More to the point, if it's necessary to put in a permanent tone control, why not do it at a more appropriate location in the circuit path?
Joe and I are roughly the same age, so I think that, for us, the -2dB at 20kHz is rather a moot point. 😀
The improvements this way of filtering it bring are obvious for different people, of different ages. I have experienced it my self and are already reported by many other who implemented it or listened to a system with this filtering implemented.
The drop in FR by 1-2dB at 20Khz is far from an (good) explanation about what is going on here.
A muffed sound due to placing of a quite large capacity (in µF range) in the signal path is immediately perceived. There is no any doubt about this. But it is not the case here, with this particular filtering circuit.
There is an dramatic increasing in trebles clarity, an increasing in very fine details of the sounds elements, and a dramatic improving of the soundstage, the direct consequence of a FR drop by 1-2dB at 20Khz? Definitely not.
All these improvements named above are difficult to be understood by theoreticians, who never experienced by themselves what it really happen here, and may hang on in some theoretical appreciations of the circuit, as on some raw results of some simple measurements. Therefore trying this, (DIY) and eventual conduct their own investigations, it is decisive for a better perspective over this "effect".
The drop in FR by 1-2dB at 20Khz is far from an (good) explanation about what is going on here.
A muffed sound due to placing of a quite large capacity (in µF range) in the signal path is immediately perceived. There is no any doubt about this. But it is not the case here, with this particular filtering circuit.
There is an dramatic increasing in trebles clarity, an increasing in very fine details of the sounds elements, and a dramatic improving of the soundstage, the direct consequence of a FR drop by 1-2dB at 20Khz? Definitely not.
All these improvements named above are difficult to be understood by theoreticians, who never experienced by themselves what it really happen here, and may hang on in some theoretical appreciations of the circuit, as on some raw results of some simple measurements. Therefore trying this, (DIY) and eventual conduct their own investigations, it is decisive for a better perspective over this "effect".
Last edited:
So, if the differences are "dramatic," you should have no problem providing ears-only listening test results, right?
I`m not able myself to organize a such testing, and to be honest, I do not have the real motivation to doing so. For me there is quite simple all about: it works, the improvements are obvious for listeners, I implement/use it. That`s all.
If it may be possible to be found it more about the mechanism of these improvements, then it will be very good. If not then it rest only the above enunciated alternative...
If it may be possible to be found it more about the mechanism of these improvements, then it will be very good. If not then it rest only the above enunciated alternative...
Last edited:
No curiosity?
The testing is actually pretty easy to put together. I offered to help Joe design the testing, but he wasn't interested. Presumably, you're not selling stuff and have nothing to lose, so you might consider actually experimenting.
You know, I`m doing always this test, by receiving the feedback from the ones I implement this trick for. For me this is a real result of a test, it is ongoing and it satisfy for full that "curiosity" you refer to.
Why I should organise another kind of (redundant) testing approach, working hard and using my own time for that, synthesise the results, and publish it here to convince you or few other, that this is a well working approach, which it bring the stated improvements?
Sorry, this is nonsense. If you need test results, then you can work by yourself to get it...
I`m pretty sure Joe may have the same way of thinking as above, and therefore his lack of interest in your proposals... This is a supposition, but he can explain himself his position, if may find necessary.
I`m still wondering quite much, why you with your knowledge about listening tests, organising of such, and so on, do not proceed to a such procedure, to satisfy first of all your curiosity about this discussed here subject.
Why I should organise another kind of (redundant) testing approach, working hard and using my own time for that, synthesise the results, and publish it here to convince you or few other, that this is a well working approach, which it bring the stated improvements?
Sorry, this is nonsense. If you need test results, then you can work by yourself to get it...
I`m pretty sure Joe may have the same way of thinking as above, and therefore his lack of interest in your proposals... This is a supposition, but he can explain himself his position, if may find necessary.
I`m still wondering quite much, why you with your knowledge about listening tests, organising of such, and so on, do not proceed to a such procedure, to satisfy first of all your curiosity about this discussed here subject.
Last edited:
You are wasting your time with that inquiry - I would rather more find a way to capture/measure the reason for the mechanism observed, it is quite real. And yes, it is obvious, but not to you because you have made no effort on your own behalf. You could, everything has been provided to test it - perhaps you don't trust your own hearing?
Which would you prefer, a measurement or 'flawed' listening tests?
Last edited:
Tell you what- send me two DACs suitable for test. I will modify one and do comparative measurements and ears-only listening tests (your choice of listener, but they have to be able to get to the Chicago/Milwaukee area). Full measurements (before and after and comparative), test setup, and results will be published. I will return the DACs to you afterward.
The only condition is that you allow me to publish the results in a magazine.
edit- The control unit would be equalized further along in the signal chain so that frequency responses match, of course.
The only condition is that you allow me to publish the results in a magazine.
edit- The control unit would be equalized further along in the signal chain so that frequency responses match, of course.
Stu - I'd be happy to volunteer. Joe - I'm 65 years old, so presumably would be one of those persons that Coris refers to, one for whom the high-frequency rolloff in and of itself will not be the determinitive factor in the results. - Pat
In my opinion, there is no need for two devices/DACs for testing/measurements. It is enough with only one which it can get the filter on it (measurements/tests), then the same device/system without that filter (again measurements/tests). Or the opposite operations order...
Ken: you do realise that you are the number one testimony for this mod on Joe's site. If you are quoted correctly you have claimed a lot about its effect. If its as you say should be easy to DBLT AND measure, which is the crux of the last 2 years toing and froign. I do hope Joe takes up SY on his offer.
Says former Skeptic ken Newton (Pa, USA):
Says former Skeptic ken Newton (Pa, USA):
The circuit modification needed to produce the effect is so seemingly trivial that one's first inclination is to dismiss it out of hand as snake oil.
What Joe has discovered is that if you add a dominant 1st order output filter at your DAC chip output... then the perceived sound goes from 'digital edginess' to 'analog smoothness'. The effect is very obvious, and surprising. Such smoothness is not to be mistaken for some kind of 'smoothed over' character, as the clarity across the band increases.
The Rasmussen Effect has removed upper midrange brashness and glare. The audible result of this removal is the restoration of more the sort of natural treble balance produced by live instruments... brass, cymbals, and bells now have quite distinctive tone color and weight. In addition, and perhaps surprisingly... a much more weighty sounding lower midrange and bass... The perceived beneficial affect on the lower frequency balance is quite strong.
What Joe has discovered is that if you add a dominant 1st order output filter at your DAC chip output... then the perceived sound goes from 'digital edginess' to 'analog smoothness'. The effect is very obvious, and surprising. Such smoothness is not to be mistaken for some kind of 'smoothed over' character, as the clarity across the band increases.
The Rasmussen Effect has removed upper midrange brashness and glare. The audible result of this removal is the restoration of more the sort of natural treble balance produced by live instruments... brass, cymbals, and bells now have quite distinctive tone color and weight. In addition, and perhaps surprisingly... a much more weighty sounding lower midrange and bass... The perceived beneficial affect on the lower frequency balance is quite strong.
Of course not, because this filter uses a small value capacitor. It only looks 'large' to us because we are used to dealing with circuit nodes with a somewhat higher impedance than a virtual ground.Coris said:
A small change in frequency response can be audible. A change in ultrasonic garbage can be audible, via intermods. Some folk even prefer more intermods, as can be seen by the popularity of badly designed DIY or 'audiophile' cables which seem intended to invite any passing RF to invade the circuit. Making a circuit sound different is easy; genuine improvements are harder.
This is quite similar to what some people describe after replacing their good cheap cables by bad expensive or DIY cables. It is quite difficult for the human ears/brain combination to distinguish between extra detail in the music and spurious intermods. This is to be expected, because the listener almost always has no idea what 'detail' is supposed to be there as he was not present at the recording session. How can we tell the difference between something added (which should not be there) and something revealed (which should have been there all the time but was hidden or suppressed)?
Unexpected by who? Which particular technical grounds were considered?Ken Newton said:
'Smoothness' is often associated with an HF rolloff. I seem to recall two things which may be related, and perhaps relevant to this discussion:
1. the Leak FM tuner has a reputation for smooth sound
2. the Leak FM tuner has been found to have the wrong de-emphasis capacitors so it has an HF shelf
I may partially agree with your explanations. OK about cables, spurious, and so on and the human perception, but here (when apply this cap) there is a modification (improvement) of the soundstage itself. I can hardly see how such "effect" it can be framed into your above explanations... An improvement of the soundstage it can not be the result of negative events which occur into the precessed signal... In this case it may happen a real improvement of the signal parameters.
Bill, what of it? What is it that you believe my subjective listening report reveals? Unfortunately, I'm missing your intended point.
Some months ago a thread discussed at great length what is meant by 'soundstage'. There was no agreement. People who use the word all seem to know what they themselves mean by it, but others (who also use the word) disagreed. For judging things that makes it about as useful as the word 'nice'. In most cases 'soundstage' was used of music reproduction where there was no original sound to compare to, as it was all 'plugged in' and multi-tracked in a studio.
As we don't know what is meant by 'soundstage' we cannot know what is meant by 'improvement of soundstage'. Except "it was nice; now it is nicer".
As we don't know what is meant by 'soundstage' we cannot know what is meant by 'improvement of soundstage'. Except "it was nice; now it is nicer".
Unexpected by Joe, although he's free to correct me on that.
I suspect that you may be taking my point as a denial of circuit theory, however, I'm making just the opposite point of that. Exactly because of circuit theory, I doubt that Joe was expecting to hear an significant increase in musicality from capacitively loading the DAC outputs by such an seemingly inconsequential degree. I know that I wouldn't have expected it. In fact, I told Joe of my skepticism, which was founded in circuit theory, but past experience has taught me to keep an open mind about perceptual effects.
After performing Joe's experiment and observing the perceptual results for myself, I turned to conjecturing about an possible technical explanation, as has Joe. There has to be a physical causation, as I don't believe in audio magic. I believe that if we consistently hear an obvious difference, that there IS an associated physical difference. The difficulty in showing the physical technical circuit difference is that you have to know both what to look for and have the right instruments to detect it. Circuit theory certainly can inform us on what to look for, but assumes that we have complete and total knowledge of the system in question. Observation of the phenomena tells that we don't yet have total and complete system knowlege of the total system, which is not at all the same as denying circuit theory.
Last edited:
Since you haven't excluded a psychological causation, then there's alternative explanations which need to be addressed before coming to this conclusion.
It is rather late here and in the US it is morning.
I don't want to give a quick response right now, in view of Stuart's post I think it has at least some merit, but the logistics may be the problem.
Let me come up with a measured response after a good sleep. The most suitable DAC would be using PCM (or DSD) 1792, 1794/A, 1796 or 1798, with a reasonably standard IC I/V converter along this path:
The reason is simple, I can give you precise values to get, no need to calculate. I wouldn't even bother with the EQ caps shown, I actually prefer the sound without them, but they could also be listened to and be part of the test. That was also intended from the beginning.
At least we have at last a positive suggestion... that has to be a start, that we should be coming together on this and not be at endless loggerheads.
I am confident enough, despite my bias against these kind of listening tests, that they seem to favour "sameness' for the reasons I gave on Blowtorch II thread...
But I am confident that the difference is so marked that even double-blind "sameness" can't mask it!
How is that for confidence.
Also, someone has suggested a possible way of measuring and capturing the mechanism that is involved - there just has to be an explanation for something that obvious when heard - so I still see that there are two fronts to this 'effect' that so many have now observed - and yes Stuart, the word "dramatic" was not coined by me, but by them. Call it 'anecdotes' or whatever.
Please let me sleep on it - but it has the juices going... in the positive direction.
Sleepfully yours, Joe 🙂
-
I don't want to give a quick response right now, in view of Stuart's post I think it has at least some merit, but the logistics may be the problem.
Let me come up with a measured response after a good sleep. The most suitable DAC would be using PCM (or DSD) 1792, 1794/A, 1796 or 1798, with a reasonably standard IC I/V converter along this path:
The reason is simple, I can give you precise values to get, no need to calculate. I wouldn't even bother with the EQ caps shown, I actually prefer the sound without them, but they could also be listened to and be part of the test. That was also intended from the beginning.
At least we have at last a positive suggestion... that has to be a start, that we should be coming together on this and not be at endless loggerheads.
I am confident enough, despite my bias against these kind of listening tests, that they seem to favour "sameness' for the reasons I gave on Blowtorch II thread...
But I am confident that the difference is so marked that even double-blind "sameness" can't mask it!
How is that for confidence.
Also, someone has suggested a possible way of measuring and capturing the mechanism that is involved - there just has to be an explanation for something that obvious when heard - so I still see that there are two fronts to this 'effect' that so many have now observed - and yes Stuart, the word "dramatic" was not coined by me, but by them. Call it 'anecdotes' or whatever.
Please let me sleep on it - but it has the juices going... in the positive direction.
Sleepfully yours, Joe 🙂
-
Last edited:
Well, I will try to explain/define the soundstage or my conception about this word/notion.
There is the two dimensions defined space generated in between and around the two stereo speakers (into the physical room space). This sound space it have a width which goes beyond the two speakers limits (L/R), and it have a depth dimension which it goes in the back of the speakers line, and in front of that speakers line. The listener may be placed in the sweet spot of the stereo field. In a good defined soundstage the depth of the stereo field it is perceived even when the listener moves from the initial sweet spot point against the speakers line.
In a good defined soundstage the listener may be able to locate the sound sources (instruments) even when the listener rotate his head left/right. The sound sources do not have to change its sound place/position when the listener may change the ears positions, directing it the ears out of the speakers directions.
This two dimensions space is populated with the sound elements (instruments) which it have good defined places into the space. If this distribution is identical as it was when the recording was made, it may be disputable. Some recordings provide the original recorded soundscene, and then it is quite esy to realize the realisme of the soundscene. However, in a good defined soundstage the placement of the instruments and voices, it may have the same precise places every time the listener playback the music support.
Please note that a well reproduced soundstage do not mean at all to have instruments/voices (sound elements) placed at the left or right (speakers) and in the centre of the speakers line. In such case there is about a very poor soundstage (in my opinion)
In a well defined soundstage the sound elements are placed into the two dimensions space all over (supposing as it was at the recording event), and the speakers are fully transparent in this scene. The sounds component are not to be perceived as coming from the speakers, but from that points in the space where the instrument is placed.
The effect of this cap placed as known now, is to enlarge this space of the scene, and place even more precise the sound elements into this field of sounds. The location of the instruments become more precise, as the direction of the component sounds. The experience of such sound scene it is really amazing when the recording include moving sound sources or sound elements. The location of the sounds it is really easy to be perceived as forth, back, backward, forward, left, right or in between the speakers, as all over their are moving.
This is a trial of explanation of a well defined soundstage. The sound scene it have only to be experienced to know in real what it is. For sure many have already experienced such.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.