Charles, May The Gods Smile On You.
Funny how one listens to and is forced, or at least inclined to believe these sorts of doubting words of JLH (and others, mostly DIYers), and when one self determines that these words are not entirely true, it is indeed a discovery, and one of considerable magnitude.
Indeed this is a large step along the route to sonic enjoyment, enlightenment and satisfaction.
Eric / - Keen to hear Bob's considered experience and reporting.
Yep, me too.
Yes many posts do dry up or go off the rails because of stupid input from those who are unable to grasp the concept that sound can be affected/effected by non electronic circuit means, and Tubolator is just one of those means by which audio can be (reportedly) improved - I say reported, and I fully believe these reports, but they are reports to me nonetheless because I have not tried it for myself.
YES, that's why I refered to 'Empty Vessels ........', except those thus referred to were further unable to grasp the intended and deeper meaning of this quotation.
Charles, rest assured that you would gain similarly sensible feedback from the southern hemisphere, and the Benelux countries too.
My father is a manufacturer of radio broadcast audio equipment too, and for a long time has tried to rubbish me on the same concepts, but now it seems he is mellowing and becoming a little more receptive to this notion that passive components are not always equally passive.
Funny how one listens to and is forced, or at least inclined to believe these sorts of doubting words of JLH (and others, mostly DIYers), and when one self determines that these words are not entirely true, it is indeed a discovery, and one of considerable magnitude.
Indeed this is a large step along the route to sonic enjoyment, enlightenment and satisfaction.
Eric / - Keen to hear Bob's considered experience and reporting.
Re: Charles, May The Gods Smile On You.
Hi Eric,
As I have already said, I am looking forward to trying this treatment, and it appears to me to be most encouraging that Charles is happy to let me try some out, knowing full well that whatever I find from its use, I will readily share my results on the forum.
If I was merely a 'rip-off' merchant, I would certainly *not* do the same, would you?
I do have some slight reservations, not related to the efficacy of the Tube-O-Later product generally, but more as a result of the sound of my system, which is already incredibly smooth and not at all like the average SS gear, so the scope for improvement is necessarily very limited.
This is a direct result of hand picking the very best-sounding components throughout, through years of careful listening tests, and for example all of my resistors are now Vishays (with a few Caddocks for higher power handling), there are no signal path caps like electrolytics anywhere (just the minimum of MIT RTX polystyrenes), and even my active devices have been selected by ear.
Nearly all components, and circuit boards are carefully damped, already, too.
About the only location where there is still some scope left are with CD, which I generally don't use so much, but as this is one of the recommended areas for application, I will try the Tube-O-Lator here, initially, to see (hear) what effect it has.
If I am satisfied with the results here, and assuming there is sufficient of the product (0.5 mil is not a lot, after all, and as it is FOC, I wouldn't blame Charles for letting me have perhaps a partially filled production 'rogue', or whatever) then I will remove the existing treatments from my PA output mosfets first, and try it there as well.
On the subject of JLH, I can truthfully recount one of his several visits to my home to listen to what I had been up to with my system.
As he had made a trip from his home of nearly 200 miles, we had laid on a lunch for him as usual so that he could spend most of the day in discussion and listening, before making the similar 200 mile trip back again.
After I had demonstrated to John during the morning some of the changes which could be achieved (also on one of his own designs, which confounded him that it could sound noticeably better than his 'standard' similar amp which he brought with him as a 'reference'), he was so disturbed by what he heard, he could hardly eat any of the food provided!
I could see the dificulty he was having in coming to terms with what he heard, as it completely flew in the face of all that he had believed for so many years, but he had to accept that the sound was considerably better, merely due to my substitutions/optimisations etc.
This was over 20 years ago now, but he did immediately 'recast' his then 'current development' amp circuit, to avoid the need for the usual big (electrolytic!!!) cap in the feedback path (being one of the easiest and most effective mods I had shown him) and when this design was ultimately published, he gave me a 'credit' in his description of the circuit, for pointing this out to him.
By this time, he had accepted the concepts which I had demonstrated to him, but by his own admission, he was not of the necessarily patient nature needed to successfully carry out these kind of protracted listening tests, and (much as Nelson has similarly said) he felt his time was better spent in researching circuit improvements, and he was happy to leave the 'listening' testing to me.
Regards,
mrfeedback said:
Hi Eric,
As I have already said, I am looking forward to trying this treatment, and it appears to me to be most encouraging that Charles is happy to let me try some out, knowing full well that whatever I find from its use, I will readily share my results on the forum.
If I was merely a 'rip-off' merchant, I would certainly *not* do the same, would you?
I do have some slight reservations, not related to the efficacy of the Tube-O-Later product generally, but more as a result of the sound of my system, which is already incredibly smooth and not at all like the average SS gear, so the scope for improvement is necessarily very limited.
This is a direct result of hand picking the very best-sounding components throughout, through years of careful listening tests, and for example all of my resistors are now Vishays (with a few Caddocks for higher power handling), there are no signal path caps like electrolytics anywhere (just the minimum of MIT RTX polystyrenes), and even my active devices have been selected by ear.
Nearly all components, and circuit boards are carefully damped, already, too.
About the only location where there is still some scope left are with CD, which I generally don't use so much, but as this is one of the recommended areas for application, I will try the Tube-O-Lator here, initially, to see (hear) what effect it has.
If I am satisfied with the results here, and assuming there is sufficient of the product (0.5 mil is not a lot, after all, and as it is FOC, I wouldn't blame Charles for letting me have perhaps a partially filled production 'rogue', or whatever) then I will remove the existing treatments from my PA output mosfets first, and try it there as well.
On the subject of JLH, I can truthfully recount one of his several visits to my home to listen to what I had been up to with my system.
As he had made a trip from his home of nearly 200 miles, we had laid on a lunch for him as usual so that he could spend most of the day in discussion and listening, before making the similar 200 mile trip back again.
After I had demonstrated to John during the morning some of the changes which could be achieved (also on one of his own designs, which confounded him that it could sound noticeably better than his 'standard' similar amp which he brought with him as a 'reference'), he was so disturbed by what he heard, he could hardly eat any of the food provided!
I could see the dificulty he was having in coming to terms with what he heard, as it completely flew in the face of all that he had believed for so many years, but he had to accept that the sound was considerably better, merely due to my substitutions/optimisations etc.
This was over 20 years ago now, but he did immediately 'recast' his then 'current development' amp circuit, to avoid the need for the usual big (electrolytic!!!) cap in the feedback path (being one of the easiest and most effective mods I had shown him) and when this design was ultimately published, he gave me a 'credit' in his description of the circuit, for pointing this out to him.
By this time, he had accepted the concepts which I had demonstrated to him, but by his own admission, he was not of the necessarily patient nature needed to successfully carry out these kind of protracted listening tests, and (much as Nelson has similarly said) he felt his time was better spent in researching circuit improvements, and he was happy to leave the 'listening' testing to me.
Regards,
Re: FUN THREAD.
Hi Frank,
Seeing the names of some of the posters involved, I am not at all surprised that this kind of argument has gone on for so long.
I don't mean to put anything or anyone down here, but for anyone who sincerely wishes to see sense (rather than merely having a pointless argument) it seems clear to me that the comments made over absolute polarity (or whatever term is used)
which relate to a compressive as opposed to a rarifactive waveform are absolutely correct.
There *is* a very noticeable difference in the perceived sound when say a speaker cone moves forwards to mimic a kick drum which is whacked (also forwards) from within the drum itself, when compared with a similar 'sound' which is made by the cone being driven backwards or inwards, away from the listener.
It does have the effects which have been described by you and Eric, and I can hear the differences quite readily, more is the pity, since we all know how little attention seems to be given by engineers to ensure this directionality is always correct.
However, IME it matters not how this 'ideal' state is achieved, in that if one does have an inverting amp (for example) it can be corrected (nominally!) by reversing the speaker connections, or whatever.
One of the nicest incarnations of my power amp was when I ran it for a while with the input taken to the second device in the input long-tailed pair. I believe that because of the fact that the input *and* the feedback were both taken to the same point, this noticeably reduced some distortion, and the sound was all the better for it.
It did mean, however, that I needed to reverse the speaker connections to (nominally) correct the system's absolute polarity, since, in this configuration the amp was then 'inverting' in operation.
Regrettably, I am not sure about any suggestions that any component or combination of components in any circuit can 'operate' better one way or another, as I have not carried out any experiments along these lines, save for the usual 'sexing' of individual caps etc. for (other) sonic reasons which we have discussed several times before.
However, I am mindful of the differences which are definitely apparent when placing any series components in the 'return path' of speaker X'overs, as I have posted quite recently in another thread, so I will certainly not say that it cannot affect the issue. I simply don't know about this particular issue.
I haven't got any time for people (and won't waste any on unproductive arguments with them) who say that there is *no* perceived difference between a 'suck' and a 'blow' in these cases, as this is quite ridiculously incorrect.
If they cannot *hear* any differences, this is another matter, and will relate more to their lack of listening experience, poor ears, or similarly poor resolution of their equipment.
Regards,
fdegrove said:
Hi Frank,
Seeing the names of some of the posters involved, I am not at all surprised that this kind of argument has gone on for so long.
I don't mean to put anything or anyone down here, but for anyone who sincerely wishes to see sense (rather than merely having a pointless argument) it seems clear to me that the comments made over absolute polarity (or whatever term is used)
which relate to a compressive as opposed to a rarifactive waveform are absolutely correct.
There *is* a very noticeable difference in the perceived sound when say a speaker cone moves forwards to mimic a kick drum which is whacked (also forwards) from within the drum itself, when compared with a similar 'sound' which is made by the cone being driven backwards or inwards, away from the listener.
It does have the effects which have been described by you and Eric, and I can hear the differences quite readily, more is the pity, since we all know how little attention seems to be given by engineers to ensure this directionality is always correct.
However, IME it matters not how this 'ideal' state is achieved, in that if one does have an inverting amp (for example) it can be corrected (nominally!) by reversing the speaker connections, or whatever.
One of the nicest incarnations of my power amp was when I ran it for a while with the input taken to the second device in the input long-tailed pair. I believe that because of the fact that the input *and* the feedback were both taken to the same point, this noticeably reduced some distortion, and the sound was all the better for it.
It did mean, however, that I needed to reverse the speaker connections to (nominally) correct the system's absolute polarity, since, in this configuration the amp was then 'inverting' in operation.
Regrettably, I am not sure about any suggestions that any component or combination of components in any circuit can 'operate' better one way or another, as I have not carried out any experiments along these lines, save for the usual 'sexing' of individual caps etc. for (other) sonic reasons which we have discussed several times before.
However, I am mindful of the differences which are definitely apparent when placing any series components in the 'return path' of speaker X'overs, as I have posted quite recently in another thread, so I will certainly not say that it cannot affect the issue. I simply don't know about this particular issue.
I haven't got any time for people (and won't waste any on unproductive arguments with them) who say that there is *no* perceived difference between a 'suck' and a 'blow' in these cases, as this is quite ridiculously incorrect.
If they cannot *hear* any differences, this is another matter, and will relate more to their lack of listening experience, poor ears, or similarly poor resolution of their equipment.
Regards,
Hi Frank,
As an adjunct to what I just said, since I had initially become a little bored over the semantics cropping up with regularity and had originally skipped through some of the 'AP' thread before, I have now looked at the thread again, throughout.
Although out of habit I used (use) the term "Absolute Polarity" in my earlier response, to indicate a 'blow' or a 'suck' (doubtless depending on one's sexual preferences
) when describing the differences in the movement of speaker cones relative to the movement causing the original sounds, I have just remembered the following.
I have some six or so different test records and CDs, and on *all* of them the expression "this is recorded 'in phase', or this is recorded 'out of phase' " all actually relate to this particular phenomenon.
In other words, they are using the expression 'phase' to describe this relative direction of movement (although not Absolute Phase) because when they are suggesting the sound is "out of phase", they mean that one speaker is 'blowing' at the same time as the other is 'sucking', and hence the resultant bass 'suckout' (you can tell its Saturday and 'I am on a promise' tonight, from all of these sexual innuendos!!
) due to partial cancellation.
Sometimes when burning-in new components which are in X'overs (so, unusually for most burn-ins, the speakers do need to be operating), I will place the two speakers closely together (face to face) and throw a blanket over them (oh! not more sex, it really is getting on top of me - so much less energetic at my age!), then reverse one set of speaker wires and play the system for hours, with a very much reduced overall audible output, so that it is less annoying to others hearing the chosen CD on perpetual repeat!
In this mode, if you have ever tried it out for yourself, the HF is reasonably well masked by the cabinets, and the 'heavier' more powerful lower frequencies are audibly quite slight even at normally quite high output levels, due to this cancellation effect where the 'air' is merely being pushed back and forth between the two drivers.
So, provided people don't wish to be pedantic and/or deliberately misunderstand terminology or whatever, I don't think it matters very much what anyone calls absolute phase, absolute polarity, or absolutely anything else, so long as from the context the intended meaning is absolutely clear!
Much of this kind of pedantry is merely a smoke-screen to avoid the real issues, in my experience, and I have seen this to a nauseating extent, myself, in many of the retorts which have been the result of what I have said.
I don't mean any offense in saying this, but a little more 'give and take', and 'understanding' shown by some posters, would make the posting on the Forum a much more enjoyable experience.
Regards,😉
As an adjunct to what I just said, since I had initially become a little bored over the semantics cropping up with regularity and had originally skipped through some of the 'AP' thread before, I have now looked at the thread again, throughout.
Although out of habit I used (use) the term "Absolute Polarity" in my earlier response, to indicate a 'blow' or a 'suck' (doubtless depending on one's sexual preferences
) when describing the differences in the movement of speaker cones relative to the movement causing the original sounds, I have just remembered the following.I have some six or so different test records and CDs, and on *all* of them the expression "this is recorded 'in phase', or this is recorded 'out of phase' " all actually relate to this particular phenomenon.
In other words, they are using the expression 'phase' to describe this relative direction of movement (although not Absolute Phase) because when they are suggesting the sound is "out of phase", they mean that one speaker is 'blowing' at the same time as the other is 'sucking', and hence the resultant bass 'suckout' (you can tell its Saturday and 'I am on a promise' tonight, from all of these sexual innuendos!!
) due to partial cancellation.Sometimes when burning-in new components which are in X'overs (so, unusually for most burn-ins, the speakers do need to be operating), I will place the two speakers closely together (face to face) and throw a blanket over them (oh! not more sex, it really is getting on top of me - so much less energetic at my age!), then reverse one set of speaker wires and play the system for hours, with a very much reduced overall audible output, so that it is less annoying to others hearing the chosen CD on perpetual repeat!
In this mode, if you have ever tried it out for yourself, the HF is reasonably well masked by the cabinets, and the 'heavier' more powerful lower frequencies are audibly quite slight even at normally quite high output levels, due to this cancellation effect where the 'air' is merely being pushed back and forth between the two drivers.
So, provided people don't wish to be pedantic and/or deliberately misunderstand terminology or whatever, I don't think it matters very much what anyone calls absolute phase, absolute polarity, or absolutely anything else, so long as from the context the intended meaning is absolutely clear!
Much of this kind of pedantry is merely a smoke-screen to avoid the real issues, in my experience, and I have seen this to a nauseating extent, myself, in many of the retorts which have been the result of what I have said.
I don't mean any offense in saying this, but a little more 'give and take', and 'understanding' shown by some posters, would make the posting on the Forum a much more enjoyable experience.
Regards,😉
Re: Re: FUN THREAD.
Hi,
Yes, i have argued this for a time now. If an amplifier involving negative feedback and with a long tailed pair as input (and it matters zip, zilch, nada if that pair is valves, BJT or FET) the LTP experiences a common mode signal equal to the signal applied.
Even in a well designed LTP the balance is not very good (and most are not well designed) and this common mode signal present leads to audible and unpleasant distortion. That fact of course has not bothered it seems ANY recent or current amplifier designer apart from Jean Hiraga and John Curl. Even Nelson Pass continues to this deplorable topology....
Given that even the LTP equipped amplifier is rarely reliably fully direct coupled and if it is then a servo is used I think it would be highly desirable to ditch the differential LTP input circuit and go back to single device input circuits such as seen in the JLH Class A Amplifier.
I also remeber that when in east germany a new all direct coupled split rail studio transistor amplifier (Class AB) was introduced which had nominally the same specifications as the old one coupled on the input and output with electrolytic capacitors and a single rail, the new amplifier sounded much poorer subjectively. The main change, apart from DC coupling the input & output was to switch from a single input device to a LTP.
With what I know now (some nearly 20 years later) the change of the sound to the worse comes as no surprise at all...
Sayonara
Hi,
Yes, i have argued this for a time now. If an amplifier involving negative feedback and with a long tailed pair as input (and it matters zip, zilch, nada if that pair is valves, BJT or FET) the LTP experiences a common mode signal equal to the signal applied.
Even in a well designed LTP the balance is not very good (and most are not well designed) and this common mode signal present leads to audible and unpleasant distortion. That fact of course has not bothered it seems ANY recent or current amplifier designer apart from Jean Hiraga and John Curl. Even Nelson Pass continues to this deplorable topology....
Given that even the LTP equipped amplifier is rarely reliably fully direct coupled and if it is then a servo is used I think it would be highly desirable to ditch the differential LTP input circuit and go back to single device input circuits such as seen in the JLH Class A Amplifier.
I also remeber that when in east germany a new all direct coupled split rail studio transistor amplifier (Class AB) was introduced which had nominally the same specifications as the old one coupled on the input and output with electrolytic capacitors and a single rail, the new amplifier sounded much poorer subjectively. The main change, apart from DC coupling the input & output was to switch from a single input device to a LTP.
With what I know now (some nearly 20 years later) the change of the sound to the worse comes as no surprise at all...
Sayonara
TERMINAL TERMINOLOGY.
Hi Bob,
Precisely.
Although it is obviously clear to you what the term means, I have serious doubts about some other posters in that thread.
Cheers,😉
Hi Bob,
Precisely.
Although it is obviously clear to you what the term means, I have serious doubts about some other posters in that thread.
Cheers,😉
Kuie Yang Wang said
I agree with this - the ac balance in particular is always off and is off by differing amounts at different signal levels... This is also true of push pull output stages - one of the reasons that they need setting with a dc offset for best sound is that the balance with signal applied is different from the static case...
Presumably this is part of the reason you prefer SE amps...
I like ss balanced amplifers with PP outputs - not sure with DHTs yet - we will see.
I would generalise your statement on feedback and say that where feedback is applied over two or more stages it should always be applied at the same input point as the signal... I only apply it to a different point when applying local feedback (this is often unavoidable as the chosen topology is probably doing it anyway...) I hear clear differences when it is applied to a different point and it sounds worse.
ciao
James
I agree with this - the ac balance in particular is always off and is off by differing amounts at different signal levels... This is also true of push pull output stages - one of the reasons that they need setting with a dc offset for best sound is that the balance with signal applied is different from the static case...
Presumably this is part of the reason you prefer SE amps...
I like ss balanced amplifers with PP outputs - not sure with DHTs yet - we will see.
I would generalise your statement on feedback and say that where feedback is applied over two or more stages it should always be applied at the same input point as the signal... I only apply it to a different point when applying local feedback (this is often unavoidable as the chosen topology is probably doing it anyway...) I hear clear differences when it is applied to a different point and it sounds worse.
ciao
James
Re: TERMINAL TERMINOLOGY.
Unfortunately, Frank, you are quite right here.
However, having seen the same names cropping up with monotonous regularity in several of the threads which I have been involved with, and many of which appear to end up in this same abortive manner, it is also clear to me that there are some posters who are only really interested in being contentious and disagreeable for the sake of it.
A number of folk also seem quite unable to even read properly, but I believe it is that they are in such a hurry to show off their supposed 'superior' knowledge and to cast doubts on what has already been said by another, that they frequently miss the point(s) in question, or completely fail to grasp the basic fact that we are not all the same, and neither have we all enjoyed the same experiences during our lifetimes.
To me, it is a rather sad fact of life, but they know who they are and what their motives may be, and they are merely another of those irritations which crop up from time to time which one could happily manage without!
Regards,🙂
fdegrove said:
Unfortunately, Frank, you are quite right here.
However, having seen the same names cropping up with monotonous regularity in several of the threads which I have been involved with, and many of which appear to end up in this same abortive manner, it is also clear to me that there are some posters who are only really interested in being contentious and disagreeable for the sake of it.
A number of folk also seem quite unable to even read properly, but I believe it is that they are in such a hurry to show off their supposed 'superior' knowledge and to cast doubts on what has already been said by another, that they frequently miss the point(s) in question, or completely fail to grasp the basic fact that we are not all the same, and neither have we all enjoyed the same experiences during our lifetimes.
To me, it is a rather sad fact of life, but they know who they are and what their motives may be, and they are merely another of those irritations which crop up from time to time which one could happily manage without!
Regards,🙂
Hi,
I am glad to see that at least two posters (so far!) actually agree with some of my comments, in this case about the signal and feedback being taken to the same point in an amp.
This is another case where during some experiments many years ago, I noticed a distinct sonic improvement, which at the time my THD equipment didn't really confirm, so I had to rely on what my ears told me.
It was only some time *after* the event that I postulated that it must have been due to distortion caused by the 'operating differences' between the long-tailed pairs in question.
It just goes to show that with a very revealing system, a good pair of ears, and a little determination, one can frequently 'outdo' (then) conventional measurements, but when later it is appreciated precisely what needs to be measured, together with having better measuring gear and methodologies, measurements actually generally accord with the subjective experiences.
Regards,
I am glad to see that at least two posters (so far!) actually agree with some of my comments, in this case about the signal and feedback being taken to the same point in an amp.
This is another case where during some experiments many years ago, I noticed a distinct sonic improvement, which at the time my THD equipment didn't really confirm, so I had to rely on what my ears told me.
It was only some time *after* the event that I postulated that it must have been due to distortion caused by the 'operating differences' between the long-tailed pairs in question.
It just goes to show that with a very revealing system, a good pair of ears, and a little determination, one can frequently 'outdo' (then) conventional measurements, but when later it is appreciated precisely what needs to be measured, together with having better measuring gear and methodologies, measurements actually generally accord with the subjective experiences.
Regards,
Hi Bob,
I completely agree with this statement. I used it to drive my quest for better amplifier sound for thirty years and ended up with solid state designs that I just couldn't improve - but still something was missing. That led me back to valves after 25 years of ignoring them...
Incidently it has also led me to abandon normal speakers and go back to full-range speakers and open baffle and horn designs...
And I'm enjoying listening to music more than ever...
To touch on the topic - I have also found that in revealing systems every aspect of the system effects the sound - and I mean every aspect - so I certainly agree that Tube-o-lator has the potential to change the sound - I await your results with interest...
ciao
James
I completely agree with this statement. I used it to drive my quest for better amplifier sound for thirty years and ended up with solid state designs that I just couldn't improve - but still something was missing. That led me back to valves after 25 years of ignoring them...
Incidently it has also led me to abandon normal speakers and go back to full-range speakers and open baffle and horn designs...
And I'm enjoying listening to music more than ever...
To touch on the topic - I have also found that in revealing systems every aspect of the system effects the sound - and I mean every aspect - so I certainly agree that Tube-o-lator has the potential to change the sound - I await your results with interest...
ciao
James
every aspect has potential
I couldn't agree more. Just recently I changed the front spike (only one) on my active woofer crossover from steel to brass and to my surprise, it changed completely the tonal balance of my system.
James D. said:
I couldn't agree more. Just recently I changed the front spike (only one) on my active woofer crossover from steel to brass and to my surprise, it changed completely the tonal balance of my system.
COMING FULL CIRCLE
Hi,
Funny how things can go...my very first speaker was a FR and I plan to go back to that as soon as funds permit.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Funny how things can go...my very first speaker was a FR and I plan to go back to that as soon as funds permit.
Cheers,😉
James D. said:
Hi James,
I am pleased to see your comments, from which it seems we must have been down many similar paths during the last 30 years.
I have also (almost!) gone as far as I believe it is possible with my own power amps, much like yourself, unless some very new trick comes to mind or I read about a variation in topology somewhere else.
By nature I am more of an 'evolutionary' than a 'revolutionary', and will generally prefer to work on circuits and equipment which I am very familiar with, not from the aspect of any potential difficulty resulting from the unfamiliarity, but because this way, I can be absolutely certain of my progress (or lack of!).
In reality, all of the individual components in my amps have been changed (many of them several times) over the years and there have been many topology changes (always a little at a time), and probably like yourself, I know almost even if someone else has so much as looked at my gear, I am just so familiar with it from the 'sonic' aspect!
If I change say a few pF of stabilising capacitor from sil mica to polystyrene (of the same measured value) in the PS regulators feedback circuits, I hear it right away, let alone if I try anything more radical and nearer to the signal paths.
So, exactly like you, I know that changing *anything* will have *some* effect on the sound, and very, very few things can be changed without it being noticeable to me in this particular set-up.
This (in the main) has enabled the very substantial improvements I have achieved in the overall sound through many small increments, but starting all over with an entirely different circuit, would mean a whole fresh learning curve before I was so confident over each of these quite small changes.
Of course, with other equipment which I am unfamiliar with, and even possibly if my own gear was used in less familiar surroundings, I am certain my accuity would not be so 'delicate', but to me it is rather like if one of my car tyres is only a pound or so down on pressure, I know it straight away from the change in the vehicle's overall handling characteristics.
However, I wouldn't mind having a pound for every time I have followed another car during my 3/4 million miles (over 43 yrs!) of driving, where it had a tyre so flat that it must have been less than half pressure, but the driver was clearly oblivious to this!
Although I am similarly sensitive at all times and about all matters, I am much less able to do this with my wife's car though, simply because I don't drive it so frequently, and it would probably need maybe 5 PSI down on a tyre before I felt the changes in its handling.
Many people are far less sensitive (sometimes I envy them because I doubt that they get 'wiped out' for a few days like me with migraine headaches etc. 😱 ) and they don't have the patience or perseverance to carry out the painstaking trials which we are used to, so how on earth can they sensibly expect to hear some of these artifacts?
We are all physically different, most have had different experiences, and different training etc., and above all, our attitudes and interests are different towards various matters.
For what it is worth, many years ago I lived two doors away from Roger Bannister, the world's first ever 4 minute mile runner, but I couldn't (then) have run a mile in twice that time, let alone now!
However, he was naturally physically very fit, but more importantly he was so keen to reach his goal, that he trained himself and kept on persevering over quite a few years to achieve what he wanted to do.
I didn't then, and still don't, say that it couldn't be done (because that would have been ridiculous) simply because, for whatever reason, I had not had the same experience, or training, or even ran beside him all of the way to ensure that he had not cheated, or whatever else. Although no-one in the world (then) could do the same, I simply accepted that (because of his natural abilities and his undoubted efforts) he was more capable than me *in that particular respect*.
What makes me want to weep, is continually reading the ridiculous comments from so many people who are clearly far to indolent to even make any effort to try out any of these things for themselves (which are second nature to us) and yet they still have the stupidity to maintain that we are wrong, misguided, suffering from self-deceit, or its all psychological, or whatever else takes their fancy to suit their arguments, in their rather pathetic attempts at discrediting our findings.
It really beggars belief, when discussing something with supposedly intelligent people who also purport to be 'scientific' in their approaches to these matters, to read such bigoted twaddle!
Regards, 🙂
ENJOY WHILE YOU CAN.
Hi,
As long as you're ignorant you're happy.
This somehow reminds me of my younger brother, he tends to view things in a simple way and be happy whereas I tend to view the problems and be unhappy with the situation...I envy him.
Sign of the times...be glad you don't have any staff working for you.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Cheers,😉
\Writing from my armchair I know everything bester...
Hi,
As long as you're ignorant you're happy.
This somehow reminds me of my younger brother, he tends to view things in a simple way and be happy whereas I tend to view the problems and be unhappy with the situation...I envy him.
Sign of the times...be glad you don't have any staff working for you.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Cheers,😉
\Writing from my armchair I know everything bester...
Bobken said:
Oh for God's sake give it a rest.
This little self-congratulatory group has been patting itself on the back for about a week now - telling each other what fine fellows they are - whilst making dark references to "some people" - untermenschen presumably, who are so wicked that they do not agree with you:"Tut-tut, imagine! the shame of it - another glass of Bulgarian yoghurt perhaps?"
Having convinced yourselves that you are all as wise as Gandalf/Merlin/Mohammed/Solomon, you are starting to sound as smug as a bunch of woolly liberal parish councillors congratualting themselves that St Cuckoo-in-the-Clouds has just been declared a nuclear-free zone.
It's time for a little less self-righteousness; everyone is entitled to a point of view, it seems that the sceptics have a lighter, defter touch in this instance!
7N7
Audio Religion
The writers of these long messages should leave the keyboard alone and get back to their workshops and actually build something , after all this is DIYaudio . This forum seems to have the entire waking hours attention of some , so how can they be pushing back the boundaries of audio with all this 'magic' ?
316a
The writers of these long messages should leave the keyboard alone and get back to their workshops and actually build something , after all this is DIYaudio . This forum seems to have the entire waking hours attention of some , so how can they be pushing back the boundaries of audio with all this 'magic' ?
316a
diff pairs, lacquer... stuff
I would like to add some stuff to this interesting thread and apologize for this chaotic mixture of messages:
I also had no real luck with differential pairs but I'm not an amplifier expert. I had much better results with that old design that is so well documented on elliots page:
http://sound.westhost.com/project12.htm
Maybe because there's only one diode-drop (Q1) and a resistor between input and output. I imagined this circuit to be handling the signal first-hand rather than second hand.
As for the lacquer. Bob, I think a CD player is a very good choice to start with. From my experience, it is good to start filtering overtones at the very source, not at the end of the signal chain. As every active component will add harmonics, a false spectrum at the source (like that of a CD player) will lead to a very complex mixture of harmonics at the final output. In this context I consider a CD-player's spectrum as inherently false, since
1) the whole digital process is a switching (or squarewave) process that only leads to odd- and high-order overtones, that are not really correlated to the signal
2) the 'real' harmonic content of the ' original performance' is NOT AT ALL captured on the CD, because of lacking resolution. This is the reason I try to avoid the term 'reproduction' and would like to insert the more realistic term 'interpretation'.
As for your Mosfet PA, be especially careful with the lacqer. You are filtering overtones at the very end of the audio chain. You will have a strong effect, that you most likely will not enjoy very much. However, IMO it is a very good experience, event if its a shock and you have to remove the lacquer afterwards. I would suggest trying it out, but having a pair of spare transistors, in case their plastic package has fine pores that may prevent the complete removal of the lacquer (and its sonic effect).
It has happened that people who receive their sample think like this: "Now I will dump that BS over every thing that has a black package, since it will have no effect nothing anyway" and then "Oh my God, What have I done?!? How can he sell that stuff and not tell me that it works!?!"
Okay, my girlfriend came, I must finish.
Charles 🙂
ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES
http://www.altmann.haan.de
I would like to add some stuff to this interesting thread and apologize for this chaotic mixture of messages:
I also had no real luck with differential pairs but I'm not an amplifier expert. I had much better results with that old design that is so well documented on elliots page:
http://sound.westhost.com/project12.htm
Maybe because there's only one diode-drop (Q1) and a resistor between input and output. I imagined this circuit to be handling the signal first-hand rather than second hand.
As for the lacquer. Bob, I think a CD player is a very good choice to start with. From my experience, it is good to start filtering overtones at the very source, not at the end of the signal chain. As every active component will add harmonics, a false spectrum at the source (like that of a CD player) will lead to a very complex mixture of harmonics at the final output. In this context I consider a CD-player's spectrum as inherently false, since
1) the whole digital process is a switching (or squarewave) process that only leads to odd- and high-order overtones, that are not really correlated to the signal
2) the 'real' harmonic content of the ' original performance' is NOT AT ALL captured on the CD, because of lacking resolution. This is the reason I try to avoid the term 'reproduction' and would like to insert the more realistic term 'interpretation'.
As for your Mosfet PA, be especially careful with the lacqer. You are filtering overtones at the very end of the audio chain. You will have a strong effect, that you most likely will not enjoy very much. However, IMO it is a very good experience, event if its a shock and you have to remove the lacquer afterwards. I would suggest trying it out, but having a pair of spare transistors, in case their plastic package has fine pores that may prevent the complete removal of the lacquer (and its sonic effect).
It has happened that people who receive their sample think like this: "Now I will dump that BS over every thing that has a black package, since it will have no effect nothing anyway" and then "Oh my God, What have I done?!? How can he sell that stuff and not tell me that it works!?!"
Okay, my girlfriend came, I must finish.
Charles 🙂
ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES
http://www.altmann.haan.de
Differential Pairs
There's nothing wrong with differential pairs; all my amplifiers have them - they sound excellent, so I'm told.
The last one I tested was matched to 0.25dB AC output.
If yours are not matched then you are not making them properly.
Better glass than iron any day
7N7
There's nothing wrong with differential pairs; all my amplifiers have them - they sound excellent, so I'm told.
The last one I tested was matched to 0.25dB AC output.
If yours are not matched then you are not making them properly.
Better glass than iron any day
7N7
7N7 said:
Hi,
Oh for God's sake, why don't you mind your own business and stick to posting in areas which are not beyond your ability to comprehend.
No-one is being self-congratulatory, nor self-righteous, but we are merely swapping actual experiences and conclusions which have been reached as a result of these.
The only reason for "the dark references" as you scathingly put it, is out of common courtesy in that I don't (normally!) find it necessary to directly attack other posters, but it must be said that you are clearly oblivious to any such courtesy with your ill-mannered and unwarranted intervention.
I, for one, don't mind you having *any* "point of view" whether it agrees with what I believe in or not, but I must observe that for *any intelligent person* to reach any conclusion or *point of view*, it should be based on at least having some knowlege or experience of the subject concerned, which seems to eliminate you in this case.
Regards,🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.