C37 makes *any* speaker better?
As far as C37 is concerned I expect it would give different results on different speakers. I think it would be more valid for someone to market a pre-treated speaker known to respond well to being treated with C37 rather than just offering bottles of the stuff purporting to transform Tandys into Tannoys. Everybody is going to apply it differently and under different conditions of temperature and humidity. Part of the results would have to depend on pure luck.
As far as C37 is concerned I expect it would give different results on different speakers. I think it would be more valid for someone to market a pre-treated speaker known to respond well to being treated with C37 rather than just offering bottles of the stuff purporting to transform Tandys into Tannoys. Everybody is going to apply it differently and under different conditions of temperature and humidity. Part of the results would have to depend on pure luck.
Bobken said:
Out of many thousands of abused engines, I have never seen any piston crown which has cracked or broken as if by some hard object, except by collisions with valves, or whatever.
Of course, sophisticated engines (my own twin turbo is an example) have (several) 'sensors' located around the cylinder block, which will immediately signal the engine management system to adjust either the fuel or ignition timing or both (or reduce boost pressure, if appropriate) so that the problem is (or should be!) alleviated before any such permanent damage occurs.
Regards,
Yes neither have I - I have seen plenty of melted and burned ones though.
However, I have also seen a different kind of piston damage.
In a particular case that I can recall the detonation had been such, that the first ring land had disintegrated, releasing the first piston ring.
The results of this can be imagined; there was no evidence of any burning; this had a been a sudden, violent catastrophic failure (in a turbo engine - a Lancia Integrale) caused by an incompetant person developing what he thought was a "super chip".
7N7
Hi Steve,
Good to see some comon-sense and endeavour in this thread.
I am particularly pleased, as it was me who first broke up the cosy clique of bigots who were spouting off once again about something which they have absolutely no personal knowledge of.
Having watched the thread unfold for some 20 posts, it reminded me of my schooldays, some 50 yrs ago, when my chums and I would all congregate behind the bike-sheds, and choke on the fags we had pinched, and have a good old snigger about sex, which we (then!) all knew nothing about either!
Mostly I reckon they are just 'review jockeys' who have read about something somewhere and then wish show off and perpetrate their myths, which is fine by me, except that it distorts the situations so badly that it is likely to adversely affect the thoughts of newcomers, which is a shame. Before I joined up, I believed it was about DIY audio, and *advancing* the art or science, or whatever of audio, but in reality it seems more about arguing the toss and being pedantic and entirely avoiding the true issues at all costs!
As you might have seen, since joining at Xmas, I have posted many comments similar to your own, and the result is always a wall of over-reaction, and pseudo technical nonsense which is supposedly 'proof' that what I have actually done, is not possible, or whatever!
One of the regular tactics is "you can't prove" what you say, or, if the reasons for the efficacy of the product or mod aren't well understood, it automatically follows that it is bogus.
When I respond that they cannot 'prove' that, for example, it is Sunday today either, so by their same yardstick it cannot be, you can just imagine the response to that!
Also, if I politely point out that, for example, most people don't understand the workings of a common car engine (and that doesn't make them ineffective nor prevent anyone from using them every day), I get silly nit picking pedantic retorts (always incorrect in their content!) which are merely argumentative, and entirely beside the point, anyway.
The ridiculous thing is, even if I was totally ignorant about car engines, myself (like most other people), it has absolutely no bearing on the matter, whatsoever, and I merely used this example to illustrate a point or principle, which was apparently way beyond the scope of their closed minds.
As with nearly all of these types of ineffective 'credibility destructions', I will defend what I originally said when attacked in this way, but it is all just smokescreening, rather time-wasting, and never anything to do with the subject matter.
Reading *properly*almost anything I have posted seems to be a major problem too, for several of them, but as far as any logic or clear-thinking is concerned, you may as well just forget it.
Anyway, after some 40 years of audio involvement, and with the latter 30 or so being spent in 'listening' trials of every single component imaginable (following the quite accidental discovery that all 'similar' components simply do not sound alike, whatever the theory, or conventional wisdom may suggest) I have reached some very definite conclusions which I will defend vigorously.
These are, firstly, every component in the audio chain has some (albeit in most cases very slight) deleterious affect on the sound, so wherever possible it is preferable to minimise components rather than use over-complicated circuits, as these normally miniscule abberations are cumulative, and will tend to reduce fidelity.
Secondly, as far as the 'goodness-factor' in audio goes, about two thirds is usually attributable to the basic circuit design, and probably about one third is due to the careful choice of optimised components.
Of course, there is no way of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and the basic design does need to be carefully engineered and stable in the first place, but this is by no means the end of the matter with regard to the *full potential* of any design.
Using tweaks, or special applications/materials etc., comes under the 'optimisation' category, and they again, can and do make a worthwhile improvement if they are carefully chosen.
I have some instances to quote, if needs be, to show that I have even demonstrated such potential 'improvements' to illustrious audio gurus (with their own circuit designs) who were previously staunch 'objectivists' and who had otherwise followed the usual 'LCR Rules' , and 'all capacitors sound alike' doctrines etc., but for now I will keep them to myself.
Sufficient to say that these potential changes to the overall sound are not in any way illusory, and those who continually (for whatever reason) maintain this cannot be so, are simply mistaken.
There has been some (derisory, in intent) talk of much more 'significant' discussions on this Forum, than 'mere' components, but when you look carefully into them, a lot of it is rehashed indoctrination, based on what was thought to be correct over 30 years ago, and life (and wisdom)has moved on a little since then.
What is similarly stupid about these detractors, is that they don't ever seem to realise that maybe (some of) we 'tinkerers' also have a good engineering understanding, access to some quite good measuring equipment, and that we also take full advantage of the basic principles involved in this area of electronics too, but, at the end of the day, we actually listen to our audio equipment for enjoyment, and not merely measure it, so I will always go with what my ears tell me, in the end.
If only they could open their eyes (and ears!) they might also realise that we can fully appreciate the best of *both* of these approaches, as I certainly do, and quite a lot of the time (when we ultimately understand exactly what does need to be measured, and precisely how) there are very few 'clashes' in reality between these two methodologies, as well!
Regards,
Good to see some comon-sense and endeavour in this thread.
I am particularly pleased, as it was me who first broke up the cosy clique of bigots who were spouting off once again about something which they have absolutely no personal knowledge of.
Having watched the thread unfold for some 20 posts, it reminded me of my schooldays, some 50 yrs ago, when my chums and I would all congregate behind the bike-sheds, and choke on the fags we had pinched, and have a good old snigger about sex, which we (then!) all knew nothing about either!
Mostly I reckon they are just 'review jockeys' who have read about something somewhere and then wish show off and perpetrate their myths, which is fine by me, except that it distorts the situations so badly that it is likely to adversely affect the thoughts of newcomers, which is a shame. Before I joined up, I believed it was about DIY audio, and *advancing* the art or science, or whatever of audio, but in reality it seems more about arguing the toss and being pedantic and entirely avoiding the true issues at all costs!
As you might have seen, since joining at Xmas, I have posted many comments similar to your own, and the result is always a wall of over-reaction, and pseudo technical nonsense which is supposedly 'proof' that what I have actually done, is not possible, or whatever!
One of the regular tactics is "you can't prove" what you say, or, if the reasons for the efficacy of the product or mod aren't well understood, it automatically follows that it is bogus.
When I respond that they cannot 'prove' that, for example, it is Sunday today either, so by their same yardstick it cannot be, you can just imagine the response to that!
Also, if I politely point out that, for example, most people don't understand the workings of a common car engine (and that doesn't make them ineffective nor prevent anyone from using them every day), I get silly nit picking pedantic retorts (always incorrect in their content!) which are merely argumentative, and entirely beside the point, anyway.
The ridiculous thing is, even if I was totally ignorant about car engines, myself (like most other people), it has absolutely no bearing on the matter, whatsoever, and I merely used this example to illustrate a point or principle, which was apparently way beyond the scope of their closed minds.
As with nearly all of these types of ineffective 'credibility destructions', I will defend what I originally said when attacked in this way, but it is all just smokescreening, rather time-wasting, and never anything to do with the subject matter.
Reading *properly*almost anything I have posted seems to be a major problem too, for several of them, but as far as any logic or clear-thinking is concerned, you may as well just forget it.
Anyway, after some 40 years of audio involvement, and with the latter 30 or so being spent in 'listening' trials of every single component imaginable (following the quite accidental discovery that all 'similar' components simply do not sound alike, whatever the theory, or conventional wisdom may suggest) I have reached some very definite conclusions which I will defend vigorously.
These are, firstly, every component in the audio chain has some (albeit in most cases very slight) deleterious affect on the sound, so wherever possible it is preferable to minimise components rather than use over-complicated circuits, as these normally miniscule abberations are cumulative, and will tend to reduce fidelity.
Secondly, as far as the 'goodness-factor' in audio goes, about two thirds is usually attributable to the basic circuit design, and probably about one third is due to the careful choice of optimised components.
Of course, there is no way of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and the basic design does need to be carefully engineered and stable in the first place, but this is by no means the end of the matter with regard to the *full potential* of any design.
Using tweaks, or special applications/materials etc., comes under the 'optimisation' category, and they again, can and do make a worthwhile improvement if they are carefully chosen.
I have some instances to quote, if needs be, to show that I have even demonstrated such potential 'improvements' to illustrious audio gurus (with their own circuit designs) who were previously staunch 'objectivists' and who had otherwise followed the usual 'LCR Rules' , and 'all capacitors sound alike' doctrines etc., but for now I will keep them to myself.
Sufficient to say that these potential changes to the overall sound are not in any way illusory, and those who continually (for whatever reason) maintain this cannot be so, are simply mistaken.
There has been some (derisory, in intent) talk of much more 'significant' discussions on this Forum, than 'mere' components, but when you look carefully into them, a lot of it is rehashed indoctrination, based on what was thought to be correct over 30 years ago, and life (and wisdom)has moved on a little since then.
What is similarly stupid about these detractors, is that they don't ever seem to realise that maybe (some of) we 'tinkerers' also have a good engineering understanding, access to some quite good measuring equipment, and that we also take full advantage of the basic principles involved in this area of electronics too, but, at the end of the day, we actually listen to our audio equipment for enjoyment, and not merely measure it, so I will always go with what my ears tell me, in the end.
If only they could open their eyes (and ears!) they might also realise that we can fully appreciate the best of *both* of these approaches, as I certainly do, and quite a lot of the time (when we ultimately understand exactly what does need to be measured, and precisely how) there are very few 'clashes' in reality between these two methodologies, as well!
Regards,
Bobken said:
Hi,
SNIP
The point that I made to Keld was that this type of damage results in initially softened and 'melting' of piston crowns, which do not "look like someone has whacked the piston with a hammer", as he had suggested. Out of many thousands of abused engines, I have never seen any piston crown which has cracked or broken as if by some hard object, except by collisions with valves, or whatever.
Of course, sophisticated engines (my own twin turbo is an example) have (several) 'sensors' located around the cylinder block, which will immediately signal the engine management system to adjust either the fuel or ignition timing or both (or reduce boost pressure, if appropriate) so that the problem is (or should be!) alleviated before any such permanent damage occurs.
Regards,
Hi
I spend hours yesterday looking for the pistons so I could send some pics but they are hiding somewhere in a BIG mess. So for now I will descripe the damage: the top of the pistons where dented and cracks going down all the way down to the skirts? no evidence of any mechanical hits like valves or other parts hittting it. actually the engine was in working order before we pulled it apart becase it was loosing power and had some mysterius sounds. the engine was a 1100ccm motocycle engine with turbo, no sensors
a lambda sond was under construction but arrived to late. we suspect the failure was due to under/wrongdimensioned fuel system.Keld/ who have more knowledge in motors than in audio. Which actually dont tell you a thing
7, under "Accessories" you should have a character map- maybe the codes are different for British OS? And I assume you ARE keeping the alt key depressed while you type in the number code?
Sorry, when stuff like this doesn't work, it bugs me and I go into troubleshooting mode.
Windows is the only OS where to shut it down, you first hit "Start."
Sorry, when stuff like this doesn't work, it bugs me and I go into troubleshooting mode.
Windows is the only OS where to shut it down, you first hit "Start."
FINE TUNING THE AUDIO SYSTEM.
Hi Bob,
You said it all and eloquently too.
Having been around at the forum a little longer than yourself, I was shocked to see that so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people still stuck to standard design procedures for their own designs.
A resistor is a resistor is a resistor, ad nauseum etc., etc.
While other members do their utmost to fine tune their designs,paying attention to all imaginable detail, it is often very hard for them to describe exactly what the effect *sounds* like of say, swapping a standard electrolytic cap for a film cap, the effect is there nonetheless.
Here on the continent a lot of fellow *philes* exchanged experiences already some thirty years ago and most us have to thank French audio guru Jean Hiraga for pointing us in the right direction.
He himself had learned about it from the Japanese audio community.
Now, some thirty years later I can only conclude that people are just too lazy or to closed minded to actually do some testing for themselves.
The general idea is that they still think of their circuits as being great when they get away with the most simple of PSUs and circuits all stuffed with the most ordinary components.
In their mind:
An expensive passive component = ripp off.
A regulated PSU = a waste of money.
Cables = anything conductive is good enough.
And so on and so on....
All I can say is that 99% of even the priciest audio gear can be improved upon since there have always been corners cut somewhere between the initial design and the final production run.
Paying attention to even the smallest detail, even when no improvement was expected often did improve the system IME.
It helps when you have friends doing similar mods than yourself, after all human beings rely on feedback form the outside world to confirm that they're on the right track or not.
BTW, the effects of C37 on LS cones have been discussed here already and belongs to the Loudspeaker section of the forum IMO
, not the Tube section anyway.
Engine discussions are better served in the Everything Else section and as you state yourself: it was only an example to show an analogy.
Now, if people starting a new thread would clearly formulate their intentions that would be a great step forward too.
Not only would they be better served, there would be less chance for wild speculation and sidetracking in the thread too.
Cheers,
Hi Bob,
You said it all and eloquently too.
Having been around at the forum a little longer than yourself, I was shocked to see that so many otherwise seemingly intelligent people still stuck to standard design procedures for their own designs.
A resistor is a resistor is a resistor, ad nauseum etc., etc.
While other members do their utmost to fine tune their designs,paying attention to all imaginable detail, it is often very hard for them to describe exactly what the effect *sounds* like of say, swapping a standard electrolytic cap for a film cap, the effect is there nonetheless.
Here on the continent a lot of fellow *philes* exchanged experiences already some thirty years ago and most us have to thank French audio guru Jean Hiraga for pointing us in the right direction.
He himself had learned about it from the Japanese audio community.
Now, some thirty years later I can only conclude that people are just too lazy or to closed minded to actually do some testing for themselves.
The general idea is that they still think of their circuits as being great when they get away with the most simple of PSUs and circuits all stuffed with the most ordinary components.
In their mind:
An expensive passive component = ripp off.
A regulated PSU = a waste of money.
Cables = anything conductive is good enough.
And so on and so on....
All I can say is that 99% of even the priciest audio gear can be improved upon since there have always been corners cut somewhere between the initial design and the final production run.
Paying attention to even the smallest detail, even when no improvement was expected often did improve the system IME.
It helps when you have friends doing similar mods than yourself, after all human beings rely on feedback form the outside world to confirm that they're on the right track or not.
BTW, the effects of C37 on LS cones have been discussed here already and belongs to the Loudspeaker section of the forum IMO
, not the Tube section anyway.
Engine discussions are better served in the Everything Else section and as you state yourself: it was only an example to show an analogy.
Now, if people starting a new thread would clearly formulate their intentions that would be a great step forward too.
Not only would they be better served, there would be less chance for wild speculation and sidetracking in the thread too.
Cheers,
SY said:
Hello again Sy,
I must say I am amazed that you are so patient with this; I used to rage and rant (sometimes still do) but these days I feel that I am doing myself more good simply by walking away. I can live without cedillas - but not without my valves and my music!
I am holding down the ALT key as originally instructed. I went to START/Programs/Accessories; and had a look around, but there is no character map.
Thanks for all your efforts - you are too, too kind!!
Best
7N7
Re: C37 makes *any* speaker better?
There's nothing mysterious whatever about coatings changing the sound of cones; if nothing else, they change the mass, stiffness, and damping, not always for the better. And there's nothing special about mysterious goops. Speaker cone dope is quite available commercially at hugely lower prices than these scammers are charging.
Anything applied to a cone, from dope to Elmer's Glue-All, will change its sound- the idea that one particular material universally makes for improvement is laughable. All cone geometries and materials are different! The pure luck is that this PARTICULAR goo yields an improvement to this PARTICULAR cone made out of this PARTICULAR material with this PARTICULAR surround attachment...
Hand applying coatings is an invitation to inconsistency, as you well observe. Like halo, I believe that the guys at Scan Speak and Audax have done a pretty good job of looking at cone treatments, and the measurements and sound of their drivers is pretty good evidence of that.
Circlotron said:
There's nothing mysterious whatever about coatings changing the sound of cones; if nothing else, they change the mass, stiffness, and damping, not always for the better. And there's nothing special about mysterious goops. Speaker cone dope is quite available commercially at hugely lower prices than these scammers are charging.
Anything applied to a cone, from dope to Elmer's Glue-All, will change its sound- the idea that one particular material universally makes for improvement is laughable. All cone geometries and materials are different! The pure luck is that this PARTICULAR goo yields an improvement to this PARTICULAR cone made out of this PARTICULAR material with this PARTICULAR surround attachment...
Hand applying coatings is an invitation to inconsistency, as you well observe. Like halo, I believe that the guys at Scan Speak and Audax have done a pretty good job of looking at cone treatments, and the measurements and sound of their drivers is pretty good evidence of that.
UFO's, Tubolator and C37
Folks,
As it is widely known I am quite an adherent of C37. There is very little in my system that is not in one way or the other treated.
Before I went on a rampage I have actually compared a few things, including Dammaring cones vs. C37 etc. I quickly tired of trying stuff that was worse.
Nowadays my Bedroom Stereos Drivers (old 6.5" Fullrangers from JVC, Alnico Magnet) are C37 lackquered as are the Boxes, the $ 50 little "Goodmans" Brand Tuner?CDP/Amp thing had the PCB corners rounded off and is C37 lackquered. How does it sound? VERY Musical and Enjoyable, no match for the Big rig, but it seems to share some key virtues of the big rig, I'd say that part that is "C37" Sound.
As for Mr. Altmans tubolator, well I talked to him extensively about it, however I understand that he in effect stopped sales as the minimal profit was not worth the hassle. If he sells ths Tubolator again I for one would love a small bottle.
BTW, I did discuss with him the operation principle and it makes sense, sadly I'm under obligation not to tell more. I guess you will have to ask Mr. Altman yourself.
Sayonara
Folks,
As it is widely known I am quite an adherent of C37. There is very little in my system that is not in one way or the other treated.
Before I went on a rampage I have actually compared a few things, including Dammaring cones vs. C37 etc. I quickly tired of trying stuff that was worse.
Nowadays my Bedroom Stereos Drivers (old 6.5" Fullrangers from JVC, Alnico Magnet) are C37 lackquered as are the Boxes, the $ 50 little "Goodmans" Brand Tuner?CDP/Amp thing had the PCB corners rounded off and is C37 lackquered. How does it sound? VERY Musical and Enjoyable, no match for the Big rig, but it seems to share some key virtues of the big rig, I'd say that part that is "C37" Sound.
As for Mr. Altmans tubolator, well I talked to him extensively about it, however I understand that he in effect stopped sales as the minimal profit was not worth the hassle. If he sells ths Tubolator again I for one would love a small bottle.
BTW, I did discuss with him the operation principle and it makes sense, sadly I'm under obligation not to tell more. I guess you will have to ask Mr. Altman yourself.
Sayonara
POLEMICS.
Hi,
Looking at what most people present in this section, I get the feeling that a lot of people still reject the possibilty that no two components sound the same.
I also find that engineers are often harder to convince because of the way they look at things: through the tainted glasses of their education.
The example given was indeed for polemical reasons and a general observation.
I'll be the last person to claim that because something is more expensive it is automatically better.
What I was pointing at is that a lot of DIY *designers* forget that music reproduction is a dynamic event and that static measurements do not even come close to pervey what is really going on.
When we are designing for our own use we are not limited by any commercial constraints and in that context I see a lot of opportunities go amiss because of a lack of understanding about what is really going on 'under the hood".
Cheers,
Hi,
Looking at what most people present in this section, I get the feeling that a lot of people still reject the possibilty that no two components sound the same.
I also find that engineers are often harder to convince because of the way they look at things: through the tainted glasses of their education.
The example given was indeed for polemical reasons and a general observation.
I'll be the last person to claim that because something is more expensive it is automatically better.
What I was pointing at is that a lot of DIY *designers* forget that music reproduction is a dynamic event and that static measurements do not even come close to pervey what is really going on.
When we are designing for our own use we are not limited by any commercial constraints and in that context I see a lot of opportunities go amiss because of a lack of understanding about what is really going on 'under the hood".
Cheers,
Hi Circlotron and 7N7,
Firstly, please be assured that when I posted my comments to Steve in #83, I had not seen either of these two replies, and accordingly, I was not referring to these particular posts when I mentioned the time-wasting and irrelevant comments of others.
I must have been preparing the rather long message to Steve and having my lunch when you both posted these.
I could talk about engines for ever if it was up to me, as next to audio, mechanical engineering (including automotive, aeronautical, and hydraulics etc.) have occupied virtually my entire life for just over 45 years (both for pleasure and for remuneration) and for the 15 years previously, when I was younger, I was into building/repairing bikes and any manner of other interesting things!
However, it is off topic and I don't wish to have any more grumbles about what I have to say, so I'll keep this (a bit!) shorter than usual.
Yes, the sounds of detonation are quite interesting and quite 'musical', on occasions (harmonically related) as I know well from operating an engine test-bed (brake dynomometer), but the best (or worst!) I ever experienced were when at 'full chat' I witnessed a con-rod exiting from the side of a crankcase right by me, and bits flew all over the room!
This was the only time I was truly glad I was wearing regulation *brown* overalls! Smell it? I'm sitting in it!!!!
Hi Keld too, I have just seen your latest post when looking back at what 7N7 said.
With regard to the kind of damage you both refer to (It seems to be quite similar) I would guess that this is due to several things, but as I always maintained, it would not be the result of *one* single explosion.
Fatigue cracks can form due to the work-hardening of the alloy used in pistons (a good reason for using titanium if it could be afforded!), and this will frequently result in the kind of damage you describe.
I believe it is incipient from perhaps running at an earlier time with maybe too lean a mixture, or whatever, and it takes time to develop before the catastrophic results show, or, alternatively, it may even not be noticed until strip-down, as Keld had found.
As I said before, don't forget the speeds (revolutions) and centrifugal forces we are dealing with here, when in only a single second an engine turning at say 12,000 RPM (not unusual for a 'racer') revolves 200 times in a single second! The rotating and recipricating forces, if you calculate them, are simply astronomical with probably many (possibly hundreds) tons per square inch/centimeter etc., being experienced when a piston changes direction from going up to down, or the other way.
Also, the alloy used in pistons (usually) will go into a semi-plastic state at 'unsuitably' high temperatures too, and although the piston may stay in one piece, distortions and deformations in shape like you have described could be the result of this effect.
The heat involved is terrific at the time of the 'explosion' at each revolution (quite apart from bore/piston friction) and valves will be glowing white hot (hence sodium-filled valve stems, to try to dissipate this heat) and it is a wonder to me that such engines stay together at all.
A lot, where longevity goes, will depend on whether the pistons are forged (much stronger and less liable to incipient cracking) or cast, which can break up more readily under such stress.
Incidentally, the finest bit of engineering I ever saw (and worked on) in this respect was the V 16 BRM racing engine, many, many years ago.
This had 16 (of course!) pistons which altogether amounted to a displacement of only about 1 to 1.5 litres (it was so long ago, I don't know for sure) so you can imagine how tiny each one was.
They looked like little sewing cotton reels, but beautifully machined etc., but because largely due to the complicated desmodromic valves (no valve springs, they were positively closed by cams etc!) the engine was rather unreliable, unfortunately, and it never did very well in racing.
Ah, those were the days!!
(I used to be fast enough to catch the girls I was chasing, too!)
Regards,
Firstly, please be assured that when I posted my comments to Steve in #83, I had not seen either of these two replies, and accordingly, I was not referring to these particular posts when I mentioned the time-wasting and irrelevant comments of others.
I must have been preparing the rather long message to Steve and having my lunch when you both posted these.
I could talk about engines for ever if it was up to me, as next to audio, mechanical engineering (including automotive, aeronautical, and hydraulics etc.) have occupied virtually my entire life for just over 45 years (both for pleasure and for remuneration) and for the 15 years previously, when I was younger, I was into building/repairing bikes and any manner of other interesting things!
However, it is off topic and I don't wish to have any more grumbles about what I have to say, so I'll keep this (a bit!) shorter than usual.
Yes, the sounds of detonation are quite interesting and quite 'musical', on occasions (harmonically related) as I know well from operating an engine test-bed (brake dynomometer), but the best (or worst!) I ever experienced were when at 'full chat' I witnessed a con-rod exiting from the side of a crankcase right by me, and bits flew all over the room!
This was the only time I was truly glad I was wearing regulation *brown* overalls! Smell it? I'm sitting in it!!!!
Hi Keld too, I have just seen your latest post when looking back at what 7N7 said.
With regard to the kind of damage you both refer to (It seems to be quite similar) I would guess that this is due to several things, but as I always maintained, it would not be the result of *one* single explosion.
Fatigue cracks can form due to the work-hardening of the alloy used in pistons (a good reason for using titanium if it could be afforded!), and this will frequently result in the kind of damage you describe.
I believe it is incipient from perhaps running at an earlier time with maybe too lean a mixture, or whatever, and it takes time to develop before the catastrophic results show, or, alternatively, it may even not be noticed until strip-down, as Keld had found.
As I said before, don't forget the speeds (revolutions) and centrifugal forces we are dealing with here, when in only a single second an engine turning at say 12,000 RPM (not unusual for a 'racer') revolves 200 times in a single second! The rotating and recipricating forces, if you calculate them, are simply astronomical with probably many (possibly hundreds) tons per square inch/centimeter etc., being experienced when a piston changes direction from going up to down, or the other way.
Also, the alloy used in pistons (usually) will go into a semi-plastic state at 'unsuitably' high temperatures too, and although the piston may stay in one piece, distortions and deformations in shape like you have described could be the result of this effect.
The heat involved is terrific at the time of the 'explosion' at each revolution (quite apart from bore/piston friction) and valves will be glowing white hot (hence sodium-filled valve stems, to try to dissipate this heat) and it is a wonder to me that such engines stay together at all.
A lot, where longevity goes, will depend on whether the pistons are forged (much stronger and less liable to incipient cracking) or cast, which can break up more readily under such stress.
Incidentally, the finest bit of engineering I ever saw (and worked on) in this respect was the V 16 BRM racing engine, many, many years ago.
This had 16 (of course!) pistons which altogether amounted to a displacement of only about 1 to 1.5 litres (it was so long ago, I don't know for sure) so you can imagine how tiny each one was.
They looked like little sewing cotton reels, but beautifully machined etc., but because largely due to the complicated desmodromic valves (no valve springs, they were positively closed by cams etc!) the engine was rather unreliable, unfortunately, and it never did very well in racing.
Ah, those were the days!!
(I used to be fast enough to catch the girls I was chasing, too!)
Regards,
Frank, so that would be a "no," then.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, skepticism about wild claims presented with no evidence (but with a hefty price tag!) comes not from education (I have no education in engineering), but from experience. I wasted years chasing ghosts, but understanding the need for valid subjective tests (a damned hard lesson) put me on a more fruitful path. I've made far more progress in making my system sound "real" since I started sweating the important stuff and left the magic for those who don't want to tackle the hard issues.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, skepticism about wild claims presented with no evidence (but with a hefty price tag!) comes not from education (I have no education in engineering), but from experience. I wasted years chasing ghosts, but understanding the need for valid subjective tests (a damned hard lesson) put me on a more fruitful path. I've made far more progress in making my system sound "real" since I started sweating the important stuff and left the magic for those who don't want to tackle the hard issues.
SY said:
I have, I've been around the Holco factory in Holsworthy in Devon, but this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with any discovery about their resistor's particular 'sound'.
They are one of the finer precision resistors made, and they used to be made with copper leads and endcaps, when they were the made by the 'old' original Holsworthy company.
Since they were taken over by (merged with?) Meggitt, for economic reasons (fewer returns due to 'mechanical' failures) the leads and endcaps have been changed and are now magnetic (which indicates the presence of some steel or nickel in their manufacture), and, apparently, all of the audiophiles say they are less good sonically now, and they don't like them.
Interestingly, the resistive elements are exactly the same, and with only the leadouts being different, how do you account for this under your various hypotheses?
Regards,
HOLCO.
Hi,
Tensile strength is an important factor here...very few manufacturers care about "the sound" of their product.
Enter the "boutique" products where with some luck, large quantity orders and a lot of cash you can have your own product made to order.
Magnetic leadouts will definitely degrade the sound, no doubt in my mind about that.
It often shows as a harsh midrange glare.
The only way to get custom components made to spec. is when you can do a group order of considerable size and tell the manufacturer exactly how to make it.
I don't believe in magic, never will.
Having an understanding of what is going on is more important.
Throwing any amount of cash at something that is basically wrong never helped anyone.
When the Altmann people say...oh well, we've pulled the product from the market because there was not enough money in it I read:
We simply couldn't sell enough of it, there was no real demand.
At 59 $ for a few drops I can't believe the profit margin wasn't high enough though.
That's just my dose of healthy skepticism,
Hi,
Tensile strength is an important factor here...very few manufacturers care about "the sound" of their product.
Enter the "boutique" products where with some luck, large quantity orders and a lot of cash you can have your own product made to order.
Magnetic leadouts will definitely degrade the sound, no doubt in my mind about that.
It often shows as a harsh midrange glare.
The only way to get custom components made to spec. is when you can do a group order of considerable size and tell the manufacturer exactly how to make it.
I don't believe in magic, never will.
Having an understanding of what is going on is more important.
Throwing any amount of cash at something that is basically wrong never helped anyone.
When the Altmann people say...oh well, we've pulled the product from the market because there was not enough money in it I read:
We simply couldn't sell enough of it, there was no real demand.
At 59 $ for a few drops I can't believe the profit margin wasn't high enough though.
That's just my dose of healthy skepticism,
You missed the point. In resistor manufacture, there's no correlation between direction of ANYTHING and where the painted bands end up.
I don't try to explain anecdotes, whether UFO abductions, crystal power, religious healing, or resistor direction. It's uninteresting. Data from measurement or valid subjective testing is a different story. Haven't seen any yet.
I don't try to explain anecdotes, whether UFO abductions, crystal power, religious healing, or resistor direction. It's uninteresting. Data from measurement or valid subjective testing is a different story. Haven't seen any yet.
SY said:
Hi,
On the contrary, once again, because of your complete inability to even read properly, *you have missed the point*, not me!
I responded directly to a (another!) totally irrelevant comment of yours, where you (sneeringly IMHO) referred to whether someone else had ever seen resistors being manufactured.
I did not mention anything about a resistor's direction at any time, but, instead, I referred to *a change in sound with merely a change in leadout material*!!!!!
Also, can you please explain how that is in any way "anecdotal", or is this just another of your faux pas?
Interestingly, and for your edification, Holcos are all black in colour, with no bands on them as their values are written on their body in white.
Once again, when the chips are down (or rather when some salient facts are brought into the discussion) we get the usual cop-out!!!
I guess I'll just get used to the show of ill-manners when you use capital letters, but, as you are such an asserted keyboard expert, I am a little surprised at it.
Regards,
Actually, Peter, that's not true. The pieces of the resistors are assembled with no particular orientation. Bowl feeders are normally used to deliver the pieces to assembly jigs; the feeders do not orient things directionally with respect to the original manufacture. What I mean by this (I can't talk with my hands here) is that if you look at a ceramic bar and label its direction L--->R, there will be just as many L->R bits placed on the assembly jig as R->L bits. Likewise lead directions, endcap stamping orientation...
Bob, you might want to go back and read that link. The fellow there talked about stripe orientation specifically. And my comments about anecdote versus data was specifically directed at your question about materials used in lead outs, as well as the resistor guy's "observation" about stripes.
Bob, you might want to go back and read that link. The fellow there talked about stripe orientation specifically. And my comments about anecdote versus data was specifically directed at your question about materials used in lead outs, as well as the resistor guy's "observation" about stripes.
SY said:
On this occasion, I must agree with you SY, as I also know that this is what happens in the manufacture of both resistors (and capacitors, usually).
I have posted more than once that this is precisely my own concern when 'sexing' resistors, since I haven't (yet!) managed to think of any way in which an initial 'known' positive directionality could be established, unlike plastic film caps, the sexing of which I have expanded upon elsewhere in another thread.
Accordingly, possibly with one or maybe two resistors in a circuit, I might just hear some (if there is any) difference, but it will mean that *every* resistor has to be chosen *only* by ear.
Although I wouldn't say that is *impossible*, I have little faith in my own ability to positively determine any chosen resistor's orientation in say an average amp circuit with perhaps 20 or more resistors in each channel.
Statistically, one will inevitably be starting off with about 50% of them the wrong way around, which will tend to mask any possible differences, anyway, and to choose the correct orientation under these circumstances, one by one, is beyond even my (almost!) unbounding patience and determination.
However, I am certainly not going to state that there can be *no differences* (as 30 years ago, I also wrongly believed that about caps), and this is one of the cases where I will simply keep an open mind until I know, for sure, one way or the other.
Nevertheless, with most other components it is possible to choose (by careful listening tests) better sounding components, and use certain techniques or applications which are effective under certain circumstances,
and I will certainly continue to adopt this methodology, simply because I know it is effective, and that it *will* lead to improvements in the resultant sound.
What amazes me, like Frank it seems, is that so many apparently intelligent people will instantly dismiss any or all such thoughts, without even having tried them out for themselves.
You are all really missing out on something, unfortunately, but that is entirely your own business (or "lookout", as Prof. Jacob Bronowski used to say) but I don't believe it is in the interests of many newcomers to DIY audio to discourage them from trying out some things for themselves.
I also, won't spend 'vast sums' on any unknowns, as I have made clear, but if I was sure from my own trials that any such product was effective, as mrfeedback said, the cost for an improvement like this could well be justified.
I simply don't know about this particular product, Tubeolator, as I haven't tried it yet.
Regards,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.