Re: as for the performance ...
Hi Charles,
It was me you kindly sent the sample to, and as you rightly said, initially I was distracted by other matters, which for a while adversely affected my audio system. I 'blew' a tweeter, which could not be replaced for many months, and I felt it necessary to restore my system and 're-familiarise' myself with it, before carrying out any tests on the tube-o-lator.
Unfortunately, by the time I did get to try this product, due to the barrage of unpleasantness I had experienced from some other members, both here and in private mails, I discontinued having anything further to do with this Forum. Just reading the frequent attempts to ridicule most 'subjective' effects which get a mention on this Forum, and in this thread alone we have just seen another resurrected example of this, makes me realise that nothing much has changed, and regrettably it probably never will.
However, earlier this year (after a 3 year break) I started to look at DIY Audio again, and have commented occasionally more recently, where I felt my 'listening' experiences might be of some interest or help to others.
When I originally tried the tube-o-lator product and found it to be beneficial as you suggested, I felt a little uncomfortable that I did not comment on my findings here, but I was not prepared to put up with the likely reaction from many others, who will not take any notice anyway, whatever anyone says.
Actually, I posted some comments on the effects of applying some acrylic varnish on semi-conductors in post #119 in the "Bronze Heatsinks...." thread a while ago, and look at what followed then. If it wasn't for the complimentary comments from members like Charles Hanson, and agreements with my findings (mentioned in other threads) by luminaries like John Curl, I would not bother to post at all here about any subjective matters, as the inevitable consequences and ill-feeling are too discouraging to me.
For anyone who might just be interested in the facts here, when I applied the tube-o-later to some chips in a DAC, initially the sound was much worse and very dull and lifeless. However as I listened attentively during the following few hours, things slowly improved, I guess as the product hardened and fully dried out.
By the next day there were some overall improvements to the sound, albeit not major, exactly as Charles claimed, but my system was already very smooth and revealing so it was not expected to be a 'chalk and cheese' change, anyway.
Interestingly, when I subsequently applied it to some output transistors, I didn't like the effect at all (and Charles warned about this possibility in the instructions, which suggests his trial results were similar) so I later removed the product, whereupon the original 'better' sound returned.
Sorry to disagree with SY, but there is no doubt that this product does have *some* effect on 'sonics' when applied to semi-conductors, sometimes good (and sometimes not so good), and there is no wishful thinking or imagination here on my part. Whether it is (was!) worth the asking price, I will not comment upon, but as it has been withdrawn from sale, this is academic anyway.
I have no axe to grind here, I knew nothing of Charles until he sent me the sample which I was grateful to have had the opportunity to trial, and as I have been involved in very careful subjective 'listening' tests for some 35 yrs., I have had a little experience of these matters.
Regards,🙂
Charles said:
Hi Charles,
It was me you kindly sent the sample to, and as you rightly said, initially I was distracted by other matters, which for a while adversely affected my audio system. I 'blew' a tweeter, which could not be replaced for many months, and I felt it necessary to restore my system and 're-familiarise' myself with it, before carrying out any tests on the tube-o-lator.
Unfortunately, by the time I did get to try this product, due to the barrage of unpleasantness I had experienced from some other members, both here and in private mails, I discontinued having anything further to do with this Forum. Just reading the frequent attempts to ridicule most 'subjective' effects which get a mention on this Forum, and in this thread alone we have just seen another resurrected example of this, makes me realise that nothing much has changed, and regrettably it probably never will.
However, earlier this year (after a 3 year break) I started to look at DIY Audio again, and have commented occasionally more recently, where I felt my 'listening' experiences might be of some interest or help to others.
When I originally tried the tube-o-lator product and found it to be beneficial as you suggested, I felt a little uncomfortable that I did not comment on my findings here, but I was not prepared to put up with the likely reaction from many others, who will not take any notice anyway, whatever anyone says.
Actually, I posted some comments on the effects of applying some acrylic varnish on semi-conductors in post #119 in the "Bronze Heatsinks...." thread a while ago, and look at what followed then. If it wasn't for the complimentary comments from members like Charles Hanson, and agreements with my findings (mentioned in other threads) by luminaries like John Curl, I would not bother to post at all here about any subjective matters, as the inevitable consequences and ill-feeling are too discouraging to me.
For anyone who might just be interested in the facts here, when I applied the tube-o-later to some chips in a DAC, initially the sound was much worse and very dull and lifeless. However as I listened attentively during the following few hours, things slowly improved, I guess as the product hardened and fully dried out.
By the next day there were some overall improvements to the sound, albeit not major, exactly as Charles claimed, but my system was already very smooth and revealing so it was not expected to be a 'chalk and cheese' change, anyway.
Interestingly, when I subsequently applied it to some output transistors, I didn't like the effect at all (and Charles warned about this possibility in the instructions, which suggests his trial results were similar) so I later removed the product, whereupon the original 'better' sound returned.
Sorry to disagree with SY, but there is no doubt that this product does have *some* effect on 'sonics' when applied to semi-conductors, sometimes good (and sometimes not so good), and there is no wishful thinking or imagination here on my part. Whether it is (was!) worth the asking price, I will not comment upon, but as it has been withdrawn from sale, this is academic anyway.
I have no axe to grind here, I knew nothing of Charles until he sent me the sample which I was grateful to have had the opportunity to trial, and as I have been involved in very careful subjective 'listening' tests for some 35 yrs., I have had a little experience of these matters.
Regards,🙂
Off Topic.
Bob since you have message and email switched off (I understand why)
I tried to send a thank you for "your veenering tip you posted a while back.
I used the Vale veneer adhesive film like in your post, I must say you were bang on the nail a real no brainer product.
Thank you Bob you do have people out there who appreciate your comments, beyond the other nonsense that gets posted on this forum.
Pete
ps if your near London your welcome to a beer on me.
Bob since you have message and email switched off (I understand why)
I tried to send a thank you for "your veenering tip you posted a while back.
I used the Vale veneer adhesive film like in your post, I must say you were bang on the nail a real no brainer product.
Thank you Bob you do have people out there who appreciate your comments, beyond the other nonsense that gets posted on this forum.
Pete
ps if your near London your welcome to a beer on me.
Hi Pete,
It is very kind of you to take the trouble to say this, and you are very welcome to any advice which is useful to you, as is anyone.
The others can simply ignore what I say, but too many members simply don't do this quietly.
I am far too 'long in the tooth' to need my ego to be stroked continually by others, but some appreciation is always encouraging and welcome.
I am not feeling sorry for myself here, but what I cannot stand are the stupid arguments which (almost) always seem to ensue if someone (not only me, of course) comments on their subjective experiences. To be fair, I have been advised that Moderators are keeping an eye on things recently, and I just hope this helps.
Regards, and thanks for the offer of a beer. Who knows, maybe one day!🙂
It is very kind of you to take the trouble to say this, and you are very welcome to any advice which is useful to you, as is anyone.
The others can simply ignore what I say, but too many members simply don't do this quietly.
I am far too 'long in the tooth' to need my ego to be stroked continually by others, but some appreciation is always encouraging and welcome.
I am not feeling sorry for myself here, but what I cannot stand are the stupid arguments which (almost) always seem to ensue if someone (not only me, of course) comments on their subjective experiences. To be fair, I have been advised that Moderators are keeping an eye on things recently, and I just hope this helps.
Regards, and thanks for the offer of a beer. Who knows, maybe one day!🙂
This was a comment by Joel.
Sorry Bobken I just can't buy into the BS of this so called product. You might just as well borrow the Wifes/girlfriends/ or boyfriends (got to be politically correct here) nail polish and coat your semiconductors and components.
WAIT!!!
I think I hear a difference.
I"LL BUY IT...Hell yes!
Konnichiwa,
How do you know, before the fact, that it is "BS". You have no knowledge whatsoever, no experience, only deeply held believe.
The mere concept of the fact that coating an IC or Semiconduct or with ANYTHING could possibly make a difference is so threatening to your worldview that even the merest suggestion that this may be possible makes you lash and use (abbreviated) bad language, assertations of fraud and so on, anything to allow you reject the proposition that threatens your worldview out of hand, without even the least investigation of the subject....
BTW, in traditional electonics the coating of Semiconductor cases with conductive EMC rejecting substances or indeed the application of shielding foil.
Why should what works in one context for traditional electronics suddenly stop working just because now suddenly audio is involved where anything that seems to the slighest tweaky (and which for example would be taken in a matter of course way in instrumentation of measurement electronics) is not allowed to work, physics, reality and all else be darned!
Sayonara
burnedfingers said:
How do you know, before the fact, that it is "BS". You have no knowledge whatsoever, no experience, only deeply held believe.
The mere concept of the fact that coating an IC or Semiconduct or with ANYTHING could possibly make a difference is so threatening to your worldview that even the merest suggestion that this may be possible makes you lash and use (abbreviated) bad language, assertations of fraud and so on, anything to allow you reject the proposition that threatens your worldview out of hand, without even the least investigation of the subject....
BTW, in traditional electonics the coating of Semiconductor cases with conductive EMC rejecting substances or indeed the application of shielding foil.
Why should what works in one context for traditional electronics suddenly stop working just because now suddenly audio is involved where anything that seems to the slighest tweaky (and which for example would be taken in a matter of course way in instrumentation of measurement electronics) is not allowed to work, physics, reality and all else be darned!
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I don't see makers of precision electronic instrumentation queueing up to buy any of these chemicals. If they work as described, then I'm sure they would be the first in line, after all, a few more naughts, or shifting a decimal point to the right a bit can make them a lot of money.
And you do?
Please show me the proof.
Whats next? Maybe the color of capacitors will improve their performance.
Konnichiwa,
Actually, given the description I would expect such manufacturers to look elsewhere, as the "Tubolator" lacquer was promoted not for it's shielding qualities (which may or may not be presentet and their presence or absence may or may not contribute to the sonic effect).
The problem is that modern so called science (dogmatic religion would be a more precise term) rejects and ridicules Empiricism (without which it would not exist),
From what I understand both Tubolator and C37 are direct results of the empirical methode, I suspect coupled to a good deal of accident included (not unlike LSD).
The point is that empirically they have been found by some to make a difference (which is really quite explainable in traditional physics I suspect, we don't even need to approach quantum physics here), yet to the superficial and closed mind the claimed difference appears "incredible". In line with the usual modern witchhunt against any that may question the status quo, the reaction, quite unthinking and unwarranted is "it must be bunk".
The logic is that with modern selfproclaimed science being so all powerfull, omniscient and all that, surely, if it did work it would have been long used and become common place.
This of course is so wide of the mark, the fallacy of that position is so self evident that discussion alone is too much of a recognition.
Note, I DO NOT KNOW if "tuboloator" lacquer works as advertised
or at all (I do know C37 does), but I keep an open mind. Does that mean I'd queue up to buy some lacquer? I might, or might not, depending on many things.
Does it need or warrant twentysix pages of a slagging match?
Sayonara
pinkmouse said:
Actually, given the description I would expect such manufacturers to look elsewhere, as the "Tubolator" lacquer was promoted not for it's shielding qualities (which may or may not be presentet and their presence or absence may or may not contribute to the sonic effect).
The problem is that modern so called science (dogmatic religion would be a more precise term) rejects and ridicules Empiricism (without which it would not exist),
From what I understand both Tubolator and C37 are direct results of the empirical methode, I suspect coupled to a good deal of accident included (not unlike LSD).
The point is that empirically they have been found by some to make a difference (which is really quite explainable in traditional physics I suspect, we don't even need to approach quantum physics here), yet to the superficial and closed mind the claimed difference appears "incredible". In line with the usual modern witchhunt against any that may question the status quo, the reaction, quite unthinking and unwarranted is "it must be bunk".
The logic is that with modern selfproclaimed science being so all powerfull, omniscient and all that, surely, if it did work it would have been long used and become common place.
This of course is so wide of the mark, the fallacy of that position is so self evident that discussion alone is too much of a recognition.
Note, I DO NOT KNOW if "tuboloator" lacquer works as advertised
or at all (I do know C37 does), but I keep an open mind. Does that mean I'd queue up to buy some lacquer? I might, or might not, depending on many things.
Does it need or warrant twentysix pages of a slagging match?
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
I do not. Hence I admit the fact that I know nothing and would need to investigate to form any substantiative oppinion.
What proof are you refering to? To what end? The proof that I have no data and therefor nothing to base an opinion on? The fact that you act unscientifically and in fact dogmatically religious by forming and expressing definite opinions without data (it is usually defined as "Belief" to form and hold a definite opinion without having any data on which to base it)?
What has that got to do with anything? I fail to follow. Again, if I coated a capacitor with a paint that absorbs/screens out EMI the performance of the circuit within which the capacitor operates. Would that consitute a co nfirmation of "Maybe the color of capacitors will improve their performance."?
I fail to see what you are trying to say, except from asserting the orthodox dogma in audio that "everything sounds the same", which has not become any more true or usefull by age and much repetition.
Sayonara
burnedfingers said:
I do not. Hence I admit the fact that I know nothing and would need to investigate to form any substantiative oppinion.
burnedfingers said:
What proof are you refering to? To what end? The proof that I have no data and therefor nothing to base an opinion on? The fact that you act unscientifically and in fact dogmatically religious by forming and expressing definite opinions without data (it is usually defined as "Belief" to form and hold a definite opinion without having any data on which to base it)?
burnedfingers said:
What has that got to do with anything? I fail to follow. Again, if I coated a capacitor with a paint that absorbs/screens out EMI the performance of the circuit within which the capacitor operates. Would that consitute a co nfirmation of "Maybe the color of capacitors will improve their performance."?
I fail to see what you are trying to say, except from asserting the orthodox dogma in audio that "everything sounds the same", which has not become any more true or usefull by age and much repetition.
Sayonara
Your Welcome
RIGHT we are all not boy scouts on this forum electronics is not my forte,but I am glad I met Thorsten some six years ago over a few beers and wine.Then it was the Edisson multi valve amp amongst other stuff,a more recent visit I had the pleasure of highly modified "300B monoblocs" Tannoy's and a TT to die for.
Cheers Thorsten for your hospitality and knowledge sharing.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
There is so much of this sort of stuff being sold for ENORMOUS $$$$$, that even Bill Gates would go broke if he bought all of it. Caviate emptor is good advice here.
Not really. After all, the manufacturers of semiconductors go to great lengths to carefully seal the silicon dies from the external environment either by embedding in special plastics or in hermetically sealed metal cans. The notion that some special laquer could make ICs and transistors sound like tubes (which would require changing the entire profile of device generated harmonics) is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't even a hint at any sort of before and after testing.
As for fraud, may be yes; may be no. It's possible that products like these were intended as a rip-off from the get-go. It's also possible that the creators and sellers of this sort of thing really do believe that it makes a difference.
There is no claim that this laquer does such a thing. Indeed, the original web site says that if you get some on the leads, don't worry about it. That doesn't sound like a conductive coating to me. Again, we still have an extraordinary claim relating to changing the nature of the active device, not shielding it from RFI.
Why should what doesn't work in the context of traditional electronics suddenly become the "magic bullet" just because audio is involved?
Well, don't they? Isn't that what they mean when they say capacitors "color the sound"? 😀
Konnichiwa,
Absolutely. It is Caveat Emptor, though, if my latin still serves.
Metal can's are sadly very much a part of history. Plastic is more common and coating plastic with a wide range of diverse compounds adds screening to this IC.
First, your insistent that what creates "tube sound" may or may not be true, however it is a matter of general debate. I would indeed consider your claim extraordinary.
Secondarily, yes, the claim is extraordinary, but it is made in a commercial envoironment for a commercial product, not in a scientific journal. Hence how much proof is desired is a question for the potential purchaser to decide.
If you made the seller (who BTW has withdrawn the product) a proposition "either you provide me with proof or I will not buy" you may find him either providing you with one or he may tell you to go to heck.
Even worse, it is also possible that, in subjective terms these various goos do exactly what their sellers/makers found them to do.
I did not say it was. I merely pointed out that commercially conductive paints are used in electronics, on semicondouctors and to attain certain specific effects. To calim "just because it's a paint it cannot make a difference" is plainly and patently wrong.
I don't know. Have you tried it and found it to make no difference? If so you have data I have not, you could consider sharing it. If on the other hand you have as much data as I have, you should consider to simply admit you know nothing and lack data to form an opinion.
Or you could just blast away any wich way on the basis of pure prejudice and the "not invented here" syndrom, as seems customary.
All I can say about Tubolator lacquer is that it may or may not have the effects (subjective) claimed for it, that certainly mechnisms exist by which paint on an item can change it's behaviour and that any acceptance or rejection of the principle hypothesis would require an empirical test, which is now no longer possible.
Where does that leave us?
Sayonara
Miles Prower said:
Absolutely. It is Caveat Emptor, though, if my latin still serves.
Miles Prower said:
Metal can's are sadly very much a part of history. Plastic is more common and coating plastic with a wide range of diverse compounds adds screening to this IC.
Miles Prower said:
First, your insistent that what creates "tube sound" may or may not be true, however it is a matter of general debate. I would indeed consider your claim extraordinary.
Secondarily, yes, the claim is extraordinary, but it is made in a commercial envoironment for a commercial product, not in a scientific journal. Hence how much proof is desired is a question for the potential purchaser to decide.
If you made the seller (who BTW has withdrawn the product) a proposition "either you provide me with proof or I will not buy" you may find him either providing you with one or he may tell you to go to heck.
Miles Prower said:
Even worse, it is also possible that, in subjective terms these various goos do exactly what their sellers/makers found them to do.
Miles Prower said:
I did not say it was. I merely pointed out that commercially conductive paints are used in electronics, on semicondouctors and to attain certain specific effects. To calim "just because it's a paint it cannot make a difference" is plainly and patently wrong.
Miles Prower said:
I don't know. Have you tried it and found it to make no difference? If so you have data I have not, you could consider sharing it. If on the other hand you have as much data as I have, you should consider to simply admit you know nothing and lack data to form an opinion.
Or you could just blast away any wich way on the basis of pure prejudice and the "not invented here" syndrom, as seems customary.
All I can say about Tubolator lacquer is that it may or may not have the effects (subjective) claimed for it, that certainly mechnisms exist by which paint on an item can change it's behaviour and that any acceptance or rejection of the principle hypothesis would require an empirical test, which is now no longer possible.
Where does that leave us?
Sayonara
I don't think that anyone needs a Phd in philosophy or math to agree with the assumption that there are more things that can be imagined than are real, incorrect than are correct etc...
Keeping this mind, there are a million bottles of snake oil we could examine and test. Emperically or otherwise... much like Edison and his light bulb.
While a valid method, we all should know a bit more these days and those that choose to rely on reason rather than chance should not be chastised for doing so. How many of us would rub butter on our midranges were I to insist (without data) and report that it provides a fatter sound?
There is nothing wrong with assuming that something is B.S. until proven otherwise. One may not always be right, but it is a more efficient way of doing things and those of us that adhere to this methodology are generally more gracious about being proven wrong. The simple fact is that B.S. is in much greater abundance (entropy?). This of course runs contrary to much of the audiophile code of ethics which states that: the most inefficient, least understood, or expensive way of doing something must yield the best result.
😉
Keeping this mind, there are a million bottles of snake oil we could examine and test. Emperically or otherwise... much like Edison and his light bulb.
While a valid method, we all should know a bit more these days and those that choose to rely on reason rather than chance should not be chastised for doing so. How many of us would rub butter on our midranges were I to insist (without data) and report that it provides a fatter sound?
There is nothing wrong with assuming that something is B.S. until proven otherwise. One may not always be right, but it is a more efficient way of doing things and those of us that adhere to this methodology are generally more gracious about being proven wrong. The simple fact is that B.S. is in much greater abundance (entropy?). This of course runs contrary to much of the audiophile code of ethics which states that: the most inefficient, least understood, or expensive way of doing something must yield the best result.
😉
poobah said:
Elegantly argued and probably very close to what I would have said, had I the nous to have said it.
7N7
Konnichiwa,
The fallacy of this is so self evident, it needs little comment.
With a position like that we would still be in the stone age (or never evven gotten there). This kind of approach is not just non-scientific, it is actually ANTI scientific, ANTI progressive, it is not even conservative, it is pure reactionary religeous dogma.
Q.E.D.
Sayonara
poobah said:
The fallacy of this is so self evident, it needs little comment.
With a position like that we would still be in the stone age (or never evven gotten there). This kind of approach is not just non-scientific, it is actually ANTI scientific, ANTI progressive, it is not even conservative, it is pure reactionary religeous dogma.
Q.E.D.
Sayonara
I strongly disagree. The naive acceptance, by people who should have more common sense, of unsubstantiated claims made by unscrupulous profiteering charlatans is what puts food on the snake-oil salesman's table. Hardly pro-scientific, is it?
It was gullibility, stupidity, lack of common sense and other unfortunate human traits that led to the persecution of witches. Is that what you call progress?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.