Konnichiwa,
Because a SECOND piece of information, not explicitly referenced by John but assumed to be public domain general knowledge is the FACT that a number of Blind tests have ILLUSTRATED audible differences between different capacitors (especially electrolytic vs. Film).
Adding these two plus the observable levels of distortion which are usually reknowed audible (eg -60 to -80db THD is usually considered audible and can be illustrated in certain of the "worst" capacitors) then we do have a situation where test failing to reveal these must AT THE VERY LEAST be severely questioned, if not completely discarded.
Because prior and subsequent tests using a differnet, however still fully blind protoic reveal them reliably?
The "audio crowd" does accept the existence of exactly these phenomena, however, they do not accept it as the sole, complete and absolute explanation for all differences.
That particular dogma and doctrine is the domain of the "objectivist" fraction who will pelicanise any event that seems to violate their understanding of ' "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia'. And as a results they invariably refuse to even consider the result of ANY particular investigation (including their own - D. Self is an excellent example - illustrating substantial and measurable differences between electrolytic, mylar and polypropylene capacitors and then promptly declaring that these diferences "do not matter") as giving evidence to the contrary of their 'sullen prejudice and muddy inertia'.
Sayonara
janneman said:
Because a SECOND piece of information, not explicitly referenced by John but assumed to be public domain general knowledge is the FACT that a number of Blind tests have ILLUSTRATED audible differences between different capacitors (especially electrolytic vs. Film).
Adding these two plus the observable levels of distortion which are usually reknowed audible (eg -60 to -80db THD is usually considered audible and can be illustrated in certain of the "worst" capacitors) then we do have a situation where test failing to reveal these must AT THE VERY LEAST be severely questioned, if not completely discarded.
janneman said:
Because prior and subsequent tests using a differnet, however still fully blind protoic reveal them reliably?
janneman said:
The "audio crowd" does accept the existence of exactly these phenomena, however, they do not accept it as the sole, complete and absolute explanation for all differences.
That particular dogma and doctrine is the domain of the "objectivist" fraction who will pelicanise any event that seems to violate their understanding of ' "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia'. And as a results they invariably refuse to even consider the result of ANY particular investigation (including their own - D. Self is an excellent example - illustrating substantial and measurable differences between electrolytic, mylar and polypropylene capacitors and then promptly declaring that these diferences "do not matter") as giving evidence to the contrary of their 'sullen prejudice and muddy inertia'.
Sayonara
About the pointy legs again.
1. Rubber legs would do a better job of vibration isolation.
2. The improvements in sound that he discusses don't sound like a problem with error correction / the effect seems to have nothing to do with skipping. He is talking about a more subjective finding that is very hard to explain using vibration as a reason.
3. If your CD player skips because of noise, that is because you have it on top of something that is resonating, or inside a boom box. The solid pointy legs would transmit this vibration very effectively.
4. The pointy legs he is using were orginally intended for speakers set on carpet AFAIK. The point is supposed to push thru the fibers and compress the carpet backing firmly so that the speakers are not as likely to rock. This supposedly tightens up the bass, improves imaging. This makes some sense, btw, but the effect is very slight if anything, I have tried it.
I do have some reason to be rather strongly skeptical of pointy legs having anything to do with improving the sound, since there is no logical physical explanation of it. You have proposed a couple and they don't make any sense.
They just look kewl, and more high end. So of course it sounds better to him. And it is ever so interesting that having them in front sounds better than in back, because that is what looks better too.
1. Rubber legs would do a better job of vibration isolation.
2. The improvements in sound that he discusses don't sound like a problem with error correction / the effect seems to have nothing to do with skipping. He is talking about a more subjective finding that is very hard to explain using vibration as a reason.
3. If your CD player skips because of noise, that is because you have it on top of something that is resonating, or inside a boom box. The solid pointy legs would transmit this vibration very effectively.
4. The pointy legs he is using were orginally intended for speakers set on carpet AFAIK. The point is supposed to push thru the fibers and compress the carpet backing firmly so that the speakers are not as likely to rock. This supposedly tightens up the bass, improves imaging. This makes some sense, btw, but the effect is very slight if anything, I have tried it.
I do have some reason to be rather strongly skeptical of pointy legs having anything to do with improving the sound, since there is no logical physical explanation of it. You have proposed a couple and they don't make any sense.
They just look kewl, and more high end. So of course it sounds better to him. And it is ever so interesting that having them in front sounds better than in back, because that is what looks better too.
The skepticsm maybe increased by comparing the explanations for pointy feet (does the "pointy haired boss" have pointy feet?). I have read that they isolate the unit, even that they are the mechanical analog to bypass caps; then I have read that they improve coupling to the surface on which the unit is placed. Logically, at least one of these must be false.
geewhizbang said:
This was the motivation -as I remember- for spikes underneath speakers on a hard surface:
Since spikes are pointy their area approaches zero mm^2 at the tip, and (my) speakers are heavy, which means the pressure (weight/area) on that small tip approaches infinity.
Small variations caused by i.e. vibrations therefore have no effect.
After all near infinity plus/minus a little still is near infinity.
What the effect is on lighter stuff like cd-players I don't know.
Pj
janneman said:
I would have to ask, why conclude that? Seems to me that such a conclusion would have to be based on the same sorts of preconcieved beliefs that has John concluding that the test is flawed.
Seems to me that the only firm conclusion that can be reached is that audible differences have yet to be proved.
se
geewhizbang said:
I'm not so sure if they are "kewl" . The amp looks rather "funny" with them, and they are cheaper than quality rubber feet. So what exactly is your point here?
http://www.diycable.com/main/product_info.php?products_id=507&Cid=7445a6c7fe8f158ec55a97bed60cb8f2
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=240-720
Jan, I am now having my coffee, and let's hope that I can keep things on an even track. ;-) First, I feel that many on this thread have limited experience and knowledge to the accomplishments that we have made over the decades in audio design. Also, it is important that one actually has discussed ABX testing with the principal promoters of the test, in order to get as much understanding as possible about it, before deciding whether to use it or reject it. Many of you, who criticize me, don't seem to have 'walked the walked the walk, or talked the talk' that is necessary to have an informed opinion on the subject.
Folks, I must apologize when I 'brag' about my past published work, or that of others. It is easier to refer to it directly, rather than to give you an obscure reference, that most of you could never easily find, even if you wanted to bother.
In this case, it is important that I have done research on capacitor distortion and have published it, especially with regards to tantalum coupling caps.
As far as Thorsten is concerned: 'Keep on Truckin!'
For that degreed mechanical engineer who is so sure of his knowledge:
From 'The Experts Speak' once more: "I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogma' Ernst Mach (Professor of Physics at the University of Vienna) 1913" p299
How about that? What a guy! Still, I have his textbook on my bookshelf.
Although I applaud anyone who has the drive to get a degree in engineering or physics, please learn your limitations. You will learn this from experience, soon enough. ;-)
Folks, I must apologize when I 'brag' about my past published work, or that of others. It is easier to refer to it directly, rather than to give you an obscure reference, that most of you could never easily find, even if you wanted to bother.
In this case, it is important that I have done research on capacitor distortion and have published it, especially with regards to tantalum coupling caps.
As far as Thorsten is concerned: 'Keep on Truckin!'
For that degreed mechanical engineer who is so sure of his knowledge:
From 'The Experts Speak' once more: "I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogma' Ernst Mach (Professor of Physics at the University of Vienna) 1913" p299
How about that? What a guy! Still, I have his textbook on my bookshelf.
Although I applaud anyone who has the drive to get a degree in engineering or physics, please learn your limitations. You will learn this from experience, soon enough. ;-)
Konnichiwa,
I CANNOT BELIEVE that YOu wrote this! Are you COMPLETELY ignorant of how CD works?
Here a small Excerpt as to what I am on about (in short C2 and beyond):
To be precise about the points I was originally refering to:
Some old players has outputs from the decoder which where puleld low if there where too many errors. They are no longer in existence. However, comparing the analogue output recorded from a CD player using a good quality soundcard with the raw data "ripped" from CD using bit accurate methodes with multiple reads is quite revealing too....
Sayonara
janneman said:
I CANNOT BELIEVE that YOu wrote this! Are you COMPLETELY ignorant of how CD works?
Here a small Excerpt as to what I am on about (in short C2 and beyond):
To be precise about the points I was originally refering to:
Some old players has outputs from the decoder which where puleld low if there where too many errors. They are no longer in existence. However, comparing the analogue output recorded from a CD player using a good quality soundcard with the raw data "ripped" from CD using bit accurate methodes with multiple reads is quite revealing too....
Sayonara
I think what you have here is a microcosm of the problem most people have with scientific "proof"and causality. First, even proof that "A" causes "B" is difficult because even then certainty is never absolute; no mater how strong the evidence there is always the possibilty that the evidence will become weaker once a couple more decimal places of resolutioin can be achieved in measurement or that there may exist some "C" that causes both "A" and "B" which can be de-linked once "C" is understood.
If becomes more uncomfortable when we want to prove "A" does not cause "B". Strictly speaking, you can never say say this. The strongest statement is that no evidence has been found that supports "A" causes "B".
I thinks the average person is terribly uncomfortable with this state odf affairs. News media reflect this. You typically read "scientists have learned that. . ." . You you get the chance to talk to one of the people involved in the research about the strongest statement you will get is "Well, we're begining to think that . . ." or "The evidence seems to be pointing toward . . .".
A fairly small part of the population is comfortable with this state of afairs and can function with. An even smaller part wouldn't have it any other way - their worst nightmare is that all the questions get answered!
It's a minority od the population than operate on the basis that "A" (does not) causes "B" is subject to refution at any time but can comfortably make decisions and act as if it were certain.
Konnichiwa,
Capacitor Blind testing was in a number of issues of HFNRR in the UK over the decades, among others.
After posting my answer to another item I scrolled upwards and first saw your post to John. I answered the other after I got out of a marathon meeting at work.
Sayonara
janneman said:
Capacitor Blind testing was in a number of issues of HFNRR in the UK over the decades, among others.
janneman said:
After posting my answer to another item I scrolled upwards and first saw your post to John. I answered the other after I got out of a marathon meeting at work.
Sayonara
I'D SWEAR I'VE JUST SEEN A RUBBER DUCK FLY BY...
Hi,
It's about money again, is it?
First of all pointy feet (spikes) are very effective at draining energy away form whatever is on top of them into the underlying surface.
So if you have a speaker with a mildy resonating cabinet the spikes will do that and they will also provide for a fixed reference from which the cones can throw out energy into the environment.
Conversely, speakers on rubber feet, while damping because if their inherent compliance, will do this much slower and they will not provide a solid basis for energy transmission.
IOW, they are lossy.
Then there are cones... While their way of dealing with energy transmission is similar to spikes but not really the same as they are made directional on purpose, etc, etc...
Remember, anything that can move will inevitably lose energy.
And that's just scratching the surface and taking the thread OT but just applied physics all the same: no money from the Randi Crew for that one I'm afraid.
Cheers,
Hi,
It's about money again, is it?
First of all pointy feet (spikes) are very effective at draining energy away form whatever is on top of them into the underlying surface.
So if you have a speaker with a mildy resonating cabinet the spikes will do that and they will also provide for a fixed reference from which the cones can throw out energy into the environment.
Conversely, speakers on rubber feet, while damping because if their inherent compliance, will do this much slower and they will not provide a solid basis for energy transmission.
IOW, they are lossy.
Then there are cones... While their way of dealing with energy transmission is similar to spikes but not really the same as they are made directional on purpose, etc, etc...
Remember, anything that can move will inevitably lose energy.
And that's just scratching the surface and taking the thread OT but just applied physics all the same: no money from the Randi Crew for that one I'm afraid.
Cheers,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.