I wonder why those like you who don't even know what an oscillator is have to venture into totally unknown lands.
Obviously by copying and pasting what the master wrote.
The master who forgot to study.
This is the classic example of a total lack of humility.
Yet it would be simple "Stultus quoque si taquerit, sapiens reputabitur"
Y’all are the ones who said if someone heard a difference, it’s a real objective difference and not the product of subjective experience.
So why is something valid science and other stuff snake oil to you, Andrea? Why aren’t the hearing impressions of people who claim special stickers make their amps sound better as valid as the ones about your products or any other product improving performance past the point of audibility? It’s a serious question.
So why is something valid science and other stuff snake oil to you, Andrea? Why aren’t the hearing impressions of people who claim special stickers make their amps sound better as valid as the ones about your products or any other product improving performance past the point of audibility? It’s a serious question.
You are confused, listening impressions are subjective so anyone can try something to draw his conclusions himself.
I have never argued the listening impressions of others.
I read, I try if I can and finally I draw my conclusions.
And above all, before starting to design something, I study the topic.
But in this specific case the topic you mocked was using rubber bands to suspend an oscillator.
You wanted to be funny and instead you just proved your ignorance on the subject from a strictly scientific point of view.
I have never argued the listening impressions of others.
I read, I try if I can and finally I draw my conclusions.
And above all, before starting to design something, I study the topic.
But in this specific case the topic you mocked was using rubber bands to suspend an oscillator.
You wanted to be funny and instead you just proved your ignorance on the subject from a strictly scientific point of view.
The occasional reader, not so well-versed in discussion like this, could think due to some recent posts, that oscillator susceptibility to vibrations is non-existent (might even expect to read "debunking" post about it), but that would be far from true.
In fact, it is not so much a discussion about oscillators, but about if audible effects could be caused by vibrations, which is a "slightly" different topic.
In fact, it is not so much a discussion about oscillators, but about if audible effects could be caused by vibrations, which is a "slightly" different topic.
IMHO when it has an audible effect, it tends to sound more like a linear distortion to me. It some cases it can sound kind of like a time smearing effect. Maybe a change in phase which distorts waveshape by time shifting existing harmonics. Possibly more noticeable on transients.
I make no claim of that. Personally, I suspect they are barking up the wrong tree.
Interesting, I would think an amplifier with high LF distortions and low HF distortions would be quite a design challenge.
Use an undersized transformer.
About the audible effects, as I said several times, try yourself and then you can draw your conclusions.
If you're not interested don't try, not that I particularly care.
From the scientific point of view the crystal is very susceptible to vibrations, therefore suspending the oscillator by rubber bands could be a good practice.
Then someone mocked the results we got writing "A dangling PCB beats the space grade Wenzel oscillators. The PCB is good for audio use only, of course."
Again from the scientific point of view (repeated measurements) has been proved that the "dangling PCB" oscillator measures at least like the Wenzel BT ULN, maybe better.
Consequently the total lack of humility also leads to deride what is certainly a good practice from a scientific point of view such suspending the oscillator.
In the end it is just a demonstration of ignorance, nothing more.
Technically speaking your master has a lot to learn from the guys I mentioned, but above all he has a lot to learn from those smart guys about the meaning of humility.
Andrea here’s something you posted in this thread. You’re suggesting that because a professional is offering a statement related to their field of work it should be taken at face value, but you don’t seem to offer that same respect to the professional and scientific opinions about audibility. Why is that?
Andrea, if possible I suggest that you replace the 2c rubber bands with a 500Eur (ca. 1Kg) solid and heavy enclosure on a solid and heavy base (another 500Eur, ca. 5 Kg).
This should make the transition to professional.
I guess this is why, by the form factor and price, Wenzel and others will win despite a slight decrease in specifications.
First "concept proof" prototypes are often much better than final products. Although in this case, the rubber band is not really the best solution against vibrations. You cannot correctly specify it, and hence risk creating many and more serious problems. As you know, the Quality Control measurements in your case are based on highly expensive equipment operated by specialized people (needs lots of years of experience to do it right). Hence any solution must not risk to be based on "adjustments". How can anyone know, what types/manufacturer, length etc. of stripe bands you use??? You are positioning in the zone of non-reproducibility, except that "you make and supply it personally". Considering these concerns, the critics you have I believe they are just trying to help you, just stopping at not telling you exactly what to do. By being an IT guy, you probably do not understand their intentions very well, but - maybe too fast and too "natural" - you react ballistic on it.
Blame me too, but you must know that I also am trying to help others appreciating and clarifying your DIY results.
This should make the transition to professional.
I guess this is why, by the form factor and price, Wenzel and others will win despite a slight decrease in specifications.
First "concept proof" prototypes are often much better than final products. Although in this case, the rubber band is not really the best solution against vibrations. You cannot correctly specify it, and hence risk creating many and more serious problems. As you know, the Quality Control measurements in your case are based on highly expensive equipment operated by specialized people (needs lots of years of experience to do it right). Hence any solution must not risk to be based on "adjustments". How can anyone know, what types/manufacturer, length etc. of stripe bands you use??? You are positioning in the zone of non-reproducibility, except that "you make and supply it personally". Considering these concerns, the critics you have I believe they are just trying to help you, just stopping at not telling you exactly what to do. By being an IT guy, you probably do not understand their intentions very well, but - maybe too fast and too "natural" - you react ballistic on it.
Blame me too, but you must know that I also am trying to help others appreciating and clarifying your DIY results.
Your vivd descriptions of what you "hear" is really something. Other people are more cautious when trying to describe their impression. Until you publish documentation about how you are able to statistically ensure that you are able to discriminate and identify different distortions in a scientific manner I read these as cute fairy tales. I wouldn't comment on other doing the same thing because most people are a bit humble about what they claim or are obviously just babbeling. But you repeatedly post these statement with such a confidence that it is needed to be challenged. I don't doubt you 100% but I would need proof to accept such claims to be true. Work on your report please and until published, I will personally just see them as wishful thinking of hearing ability and a bit of bragging really.
//
I think I have explained this several times, I try, listen and draw my own conclusions.
I respect the conclusions of others but I keep mine.
As I said in the end I would like to listen to music in the way that I think is most realistic.
I don't want to torture myself because someone can't mathematically prove what I feel.
I did post the list of the tools we have in our laboratory,
it's not that bad.
So we also measure but we are also convinced that measurements are a part and not the whole process and in the end we have to deal with what we hear.
LF Distortion and energy storage are orders of magnitude higher in magnetics than any capacitor. Many people like the effect
Obviously you have not understood, but this is the prerogative of those like you who have the presumption to understand without reading or listening carefully.
So I write it again hoping it doesn't end up in the noise floor of your perception:
WE ARE HOBBYISTS AND WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN BECAMING PROFESSIONALS.
I think I have already posted the list of the guys we learned from and will learn more, you are not in that list, not even your your master.
I can add Gerhard to the list but certainly not you.
Why?
Because if you were as prepared as you claim you would know that beyond a certain level of performance the quality of an oscillator depends solely on the crystal.
Therefore the reproducibility is exclusively related to the crystal, the electronic does not matter.
Some time ago, as soon as we measured the performance as in published plots I have asked a smart guy (Enrico Rubiola) if he thought it was possible to further improve the performance of the oscillator.
His answer was very clear: "By means of electronics? No, it's a lost battle. At these levels it is only the crystal that makes the difference."
So the only way to get good reproducibility is selecting the crystal.
And not according to the specs of the crystal itself, almost useless, but by measuring the phase noise of the oscillator where the crystal has been installed.
Which is exactly how Wenzel selects the products and charges you more for a selected oscillator with better phase noise (lower grade costs less).
Finally, By being an IT guy I have the advantage that I can develop the software myself to interpret the raw data provided by the measuring instruments, that's the reason I have bought the NI GPIB USB adapter.
Although I don't claim to be as smart as John Miles who has designed the hardware (the Timepod) and also he has developed the software (the Timelab).
Unlike you and your master, we are humble people.
Maybe because our references like John Miles and Bruce Griffiths they are first of all masters of humility.
Which never hurts.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.