Irrelevent stuff spilt from Cap selection thread

[SY]

Fred, by whacking it with a screwdriver (my patent-pending excitation method), I'm subjecting it to several orders of magnitude more mechanical shock than it ever sees in service- including the vibration from the power transformer. Music or no music running through it, the amp remains unperturbed. What else can I want from it?

Microphonics in caps is more of an issue with poorly wound caps (some of the expensive brands are the worst offenders) and for precision low-level measurement circuits. Like my phono amp, where the tube microphonics will overwhelm anything else. Or that crappy interconnect I referred to earlier.

[ALW]

But you do.

I know, but neither my 'scope nor my analyser tells me anything about how a competent circuit sounds, unfortunately.

SY, I prefer to assess things with the sound of music, rather than the sound of screwdrivers (good trick for PLL's though, especially those nice hexagonal ones rotated against a board)

Andy.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by ALW
I know, but neither my 'scope nor my analyser tells me anything about how a competent circuit sounds, unfortunately.

But how something sounds to a particular individual can involve more than just that which is physically taking place within the equipment (which is why placing photographs in freezers results in improved sound for some). So when making claims of actual physical behavior, "how it sounds" does not constitute any sort of meaningful proof of said claims nor of their actual audibility.

se

[ALW]

how it sounds" does not constitute any sort of meaningful proof of said claims nor of their actual audibility

That's true, but I'm not trying to prove anything. Even if I demonstrated the measurable effect of vibration on solid-state electronics, we'd then debate whether it was audible.

My sole purpose here is to encourage others to listen / measure / analyse effects I know are relevant, along with a significant number of major designers and manufacturers out there.

Whether anyone takes any notice, is their problem. Although in the long term it may result in my not posting anything - I don't do this just to lead people up the garden path, purely to share knowledge. There's enough mumbo-jumbo in audio as it is, but it's possibly the most demanding discipline in electronics design anywhere, the reason there so much crap out there, is because so many believe it's simple and details don't matter.

In systems with sufficient resolution (read: ability to hear the effect) the effect of vibration on the electronics is clearly audible. Maybe those that can't hear it, haven't reached that point, or took design steps to deal with it, but I doubt it.

Andy.

[sam9]

Is it just my cynical nature or have I spotted something. It seems that claims that some magical unobtanium placed strategicly in or on an audio component will yield miraculosly earth shatering results but which can only be detect by the golden ear annointed ones, often come from the same quarter that claim cures for audio problems caused by variations in some material or process that is measurable only in nano-seconds and femto-volts or based on data from Fermi-Lab?

(I'm not giving specific examples because I don't want to start down one of those slippery slopes to discussion futiliy.)

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by ALW
In systems with sufficient resolution (read: ability to hear the effect) the effect of vibration on the electronics is clearly audible. Maybe those that can't hear it, haven't reached that point, or took design steps to deal with it, but I doubt it.

But the sonic effects of placing photographs of yourself in your freezer are also "clearly audible." Empty claims of "clearly audible" are a dime a dozen.

Where has it been shown to be ACTUALLY audible?

If addressing vibration issues results in that which sounds better to you, great. I address vibration issues in my designs as well for the same reason. But when it comes to objective claims of audibility, that puts things in a whole different ballpark and empty claims do not suffice as proof.

se

[SY]

Steve, for clarity, we ought to refer to sound and "sound." It will save you a lot of typing.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by sam9
Is it just my cynical nature or have I spotted something. It seems that claims that some magical unobtanium placed strategicly in or on an audio component will yield miraculosly earth shatering results but which can only be detect by the golden ear annointed ones, often come from the same quarter that claim cures for audio problems caused by variations in some material or process that is measurable only in nano-seconds and femto-volts or based on data from Fermi-Lab?

That's generally how it works so I don't think you're being overly cynical.

se

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by SY
Steve, for clarity, we ought to refer to sound and "sound." It will save you a lot of typing.

Why's that? Sound is a subjective term. Audibility is an objective term. What would save a lot of typing would be people sticking to using "sound" in its proper subjective context and not try and apply it in the objective realm.

se

[ALW]

Where has it been shown to be ACTUALLY audible

In my house

You tell me first how you PROVE it's audible.

By definition it involves listening (with ears), there's NO other way.

"audible

\Au"di*ble\, a. [LL. audibilis, fr. L. audire, auditum, to hear: cf. Gr. ? ear, L. auris, and E. ear.] Capable of being heard; loud enough to be heard; actually heard; as, an audible voice or whisper"

I address vibration issues in my designs as well for the same reason.

Please explain why the ******* we're having this exchange then

What is your purpose on this forum Steve - what are you contributing?

Andy.