I made a shunt passive preamp, 10k resistor into 10k log pot and tried different series resistors.
Dale RN 55C - sound good
Dale RN60D - sounds relaxed but less good
Sfernice very low ppm metal film - sounds horrible 9 hours ago but keeps improving - now sounds very good and from memory rivals Vishay VSRJ.
How can the sound of a resistor change so much over 9 hours??? The volume setting has remained the same.
There is also a difference between a pair of Tiffany gold plated brass RCAs and the Kimber RCAs, with the latter sounding more 'relaxed'. Mounted next to each other and with same solid silver cable.
If there is such a difference in voicing for a simple passive, what chance have we of getting more complex circuits to sound right except by trial and error???
Dale RN 55C - sound good
Dale RN60D - sounds relaxed but less good
Sfernice very low ppm metal film - sounds horrible 9 hours ago but keeps improving - now sounds very good and from memory rivals Vishay VSRJ.
How can the sound of a resistor change so much over 9 hours??? The volume setting has remained the same.
There is also a difference between a pair of Tiffany gold plated brass RCAs and the Kimber RCAs, with the latter sounding more 'relaxed'. Mounted next to each other and with same solid silver cable.
If there is such a difference in voicing for a simple passive, what chance have we of getting more complex circuits to sound right except by trial and error???
fmak said:
Not that a resistor can't chage over time, but why assume that it's only the resistor that has changed? Over the period of 9 hours, many things can change. Temperature. Humidity. Ambient noise levels. Power line noise. Etc. Not to mention all the various physiological changes that we humans undergo during the course of a day. And on top of all that we've got an aural memory that's not very good with regard to low level differences and is susceptible to false memories just the same as other memory functions of the human brain. And we haven't even got to the part about all of the various influences which can affect our subjectve perceptions.
Given so many variables involved (more than I've mentioned), I've a hard time understanding how assuming it's the resistor that has changed is any sort of safe assumption.
It's certainly a safe enough assumption from the point of view of what spins our respectie audio beanies at the end of the day, but in terms of trying to get at what's actually going on, I don't see that it's any safer an assumption than a dozen others.
se
Re: Re: Resistor Sound - How is this possible???
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not rediscovering but was astonished by the magnitude of the difference with the Sfernice
analog_sa said:
Rediscovering stuff that has been known for 30 years? Or just looking for a fight with one of them scope-heads?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Not rediscovering but was astonished by the magnitude of the difference with the Sfernice
fmak said:
Hello -
Trial and error is really about the only way to get started. Eventually you will see some patterns emerge, which will speed things up in the future. It is surprising the degree of improvement that is available through "passive" components. One thing is certain -- we'll never run out of ways to improve audio products!
Best regards,
Charles Hansen
PS -- I say ignore all those postings that presume the differences are only in your head. Perhaps it is those posters themselves that are only figments....
Re: Re: Re: Resistor Sound - How is this possible???
And the religious approach assumes that nothing need be proved.
So which realm are you in here? The subject seemed to imply the former, but this post seems to indicate the latter.
But what exactly is the pudding? Is the pudding simply your own subjective experience irrespective of what may actually be occurring, or is the pudding trying to discover what actually is occurring?
Real in what respect? Real with respect to your subjective experience or real with respect to the actual cause of the effect? The two aren't necessarily one and the same. Assuming they are is a poor assumption if the pudding is trying to discover what actually is occurring.
England also has Peter Belt, who has proved beyond any doubt over the years that Brits are just as susceptible to the same sorts of psychological phenomena as everyone else.
se
fmak said:
And the religious approach assumes that nothing need be proved.
So which realm are you in here? The subject seemed to imply the former, but this post seems to indicate the latter.
But what exactly is the pudding? Is the pudding simply your own subjective experience irrespective of what may actually be occurring, or is the pudding trying to discover what actually is occurring?
Real in what respect? Real with respect to your subjective experience or real with respect to the actual cause of the effect? The two aren't necessarily one and the same. Assuming they are is a poor assumption if the pudding is trying to discover what actually is occurring.
England also has Peter Belt, who has proved beyond any doubt over the years that Brits are just as susceptible to the same sorts of psychological phenomena as everyone else.
se
thylantyr said:
But I'm not assuming that the phenomenon is purely psychological. That would be just as silly as assuming that it's not.
All I'm saying is that there are too many variables unaccounted for to come to any meaningful conclusion. At least any conclusion beyond one's own subjective experience.
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.