Boring perhaps, Glenn, but you ducked and bobbed and weaved rather than to answer the specific question I asked of you!
I fail to see any strawman present.
Good/bad may or may not correlate to other things.
In Scott's case it's a bit easier since he defined the situation as having one single variable that yielded two very specific results/outcomes - as noted previously.
In specific, he found he could hear a crucial difference (not heard before) but at the same time things that likely ought to have sounded "good" he described as now "bad" sounding.
But one has only two possible choices in general terms:
- things either sound good or bad to you.
- things all sound pretty much the same - or you don't care at all how it sounds
My feeling is that if it doesn't sound good, what is the bloomin' point of it?
What is the point of error cancelling amplifier circuitry if it doesn't sound good, or sound better than some other amplifier circuit?
Why would Mr. Curl bother with the things he did in the Blowtorch if they didn't sound any good? I know for a certainty that the milled chassis was not the first pass/first idea for example - less expensive means didn't yield "the desired result." That had to have a negative effect on his bottom line... and certainly there are other ways to make a "slick" looking box, if that was the goal, eh?
So, Glenn, please indicate some sort of response regarding your own subjective perceptions of things sonic. The example I suggested was to comment on your own various amplifier projects?
_-_-bear
PS. Mr. Pass would you please attend to the matter of that thread by jneutron that I referenced?
I fail to see any strawman present.
Good/bad may or may not correlate to other things.
In Scott's case it's a bit easier since he defined the situation as having one single variable that yielded two very specific results/outcomes - as noted previously.
In specific, he found he could hear a crucial difference (not heard before) but at the same time things that likely ought to have sounded "good" he described as now "bad" sounding.
But one has only two possible choices in general terms:
- things either sound good or bad to you.
- things all sound pretty much the same - or you don't care at all how it sounds
My feeling is that if it doesn't sound good, what is the bloomin' point of it?
What is the point of error cancelling amplifier circuitry if it doesn't sound good, or sound better than some other amplifier circuit?
Why would Mr. Curl bother with the things he did in the Blowtorch if they didn't sound any good? I know for a certainty that the milled chassis was not the first pass/first idea for example - less expensive means didn't yield "the desired result." That had to have a negative effect on his bottom line... and certainly there are other ways to make a "slick" looking box, if that was the goal, eh?
So, Glenn, please indicate some sort of response regarding your own subjective perceptions of things sonic. The example I suggested was to comment on your own various amplifier projects?
_-_-bear
PS. Mr. Pass would you please attend to the matter of that thread by jneutron that I referenced?
bear said:
Bobbed and weaved? No, I ignored because my subjective evaluations of my own equiptment are irrelevent.
For the third time here is your strawman (now put on your glasses if necessary):
bear said:
That is utterly inane and isn't a thesis usually put forward by anyone. Straw man!
As many of us seem to agree on importance of grounding issues, I would like to show a result of improper grounding scheme, the one that is quite often used. The measurement is done at power amp speaker terminals and spikes are a result of the grounding scheme chosen.
I can comment on a problem later, if there is an interest. I apologize myself that I am quite busy, so not able to be 'permanently' here to reply.
I can comment on a problem later, if there is an interest. I apologize myself that I am quite busy, so not able to be 'permanently' here to reply.
Attachments
bear said:
I am surprised by the reaction.
I thought that we were discussing the influence of techniques and components on the quality of sound.
My questions are not related to the understanding of grounding techniques but were about the experience of the influence of some grounding techniques on the quality of sound.
It seems that people are very quick to give definitive advices on the use of components and topologies.
If someone believes he is an expert able to make these judgments, I would expect him to have the experience to answer my questions. They are related to phenomena that have an unquestionable influence on sound.
It is easier to talk about esoteric effects because there nobody can argue that it is BS or incompetence or not
Let's also discuss the influence and importance from a sonic point of view of some important and real stuff. We would be surprised that very second order effects from an electrical point of view have first order effect from a sonic point of view. This is the purpose of my question and I believe that it pertains to this thread. Otherwise, don't discuss: wires, resistors, capacitors, dielectric absorption, feedback shielding, there are other threads for that.
JPV
Jakob2 said:
A wise man in an analog seminar quite a long time ago gave the advice to realize that the connection lines in a circuit diagram do have an impedance.
This is the origin of Ground Loop Coupling.
See Don White Consulting literature for an in depth analysis and design guide lines.
JPV
PMA said:
Pavel, the circuit, or wiring, would be a great assistance in understanding the issue.
JPV said:
I fail to see the difference between grounding techniques and the impact of grounding on sound. Good grounding techniques will give good sound and vice versa.
JPV said:
See above.
A Ground Loop means current flowing in more than one path, so, it's not only that the ground path has impedance. However, the ground path's impedance matters even when there are no ground loops.
A link would assist.
PMA, contamination of signal-gnd with charging-currents of ps-caps ?
People should also realize that most circuit diagrams are not an accurate representation of how the circuit should be physically built,especially wrt. grounding.
klaas
Jakob2 said:
A wise man in an analog seminar quite a long time ago gave the advice to realize that the connection lines in a circuit diagram do have an impedance.
People should also realize that most circuit diagrams are not an accurate representation of how the circuit should be physically built,especially wrt. grounding.
klaas
That's part of the story. Even if there is only a single ground path with zero impedance, there might still be a ground loop. This is the case when the ground return path deviates from the signal path in such a way that a non zero loop area is created . That's why it's called ground loop.Joshua_G said:
G.Kleinschmidt said:
Bobbed and weaved? No, I ignored because my subjective evaluations of my own equiptment are irrelevent.
For the third time here is your strawman (now put on your glasses if necessary):
That is utterly inane and isn't a thesis usually put forward by anyone. Straw man!
Dear Glenn,
IF one does not hear any differences in various "properly engineered" and "low distortion" amplifiers that is an entirely different thing than if one does.
Many have claimed that there is no audible difference to be found or heard. Many. You may not have, I don't know. I was inquiring.
Scott apparently hears something going on now that he has these certain headphones.
If necessary please ignore the section that you quoted, and work with the rest of what was said? It's not critical - it's merely a crude condensation and approximation of a viewpoint that I see/hear oft stated in one form or another. Surely you can understand this?
What we are trying to get at is if there is any relationship between various participants personal subjective experiences and their objective engineering and measurement experiences.
Should this be ignored?
Should we discuss minutia in terms of circuit improvements, and never consider if we ever hear any of it?
Or to be blunt, are people talking about technical details who have never personally experienced the sonic results of such things?
Does project "A" sound the same as project "B" to anyone here?
The purpose of all this effort is supposed to have something to do with how it sounds. Although the hobby of building/designing things is fun.
_-_-bear
An aside, being a Ham Radio operator, I have come across people who collect ham radios and never run them, people who build transmitters and never transmit through them, people who recondition old radios and never use them.
That's a bit like people who collect cars but never drive them.
Some people collect cars AND drive them.
Some people just drive cars.
Some people just need to go shopping and to work in a car.
I'm just trying to understand what everyone is saying and thinking. It seems quite confusing, truly.
Also, why would anyone be afraid to honestly discuss what their own personal listening experience WRT to the matters under discussion here? I don't get it.
The charging current flow from rectifiers through the supply caps back to the transformer secondary is not part of the signal path. Yet, it is very often a cause for less than optimal performance because of errors in ground paths and/or loops.
The first step should be to keep that loop totally outside of any signal-related return loops, and only interconnect it voltage wise to the signal loops at one point, like the star point.
Jan Didden
The first step should be to keep that loop totally outside of any signal-related return loops, and only interconnect it voltage wise to the signal loops at one point, like the star point.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.