I think the easiest thing to try would be something that is fairly different. For example try metal cones (aluminum ones sound nice and bright) versus soft pucks (Sorbothane ones sound smooth and damped).
It can be very confusing to try and do quick a quick A-B test. (Can you imagine trying to identify your wife/girlfriend by kissing while blindfolded? If you took your time it probably wouldn't be too hard. But if there were dozens of choices and you were only allowed a quick closed-mouth kiss, it might be very hard...)
One good method is to put tweak "A" into your system for a few days or even a week, just to get used to the sound. Then spend a focused session of 30 to 60 minutes listening to several of your favorite discs. (The more familiar you are with the discs, the easier the test will be.) Then switch out the "footers" and listen to the same discs you just played. (I often do this second part in reverse order.)
If you still don't hear a difference, try leaving the second set of tweaks in place for a week or so and then repeat the experiment.
Some people won't be able to hear a difference for one reason or another. I tried listening to absolute polarity several times over the course of many years and never could hear it. Then finally a couple of years ago I changed the speaker wires and heard it. I don't know if it was because my system was better or because my hearing was better trained. Probably a bit of both.
Good luck.
It can be very confusing to try and do quick a quick A-B test. (Can you imagine trying to identify your wife/girlfriend by kissing while blindfolded? If you took your time it probably wouldn't be too hard. But if there were dozens of choices and you were only allowed a quick closed-mouth kiss, it might be very hard...)
One good method is to put tweak "A" into your system for a few days or even a week, just to get used to the sound. Then spend a focused session of 30 to 60 minutes listening to several of your favorite discs. (The more familiar you are with the discs, the easier the test will be.) Then switch out the "footers" and listen to the same discs you just played. (I often do this second part in reverse order.)
If you still don't hear a difference, try leaving the second set of tweaks in place for a week or so and then repeat the experiment.
Some people won't be able to hear a difference for one reason or another. I tried listening to absolute polarity several times over the course of many years and never could hear it. Then finally a couple of years ago I changed the speaker wires and heard it. I don't know if it was because my system was better or because my hearing was better trained. Probably a bit of both.
Good luck.
Charles
Here is an interesting essay regarding "critical listening".
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm
I originally followed the link fro Siegfried Linkwitz's site.
Here is an interesting essay regarding "critical listening".
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm
I originally followed the link fro Siegfried Linkwitz's site.
Charles Hansen said:
Charles,
Thanks for answering.
You lean to that mechanical resonances could be the main contributor,(eg. mechanical vibrartions -> eg. mechanical energy?)
How could mechanical vibrations impact on the sound, how is it transplanted into the circuitry?
Is it the PCB with it's components that is getting vibrated and picking up "something", microphony effect or else??
I could think of ceramic capacitor which could act as piezo ellements could be one critical component but those are not the first quality capacitor choice used in hi-end designs, are there other components sensitive to certain degree that they should be reckon in you could mention?
I have difficult to see how enclosure materials could be couppled with the phenomena discussed here More than diffrent materials have diffrent resonance and thereby will the PCB(and everything else to the simplest cable inside the enclosure) be vibrated with diffrent energy at diffrent frequencies, but the energy and frequency of the enclosur could eassily be modified for instance with bitumen pads which helps a lot in general to dampen mechanical energy, whats your explanation/thoughts in the matter? Is this the whole issue or do you see other things involving here aside that metal enclosur can pick up electromagnetic waves as well as shielding the indside?
Regards Michael
For those skeptical about the benefits of wood as an enclosure, consider this: why aren't loudspeaker enclosures made of thin sheet metal?
It does have it's drawbacks though - notably, it doesn't shield (but then, hey, it doesn't interfere electronically either, bit like a plastic enclosure) and it has a tendency to warp with heat if you're not careful.
Russ Andrews manufactured his famous amps back in the early 90s from wood enclosures with great success in terms of sound quality. He didn't make the decision to enclose them in wood for cosmetic reasons - it's much much easier to enclose everything in metal from a number of points of view. Sonically however wood seems to be far superior.
As to why, I'd say that mainly wood is less prone to 'microphonic' effects (although not as prone as valve amps, or turntables, solid-state equipment and digital sources are still affected by it) - try damping the metal casing of your amp with something (aim to make it 'dead' if it's ringing when you tap it now). Then play a familiar piece of music. Bet it sounds different.
As for construction. I'd tend to use something fairly hardwood, then damp resonances by bracing and using minimal damping sheets. I really would think of it like a speaker enclosure in a way, as the idea is similar. Just make sure you account for heat dissipation and fire-retardancy.
Just my two-penneth,
James
It does have it's drawbacks though - notably, it doesn't shield (but then, hey, it doesn't interfere electronically either, bit like a plastic enclosure) and it has a tendency to warp with heat if you're not careful.
Russ Andrews manufactured his famous amps back in the early 90s from wood enclosures with great success in terms of sound quality. He didn't make the decision to enclose them in wood for cosmetic reasons - it's much much easier to enclose everything in metal from a number of points of view. Sonically however wood seems to be far superior.
As to why, I'd say that mainly wood is less prone to 'microphonic' effects (although not as prone as valve amps, or turntables, solid-state equipment and digital sources are still affected by it) - try damping the metal casing of your amp with something (aim to make it 'dead' if it's ringing when you tap it now). Then play a familiar piece of music. Bet it sounds different.
As for construction. I'd tend to use something fairly hardwood, then damp resonances by bracing and using minimal damping sheets. I really would think of it like a speaker enclosure in a way, as the idea is similar. Just make sure you account for heat dissipation and fire-retardancy.
Just my two-penneth,
James
Because thin metal is not rigid enough to hold the high pressure from low frequencies, causing it to re-radiate energy. Thick metal (solid or honeycomb or whatever) works quite nicely.trydecaf said:
This isn't of importance for an amp because amps don't make any sound. If it was important, then it would be necessary to remove all thin metal objects from the listening room, regardless of whether or not they held any electronics inside.
I've been expecting the "you wanted to hear a difference" accusation. Glad it finally showed up. It's easy enough to deal with in the sense that as often as not, you don't "want" to hear a difference. It means more money, more hassle factor, and enduring more blather from people who don't think it matters, but can't be bothered to try it because they "know" it's nonsense. Why on Earth would anyone willingly set themselves up for a string of negatives like that?
Oh, that's right...they were "brainwashed."
Man, I'm glad we don't have to depend on so-called scientists of that sort for medical breakthroughs. "Oh, it's all such a bother to actually stir myself to get up and experiment. I'll just sit here and think of rationalizations why it won't work so that I don't have to get my hands dirty." Meanwhile people die from curable diseases.
Yes, it's a nuisance to try another enclosure for a circuit (what? another negative?), but it's not all that difficult conceptually. Rather than sit and carp endlessly, why not give it a shot? People who give lip service to the scientific method ought to be willing to go that far. In another thread, people are yammering about how cables positively cannot have a prefered direction, yet not one of them seems to have the gumption to get up and try it. And that requires much less money and effort than this.
I've already offered one possible mechanism. Microphonics is another. A moving piece of metal in a magnetic field (let's use the stray field from the power transformer for starters) is a what? A generator. Again, we have the certainty that those eddy currents are going into your ground, making it noisy. Add to that the possibility that the secondary magnetic fields are interlacing with the conductors and devices making up the circuitry, inducing more currents.
I tend towards building wooden enclosures simply because I'm set up for woodworking, not metal working. I have not tried metal vs. wood in an explicit test but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the possibilities.
Jeez, if people would spend half the effort trying to understand this that they do criticizing...
Grey
Oh, that's right...they were "brainwashed."
Man, I'm glad we don't have to depend on so-called scientists of that sort for medical breakthroughs. "Oh, it's all such a bother to actually stir myself to get up and experiment. I'll just sit here and think of rationalizations why it won't work so that I don't have to get my hands dirty." Meanwhile people die from curable diseases.
Yes, it's a nuisance to try another enclosure for a circuit (what? another negative?), but it's not all that difficult conceptually. Rather than sit and carp endlessly, why not give it a shot? People who give lip service to the scientific method ought to be willing to go that far. In another thread, people are yammering about how cables positively cannot have a prefered direction, yet not one of them seems to have the gumption to get up and try it. And that requires much less money and effort than this.
I've already offered one possible mechanism. Microphonics is another. A moving piece of metal in a magnetic field (let's use the stray field from the power transformer for starters) is a what? A generator. Again, we have the certainty that those eddy currents are going into your ground, making it noisy. Add to that the possibility that the secondary magnetic fields are interlacing with the conductors and devices making up the circuitry, inducing more currents.
I tend towards building wooden enclosures simply because I'm set up for woodworking, not metal working. I have not tried metal vs. wood in an explicit test but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the possibilities.
Jeez, if people would spend half the effort trying to understand this that they do criticizing...
Grey
phn,
You don't seem to be paying much attention to what is happening in this very thread. How many people have posted that they have, in fact, tried any of this, under what conditions, with what equipment, with what music?
None.
Have you?
Talk, talk, talk...
Mr. Evil,
A friendly word of advice. One of my degrees is in psychology. Don't even try to go there. You're in over your head and it shows.
Grey
EDIT: None is overstating the case. Charles Hansen, for instance, has tried it. But not one of the people who claim it to be impossible. Not performing the experiment isn't science. It's laziness.
Or an indication of someone who likes to argue pointlessly.
Or arrogance.
You don't seem to be paying much attention to what is happening in this very thread. How many people have posted that they have, in fact, tried any of this, under what conditions, with what equipment, with what music?
None.
Have you?
Talk, talk, talk...
Mr. Evil,
A friendly word of advice. One of my degrees is in psychology. Don't even try to go there. You're in over your head and it shows.
Grey
EDIT: None is overstating the case. Charles Hansen, for instance, has tried it. But not one of the people who claim it to be impossible. Not performing the experiment isn't science. It's laziness.
Or an indication of someone who likes to argue pointlessly.
Or arrogance.
This is incorrect. My forays into listening tests (both blind and sighted) have clearly suggested that while the subconscious is important, what people consciously believe or want has a significant effect on what they hear - or don't hear.
For instance, I sometimes ask people to listen to things which are measureable and should be audible (like a frequency aberration), but instruct them beforehand that what they will listen to is something that would normally be considered implausible. The result is that quite a few listeners won't hear anything.
I next use the same exact setup and listeners, but this time say that they are going to hear a difference in tonal balance. And the second time around, in many cases they will indeed hear a difference. But in both cases, nothing has actually changed - except the listener's expectations about what they are being tested for.
Undoubtedly the human mind is powerful enough to invent things which don't exist, but it is also powerful enough to erase things that do exist.
regards, jonathan carr
??? Why the leap of logic? Just because I set up something to test the role of conscious expectations doesn't mean that unconscious expectations were eliminated. In most situations there will be at least _some_ unconscious expectation.
My point was that in listening tests, to ignore the role of conscious expectations per statements like
is ill-advised.
jonathan carr
You misunderstand. I didn't suggest they were elliminated, merely that there was no reason for them to oppose conscious expectation. I know how powerful conscious expectations can be, but they can be overriden. Like how a magician, knowing how people react under certain circumstances, can set someone up to pick specific cards, even though they are trying not to be manipulated.jcarr said:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.