Do I smell chicken here?
Without having ever done the experiment, I think you have already exposed your quack thinking regarding this issue. You are absolutely certain about yourself when it comes to your findings, and you want everyone else here to accept them without doubt, no matter how implausible they are. But when someone else challenges your findings by offering to test them objectively, instead of accepting the challenge, you dodge it! That doesnt sound too confident all of a sudden, does it?
Oops, posted too early! You and I were replying simultaneously. You picked up the glove, sorry about my rant.
Hi,
If the tube really acts as an antenna, I suggest to keep the tube inside the player for greater effect.
The point of having six possibilities per session is that a dice throw only has six possible outcomes, and that determines when/if a tube will be (dis)connected during the listening of that particular tune. The dice is obiously there to eliminate any tendencies I have that my wife might be aware of. Also, I don't want to play the tune more than four times, I don't want to bore my wife stiff...
The false change is a good one, I will touch the soldering iron to the tube's wire during the playing of each tune, regardless if I'm going to unsolder it or not. That way, any wee bit of possible interference will be heard during each playing, and not betray a change.
If the tube really acts as an antenna, I suggest to keep the tube inside the player for greater effect.
The point of having six possibilities per session is that a dice throw only has six possible outcomes, and that determines when/if a tube will be (dis)connected during the listening of that particular tune. The dice is obiously there to eliminate any tendencies I have that my wife might be aware of. Also, I don't want to play the tune more than four times, I don't want to bore my wife stiff...
The false change is a good one, I will touch the soldering iron to the tube's wire during the playing of each tune, regardless if I'm going to unsolder it or not. That way, any wee bit of possible interference will be heard during each playing, and not betray a change.
timpert said:
No problems. Of course I hope that your experiment confirm my results but, being again a work in progress, is not a real problem.
If confirmed, this phenomenon should reveal itself just as a particular case of a more general question: the influence of devices connected to ground (where chassis and bulky devices as trasformers came first) in defining correct or uncorrect path of discharge of electrostatic and high frequency nuisances to ground, which should be preferably "some" grounds and not generically "grounds" intended as random and unpredictable routes of discharging nuisances.
Piercarlo
Okay, we'll do the test tonight and I'll report my findings here. I am out of here for several hours now, because I need to eat too. Oh yeah, and prepare an experiment 🙂
timpert said:
Ok, im'waiting for exits of test. However don't worry too about: take the entire question just as an interesting curiosity! 🙂
Piercarlo
Piercarlo said:
If so, you ought to be able to achieve similar results simply by placing the tube inside the chassis. It need not even be wired to the CD player. For that matter, you may not require an actual tube at all - just something with similar "geometric properties". Maybe something like a carrot, or a pickle, or a small banana.
Try sticking cylindrical fruits and vegetables in your CD player, and tell us how they sound.
SY said:Piercarlo, I pulled your last post. Personal attacks are against forum rules.
Ok, no problem. There was not intended as personal attack but just as an invite to consider the silence as a better option than inconcludent hoaxing... Or alternatively: is better to say "I've not understood that you mean", instead of saying amenities on vegetables, bananas and so on...
Thanks
Piercarlo
SY said:
No. My book of electrostatic don't tell anything about vegetables. It talk only of geometric properties of conductors: should be updated?
Piercarlo
You've assumed, with no supporting evidence, that the effect you claim that you hear is due to electrostatics or something like that. Why not open your mind a bit and allow that it could be an acoustical resonance effect?
BTW, most fruits and vegetables have non-negligible conductivity due to the water and electrolyte content. MUCH higher conductivity than needed for anti-stat purposes.
BTW, most fruits and vegetables have non-negligible conductivity due to the water and electrolyte content. MUCH higher conductivity than needed for anti-stat purposes.
The question that comes to my mind re the pickle experiment after switching polarity.
Will it blend?
Will it blend?
SY said:
1) first: because of a serious hearing deficiency, I could hear music at normal level only with headphones. No acoustic resonance may be involved because there are not loudspeakers exciting it.
2) Second: the phenomenon is dependent from grounding points selected: that's where the effect is magnified are grounding near outputs of the player (this is not evident from the photo of DVD player because it's PCB is very compact; but has emerged from the Philips player, with a more extended PCB).
I've claim the effect "electrostatic" in lacking of a better word for calling it. Phenomenon seem rely on a something "surrounding" the circuit instead on the circuit itself. The most probable thing is some tupe of field originated by circuit and "catched" by the electrode structure of tube. Field that are mainly present in digital player; similar experiment conducted on normal amplifiers has produced not result at all.
Now i know that it may be a simple problem of screening of irradiated RF noise by the digital circuitry of the players. Is not this in doubt. The real doubt reside instead in the possibility that some "well sound" usually associated to digital players equipped with tubes in their output section, originated not from the circuital peculiarities of tubes with their transfer characteristic, but indirectly on a kind of "cleaning ability" of tube itself about their electrical surrounds due just to their geometric structure.
That's all...
Piercarlo
Result!
Too late, I just did 😉
Anyhow, we did the experiment as described in post #18, with the tube connected to ground at the chassis ground point (which happens to be at the line output on my CDP) and the outcome is, well, interesting.
Before we actually started listening, I only told my wife to listen for changes and to describe them on paper if possible. I didn't tell her what I did to the CD player, or when I was going to make a change, or what to listen for, or what I expected as outcome. She was totally unbiased at the start of the experiment. To top it all off, I was in a different room with the player so she couldn't see me. I only talked to her when I was going to play a different song, not in between playings of the same song. It was all about the hearing, and nothing else.
I only changed (either put in or removed the tube) when a song was actually playing, so any difference (if real) should be immediately noticed by her.
She heard a lot of small differences between different playings of the same song, no matter if anything had changed or not. She reported no changes during a playing. Even in a control session where I didn't change anything (the tube was not present in the player during all for playings), she reported differences between playings of the same song. However, in every session, she failed to identify when I put in or removed the tube. She remarked that trying to hear changes made her very insecure about whether she heard a change or not, and very aware that she might give false positives or negatives. She touched a vital point of audio evaluation there, and I think that makes her an ace observer.
I think it is safe to conclude that the reported "big changes"which are "not nuances"are indeed the result of experimenter bias and not of a real phenomenon.
To me, this is a textbook case of audiophool whishful thinking coloring the observations of a strongly biased observer. But even before I did the experiment, I already received signals that mr. Piercarlo was not so sure in his heart about his case as he claimed to be... (post #21)
I'm goint to do something nicer now. Good night!
Too late, I just did 😉
Anyhow, we did the experiment as described in post #18, with the tube connected to ground at the chassis ground point (which happens to be at the line output on my CDP) and the outcome is, well, interesting.
Before we actually started listening, I only told my wife to listen for changes and to describe them on paper if possible. I didn't tell her what I did to the CD player, or when I was going to make a change, or what to listen for, or what I expected as outcome. She was totally unbiased at the start of the experiment. To top it all off, I was in a different room with the player so she couldn't see me. I only talked to her when I was going to play a different song, not in between playings of the same song. It was all about the hearing, and nothing else.
I only changed (either put in or removed the tube) when a song was actually playing, so any difference (if real) should be immediately noticed by her.
She heard a lot of small differences between different playings of the same song, no matter if anything had changed or not. She reported no changes during a playing. Even in a control session where I didn't change anything (the tube was not present in the player during all for playings), she reported differences between playings of the same song. However, in every session, she failed to identify when I put in or removed the tube. She remarked that trying to hear changes made her very insecure about whether she heard a change or not, and very aware that she might give false positives or negatives. She touched a vital point of audio evaluation there, and I think that makes her an ace observer.
I think it is safe to conclude that the reported "big changes"which are "not nuances"are indeed the result of experimenter bias and not of a real phenomenon.
To me, this is a textbook case of audiophool whishful thinking coloring the observations of a strongly biased observer. But even before I did the experiment, I already received signals that mr. Piercarlo was not so sure in his heart about his case as he claimed to be... (post #21)
I'm goint to do something nicer now. Good night!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.