to nowhere. It stands to reason just about anyone on this forum "listens". Seriously.
This is an argument of a snubber being a "corrective network" which in order to work properly, one needs to know what they're correcting for, this is best and really only done via measurement.
As someone who's said you believe in measurement "and" listening, I can't see why you would continue this when he plainly did not measure for his corrective network, and instead threw on a few values that others have used, without even the first clue as to how it works!
Would you give a blind man a spray gun to paint your car with too, and blame the poor result on it having been a cloudy day?
With all respect, get real, you can't have this both ways.
Cheers,
Chris
What??? The amplifier transient response was improved and now it picks up clicks from the electric fence??? 
I'm always puzzled at what I read here.
I made that diagnostic because in my (short) life I have already created and solved thousands of oscillation problems, and IC regulators do definitely oscillate with some loads, while chip amps do pick-up any RF in the supply lines. However, stability analysis can't just be performed by siting comfortably in some armchair, listening to music, relaxing and letting the imagination fly... Such an analysis requires some effort and specific tools (like one called oscilloscope, does anybody know it?).
I'm always puzzled at what I read here.
I made that diagnostic because in my (short) life I have already created and solved thousands of oscillation problems, and IC regulators do definitely oscillate with some loads, while chip amps do pick-up any RF in the supply lines. However, stability analysis can't just be performed by siting comfortably in some armchair, listening to music, relaxing and letting the imagination fly... Such an analysis requires some effort and specific tools (like one called oscilloscope, does anybody know it?).
I am surprised at how many explanations one can come up with without any experience..
Just to give you all a idea of the circumstances.......the fence is on a 12Ft wall surrounding the stand, total length 175m
Pops and click were heard before the time but not as much as after the mods. it also happens when the electric gate opens and closes. (mains ???) something in my set-up is more sensitive than before..I also have to add that it does not happen in other systems that I tried it in..explain that.
none of the regs oscillate, it was checked on a scope for that.
as strange as this might be there is a logical solution to this.
btw. it did make a huge improvement in the sound.
Just to give you all a idea of the circumstances.......the fence is on a 12Ft wall surrounding the stand, total length 175m
Pops and click were heard before the time but not as much as after the mods. it also happens when the electric gate opens and closes. (mains ???) something in my set-up is more sensitive than before..I also have to add that it does not happen in other systems that I tried it in..explain that.
none of the regs oscillate, it was checked on a scope for that.
as strange as this might be there is a logical solution to this.
btw. it did make a huge improvement in the sound.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.