The point is that you can't be sure that what you perceive is actually what is there. You may be able to tell the difference between A and B, then again you may also be able to tell the 'difference' between A and A, or miss the difference between A and B. Most of the time you can be pretty confident that your sense aren't outright lying to you, but this is often not the case.Charles Hansen said:
There may or may not be differences in sound between enclosure materials beyond shielding. To be sure there must be proper measurements done. This can involve human senses if the tests are double-blind to remove as many interfering variables as possible. If such tests have been conducted then I would be interested to see. Personally I have never noticed any differences aside from those due to RFI or grounding.
Well, my colleagues and I who do rigorous sensory research had best retire then, eh?
Now, differences that disappear when experiments are properly controlled, those cannot be proved. That's why we design experiments, to separate fantasy from fact. But perception is a perfectly good and common tool.
pjpoes said:
Maybe this link will bring you closer to your original question: http://www.mother-of-tone.com/lacquer.htm
I enjoy reading these threads....it just cracks me up to read the naysayers go on because it so much like the "the sound is in the pickups" attitude of 80's electric guitar making.
But that being said....has anybody played around with it enough (I know the variables involved are huge) to have some opinion or experience to say that the better way to go is a either a dead wood or a more resonant wood?
But that being said....has anybody played around with it enough (I know the variables involved are huge) to have some opinion or experience to say that the better way to go is a either a dead wood or a more resonant wood?
leadbelly said:
I think it greatly depends on the effect one is after. While I built chassis out of wood and copper, somehow they never sounded right to me, being too dead and lacking air. I also stopped using copper bars in my monoblocks as they seem to have a similar effect. For some reason the enclosure built after 47Labs Gaincard still sounds very good, yet it's quite resonant. And I would probably stay away from all wood enclosures.
Recently I wanted to build an amp where effect of the chassis would be minimal. I decided on 2" round brass rod, with a single brass cone at the bottom sitting on a platform made of acrylic and specially formuated polyurethane foam damping disk in between ( http://www.soundfusion.ca ). The acrylic ring at the top and 4 aluminum rods act as a frame to keep the free standing brass rod from falling.
This construction sounds pretty good, and for some reason I don't perceive that much damping I am used with similarly heavy mass chunks of metal.
Attachments
Mr. Evil,
Ah, so you wish to argue solipsism.
It is cheating to throw in a pathological condition, you know. Cataracts are not part of a healthy person's observational package. Unless you're willing to posit that everyone suffers from the same pathology, you're painting yourself into a corner.
As to measurement of color by eye, clearly you've not grown up with members of the family in the textile industry. The eye can be taught, just as the ear can. An experienced textile worker can reliably spot subtle color differences in fabrics that are beyond what the man on the street can see. It was once part of an outmoded concept called quality control.
Grey
Ah, so you wish to argue solipsism.
It is cheating to throw in a pathological condition, you know. Cataracts are not part of a healthy person's observational package. Unless you're willing to posit that everyone suffers from the same pathology, you're painting yourself into a corner.
As to measurement of color by eye, clearly you've not grown up with members of the family in the textile industry. The eye can be taught, just as the ear can. An experienced textile worker can reliably spot subtle color differences in fabrics that are beyond what the man on the street can see. It was once part of an outmoded concept called quality control.
Grey
I see that I missed pinkmouse's (earlier) post...
What to do if 999 people say the sky is blue and one says it's green?
Easy.
Step outside and look.
Note also that the single green vote might also be reporting a verifiable fact. It might have been the notorious green flash at sunset, or the oft-reported green sky that presages a tornado.
Facts exist, yet they are not always constant. Local conditions might change things beyond what another sees in a location where conditions are different.
Regarding the content of the thread, it's possible that someone might build an enclosure of walnut and find that it sounds good. Another builds an enclosure of pine. He doesn't find a difference and scoffs at the entire concept. I'm not saying that it's the case, mind you, but it's always possible that pine might not work well, whereas walnut does.
Grey
EDIT: Lighing design is another good one. Didn't think of that.
What to do if 999 people say the sky is blue and one says it's green?
Easy.
Step outside and look.
Note also that the single green vote might also be reporting a verifiable fact. It might have been the notorious green flash at sunset, or the oft-reported green sky that presages a tornado.
Facts exist, yet they are not always constant. Local conditions might change things beyond what another sees in a location where conditions are different.
Regarding the content of the thread, it's possible that someone might build an enclosure of walnut and find that it sounds good. Another builds an enclosure of pine. He doesn't find a difference and scoffs at the entire concept. I'm not saying that it's the case, mind you, but it's always possible that pine might not work well, whereas walnut does.
Grey
EDIT: Lighing design is another good one. Didn't think of that.
Monet was just the first thing that came to mind when thinking of colour perception. Actually, yes I will ague that we all suffer from the same condition. Sight changes considerably as we age, as do all the senses. The surface of the eye becomes less transparent over time, decreasing sensitivity to blues like cataracts but much less severe. Sensitivity overall decreases too. Plus an awful lot of people have varying degrees of colour blindness. Even if you pass a colour-blindness test you may still have quite a different colour resolution to another non-colourblind person. This changes with age too.GRollins said:
And I'm sure it's possible to improve the senses with training. Human senses are still not good scientific instruments. Even under controlled conditions there are a lot of variables that limit accuracy, and under non-double-blind (no pun intended!) conditions I place little faith in them. They may be great for matching rugs, but that's a long way from generating scientific evidence (unless it's the abilities of the senses themselves that are being tested of course).
So, can we prove that we all see the same blue? Can the blind imagine color? Does any of us percieve the same thing from the same event?
Sorry, I'm just throwing rock in the water here and watching the ripples. Good conversation. Good group of folks.
I would build my enclosures from walnut and curly maple. Walnut is beautiful to look and and work with. It's a classic in the hi-fi arena. Curly maple is often stunning, but a bear to work with - it's just waiting for you to try to cut it so it can warp in a new direction. With patience, it come out well. If wood does have an effect on the sound, I would bank on curly maple providing a benefit, from both it's hardness, mass, and eddies of grain.
Plus, if you spend 40-80 hours perfecting the case, you will still love it, and cherrish it always. It will be music to your eyes, regardless if it changes the sound.
Sorry, I'm just throwing rock in the water here and watching the ripples. Good conversation. Good group of folks.
I would build my enclosures from walnut and curly maple. Walnut is beautiful to look and and work with. It's a classic in the hi-fi arena. Curly maple is often stunning, but a bear to work with - it's just waiting for you to try to cut it so it can warp in a new direction. With patience, it come out well. If wood does have an effect on the sound, I would bank on curly maple providing a benefit, from both it's hardness, mass, and eddies of grain.
Plus, if you spend 40-80 hours perfecting the case, you will still love it, and cherrish it always. It will be music to your eyes, regardless if it changes the sound.
Well, I'll say it again--
It's perfectly plausible that use of a wooden enclosure would effect the sound in some way. But it's extremely unlikely that it would actually result in an improvement in sound quality when compared to a properly-engineered metal enclosure, assuming the circuit in question is sound (ah, I think Grey's punning is rubbing off).
Honestly, I don't understand why people are getting so worked up over this. It's a simple matter of determining what properties wood has that metal doesn't, and vice versa, how they might effect sound quality, which effects are desireable, which aren't, and how you can alter one material to make up for its deficiences and bring its performance closer to that of the other (i.e. damp your metal chassis, apply some sort of shielding to your wooden chassis, etc). There's no absolute right or wrong here, just what's right for your particular application and abilities.
It's perfectly plausible that use of a wooden enclosure would effect the sound in some way. But it's extremely unlikely that it would actually result in an improvement in sound quality when compared to a properly-engineered metal enclosure, assuming the circuit in question is sound (ah, I think Grey's punning is rubbing off).
Honestly, I don't understand why people are getting so worked up over this. It's a simple matter of determining what properties wood has that metal doesn't, and vice versa, how they might effect sound quality, which effects are desireable, which aren't, and how you can alter one material to make up for its deficiences and bring its performance closer to that of the other (i.e. damp your metal chassis, apply some sort of shielding to your wooden chassis, etc). There's no absolute right or wrong here, just what's right for your particular application and abilities.
Hands up anyone who's applied bitumen to their cd player chassis. Who's perched their equipment on soft feet? Anyone done this and inspite of believing any change must be an improvement (a mentality I have suffered from at times), found an unacceptably dead or coloured sound? I have.
Who has tried hard cones, made from wood, aluminum etc.? Who has found a more realistic sense of tone, PRAT, and liveliness? I have. (I use oak cones)
Who has found that a rack (not metal+glass) sounds better than a floor? Who has found that added mass on a rack (e.g. 2 or 3 paving slabs on the bottom shelf) makes the bass unrealistic and blurs the timing of the music? I have.
I'm sure blind listening could easily prove a difference in sound listening to a CD player and/or solid state amp that is treated to differing conditions of mechanical resonance.
Someone who is reliable in blind listening tests care to put forward some results?
Who has tried hard cones, made from wood, aluminum etc.? Who has found a more realistic sense of tone, PRAT, and liveliness? I have. (I use oak cones)
Who has found that a rack (not metal+glass) sounds better than a floor? Who has found that added mass on a rack (e.g. 2 or 3 paving slabs on the bottom shelf) makes the bass unrealistic and blurs the timing of the music? I have.
I'm sure blind listening could easily prove a difference in sound listening to a CD player and/or solid state amp that is treated to differing conditions of mechanical resonance.
Someone who is reliable in blind listening tests care to put forward some results?
I'm a scientist, but also a monkey. Haven't tried any of this stuff because the CD player and SS amps I have handy don't seem to be microphonic and hence are poor candidates for this sort of mod. My own inclination is to use nonmicrophonic components and layouts right from the get-go rather than bandage them later.
Having spent a certain amount of cash on speakers and room acoustics, the one thing I DO NOT want is an amplifier that deviates any more than the absolute minimum from ther classic criterion, "straight wire with gain". I've made no personal comparrisson of wood vs. metal (or aluminum vs. steel), so I can't say anything about which if any sounds better (or different). However, if the same amplifier in different enclosures sound different because of the enclosure (as distinct from someother unidentified coincident reason), then to my way of thinking at least one of the enclosures is -- bad!
SY -- I don't think you have to go to all that trouble. Why not try what was suggested by Simon a few posts up?
Michael -- There are two fairly obvious suspects; radiated fields (eg, eddy currents), and mechanical resonances. After many experiments, I lean fairly strongly toward mechanical resonances. This much more easily explains the fact that different woods (for example) sound different.
Sam -- You are affirming what I alluded to a page or two ago. Namely, how do we know which sound is "correct"? As I noted in that post, this is a *much* more difficult task than simply noting that there are differences. The only way that I have found is to try hundreds of different recordings from many different genres. It's not hard to find a sound that makes a certain type of music (say, chamber music) sound much more appealing with a certain type of sonic signature (say, single-ended triode amps). But if you try many different types of music, you will find that the added appeal of the single-ended triode is a coloration that will harm many other types of music. When you are performing these tests, just remember, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
Brian -- One would think so. In fact I used to think so. But that was before I actually tried it.
Michael -- There are two fairly obvious suspects; radiated fields (eg, eddy currents), and mechanical resonances. After many experiments, I lean fairly strongly toward mechanical resonances. This much more easily explains the fact that different woods (for example) sound different.
Sam -- You are affirming what I alluded to a page or two ago. Namely, how do we know which sound is "correct"? As I noted in that post, this is a *much* more difficult task than simply noting that there are differences. The only way that I have found is to try hundreds of different recordings from many different genres. It's not hard to find a sound that makes a certain type of music (say, chamber music) sound much more appealing with a certain type of sonic signature (say, single-ended triode amps). But if you try many different types of music, you will find that the added appeal of the single-ended triode is a coloration that will harm many other types of music. When you are performing these tests, just remember, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
Brian -- One would think so. In fact I used to think so. But that was before I actually tried it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.