I believe it is because what's being detected are subtle levels of non-linear distortion which are strongly influenced by the nature of electrical environment in which they operate. Mechanical, largely linear aspects of the sound of the type you mention are relatively easy to distinguish in those situations, I believe, because a different part of the brain gets switched on to make the assessment. And those mechanical qualities are largely immune to switching environments, and interference.
Frank
Not thinking that at all...just want to do the best execution I can.
In sticking with your analogy, I want to use imron paint, mobil 1 oil, nasca leather, and Pirelli P-Zero tires. Far be it from me to try to change the steering geometry, engine, or transmission.
I'm just happy to be here...
Honestly, I can't understand anything you said here. Non-linear vs linear distortion? Mechanical? Largely linear? Mysterious electrical environmental natures?
If you don't trust your ears, that's fine for you. Not fine for me- I trust my ears and if I can hear something, I can hear something, but that's just my choice. I don't feel the need to claim all sorts of wonderful things that disappear when one has to rely on one's ears.
Probably shouldn't have used the word mechanical, but it was intended to emphasise the nature of variation of sound qualities which are relatively straightforward in nature, and thereby quite a bit easier to detect. Yes, linear in most part, frequency response and phase in other words. Polarity and phase is linear distortion, as is level a linear characteristic. The only one non-linear you mentioned is compression, but that is highly predictable; a certain, complex waveform will always "distort" in a certain way -- people have trained themselves to be extremely sensitive to recognising it, it will always happen in a precise way.
The other behaviour is not mysterious, away with the fairies stuff, but it's highly unpredictable and relatively unmeasurable. How many people had cell phones on, and how close to the components? What electrical devices were running on the circuit at the same time as the test, what was the quality of the mains at that time of day, what was the quality of the switches, was the grounding of the system and all ancillary equipment optimised? These are the things that are detectable, in terms of subjective effects upon audio; having battled these demons for close on 25 years I can guarantee they are very much alive and kicking ...
Frank
My list was not comprehensive (e.g., you could add noise to the list of things people hear under ears-only conditions). For another example, read Geddes. There's all sorts of nonlinear effects people can also hear, in the sense of "hear it only using their ears." They don't happen to be common in electronic circuits, mostly in transducers, which isn't good for storytelling and fashion marketing.
And that's why, if all you care about is what your ears hear, it's easy for anyone to design a preamp which will be indistinguishable from one of John's excellent designs, but at a minuscule fraction of the cost and none of the complexity. There's no mystery to making an electrical signal bigger, it's done all the time in far more critical apps than hifi.
And that's why, if all you care about is what your ears hear, it's easy for anyone to design a preamp which will be indistinguishable from one of John's excellent designs, but at a minuscule fraction of the cost and none of the complexity. There's no mystery to making an electrical signal bigger, it's done all the time in far more critical apps than hifi.
FR4 rules, of course if anyone has kept up with developments in PCB design and manufacturing over the last few years (say 40) you'd find a lot of what is going on is quite amazing. And you may be surprised to find that not all FR4s are equal, the move to lead free soldering (higher temp), the ever increasing speed of digital (better weave and weft, so signals dont get affected by the loacal change in Er) and HDI PCB design (laser drilled holes), cant understand this fasination with exotic materials... Unless you are going into the high GHzs
Hiroyasu Kondo founder of Audio Note used the term mechanical to describe a strident quality of sound in an interview from Sound Practices Magazine. Nothing wrong with this term.
Well, Aero, and others, this is the situation. It is possible to make a line amp that will please just about everybody at RELATIVELY little cost. It will not be the 'real thing' but it will be close enough for just about any reasonably priced audio playback system, and in my opinion, better than any IC op amp that can be found today.
When we originally made the Levinson JC-2, then the JC-80 about 10 years later, and finally the CTC Blowtorch, perhaps 15 years after that, we went against the WORLD in design excellence, and we threw everything that we knew that might make a difference, at each of these designs. Therefore, in the CTC Blowtorch, we used the BEST wire, Teflon board material, special SN62 solder, only one brand of polystyrene cap, super expensive pots, and super strong and stable switches. In the summation, it works just great and is very hard to improve.
The JC-80 was a winner in its day, in Japan, but it only used FR-4 board material and relays, but it used P&G linear studio potentiometers for volume controls, and first class RCA connectors, AND the circuit boards were ground planed almost 100%. These 'knock offs' don't use a ground plane, I suspect. This is an example of what has been 'left out'.
The original Levinson JC-2 used FR-3 or 4, no ground planes, pretty good polycarbonate caps, a series of different rotary pots, ending with the P&G rotary dual pot, and Teflon hookup wire. Not bad for almost 40 years ago.
So, the farther back we go, the closer these 'knock-offs' will be to the original. I hope this puts things in perspective. Even the original JC-2 can sound as good as necessary, even though it lacks features of the the JC-80, Blowtorch or even the Para JC-2. Just like doubling the horsepower in a car, may change its subjective impression. However, for normal city driving, all the extra horsepower might be a waste of money.
When we originally made the Levinson JC-2, then the JC-80 about 10 years later, and finally the CTC Blowtorch, perhaps 15 years after that, we went against the WORLD in design excellence, and we threw everything that we knew that might make a difference, at each of these designs. Therefore, in the CTC Blowtorch, we used the BEST wire, Teflon board material, special SN62 solder, only one brand of polystyrene cap, super expensive pots, and super strong and stable switches. In the summation, it works just great and is very hard to improve.
The JC-80 was a winner in its day, in Japan, but it only used FR-4 board material and relays, but it used P&G linear studio potentiometers for volume controls, and first class RCA connectors, AND the circuit boards were ground planed almost 100%. These 'knock offs' don't use a ground plane, I suspect. This is an example of what has been 'left out'.
The original Levinson JC-2 used FR-3 or 4, no ground planes, pretty good polycarbonate caps, a series of different rotary pots, ending with the P&G rotary dual pot, and Teflon hookup wire. Not bad for almost 40 years ago.
So, the farther back we go, the closer these 'knock-offs' will be to the original. I hope this puts things in perspective. Even the original JC-2 can sound as good as necessary, even though it lacks features of the the JC-80, Blowtorch or even the Para JC-2. Just like doubling the horsepower in a car, may change its subjective impression. However, for normal city driving, all the extra horsepower might be a waste of money.
When Tektronix attempted to use areas of PCB adjacent to some of their custom ICs as capacitors, they ran into truly hideous waveform distortions that, because of their appearance, they dubbed "hook". It was traced to the board material and how it was cured. They remarked (this circa 1973 if memory serves) that there was a large variability in the amount of the distortion and its frequency dependence depending upon the sample and manufacturer, and that careful control of the process could alleviate the effects. I don't recall if they commented on other lower-loss materials.
The debate has raged in here and elsewhere about the audibility of dielectric absorption, with the consensus among the more hard-science oriented that it is a small effect most of the time in audio, and that, moreover, the mechanism as modeled is not in itself one to produce nonlinearities and hence energy at frequencies other than the fundamentals in the excitation. Other effects like piezoelectricity and voltage variations of capacitance on the other hand are significant in some caps. From my recollection of the Tek article (which was in a magazine like Electronics or Electronic Design) the "hook" distortion looked messy enough to involve some nonlinearity. But nothing comes up in a cursory search just now. Perhaps someone out there with a comprehensive access to back issues of such magazines might find it. I may have clipped it out and have in storage, but I haven't seen it for at least 20 years.
In any event, in an inventory of components of a system, worrying about the board material properties may well be low on the list (in addition to loss, stiffness, piezoelectric effects, dimensional stability, tendency to deteriorate over time or the printed traces to corrode) but for some applications might well still emerge as noticeable.
For one high-end design (phono pre) with tubes (and some solid-state assistance) I had some fairly high-Z EQ components which I told the friend I would probably insist be hand-wired to teflon standoffs. Oddly, certain details seemed to strike him as frivolous when I could show that they were not.
Never did finish that beast, which was unlikely anyway to come in at a cost that would support the desired retail of 1500 US.
Never did finish that beast, which was unlikely anyway to come in at a cost that would support the desired retail of 1500 US.
Ah...you were a crusader too!
Well, what I have in mind is to use good parts. Not to the point of so esoteric where rare minerals were hewn from a mountain in Tibet and then blessed by a Monk. But as good as would be reasonally expected to be in a fine component. Of course, I realize that the terms reasonably and fine are themselves ambiguous.
Well, the ceramic terminal strips will not be found on some misty mountain near chanting monks. They will be found in an electronics junk store where toxic dangers abound.
Last edited:
Well the ceramic terminal strips will not be found on some misty mountain near chanting monks. They will be found in an electronics junk store where toxic dangers abound.
Isn't it interesting how things that were discovered a long time ago are still the best for some applications.
I don't want to be so invested in a project emotionally that when finished I would take it to the attic and in a lightening storm look up at the sky and shout..."give my creation LIFE".
The Tek scopes also came with a little reel of solder appropriate to use on those terminal strips, which would not do well with conventional solder.Well, the ceramic terminal strips will not be found on some misty mountain near chanting monks. They will be found in an electronics junk store where toxic dangers abound.
Well, the ceramic terminal strips will not be found on some misty mountain near chanting monks. They will be found in an electronics junk store where toxic dangers abound.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.