Peter Daniel said:
It's on the internets, so it must be true.
Why is everyone so afraid of double blind testing. If you can't measure the difference between a pair of amplifiers, There's a few possible reasons.
1. Your equipment isn't sensitive enough. (You're not going to be able to detect a lot of things that happen with an audio signal on a VOM.
2. You're measuring the wrong thing.. (Even the most sensitive gear can miss huge differences if you're looking at the wrong details)
3. There is no difference.
If you can't hear the difference in a blind test it's because:
1. The test audio or conditions aren't appropriate to hear any difference.
2. There is no difference.
The testing should have a great deal of openness. not a stuffy "sample a, sample b" which is which, but a totally open, play any music you want, have the volume adjusted any way you want, change any conditions which allow you to discern by hearing alone which is which.
Only then should you state things as fact.
I can say "I think my gainclone sounds a little clearer, and less muffled in the high frequencies than my old amplifier"
But if I say it as if it's fact, and can neither measure a difference, or detect it by my ears alone (double blind) then I'm full of crap.
That's not to say there's necessarily anything wrong with using the part/cable/enclosure in question, but just admit. "I'm using this expensive cabling and fancy chassis because they look totally badass." "It's probably a waste of money, but I like the way it looks" or even because something is just theoretically better, and you're being perfectionist.
What makes me angry is when I see someone make a decision based on someone else stating "These caps sound much better, those ones sound too grainy", when the truth is that they could never tell you the difference without looking which they're listening to.
-Nick
P.S. I believe in evolution too. Any takers?
burnedfingers said:
Why don't you prove me wrong, as I don't feel a need to prove anything to you.
It's on the internets, so it's certainly waste of time.
Arx said:
Thanks for being honest. So asking for proof must be cooling down your anger?
Is it the case with you as well, Mr. burnedfingers?
Peter Daniel said:
I'm not sure I understand your comment. I probably wouldn't ask for proof myself, but read any theories presented (when there actually are any), and do some research to try and understand the reasons, and learn more about it, such that I may decide whether X part is likely to improve things, or is all in the mind of the person describing it.
Clearly if it were just myself I was worried about, I could solve the problems by asking the poster for any evedence of their statements. (In my experience, though, people get defensive at this stage)
What I hate to see is newcomers with a genuine interest in the hobby spending more money on capacitors and wire than they do on speakers and, most importantly, music.
If everyone would just be honest with both themselves and others, we'd probably make a lot more progress both on individual understanding, and as a community.
If you're just trying to make an amp that sounds decent to your ears, Your ears should easily detect it on an ABX type test.
If you're trying to make something extremely good, to levels where the difference is subtle and difficult to detect. Then really, I would think ABX testing, and measurement would both be required to remove any psychological bias.
I for one, enjoy playing with audio stuff, improving things wherever I can. It's nice having a colaborative environment to discuss ideas. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio is getting worse all the time. Some quirky theories have some small amount of scientific merit. Present them as such. "Hey, here's a crazy idea. Let's see if it works" But if you can't hear it with your unassisted ear there's not a lot of point, and you probably shouldn't be telling other people that it made your amp sound better. They're still free to try your idea, and see if it works for them, but at least they're expecting an experiment, and not a result. If you can't detect it with either an unassisted ear, or any measurement equipment you have, it's probably a good idea to move that to the "stuff that didn't work" file, and let others know as well so they can decide whether they want to experiment with something that didn't work for the inventor.
To all the golden ears types out there. If you can't hear it blind to a reasonable degree of consistancy, and you can't even measure it, presenting it as fact is basicly lying. Lying to yourself, lying to others. It doesn't do any of us any good, least of all the newcomers, who haven't the experience to properly tune their crap detectors.
-Nick
Hey Peter,
I'm not trying to start anything, but do you have any source or explanation for why the enclosure could make a sonic difference? I'm just curious, as I can't imagine how it would.
Austin
I'm not trying to start anything, but do you have any source or explanation for why the enclosure could make a sonic difference? I'm just curious, as I can't imagine how it would.
Austin
Case work sound
A wood encloser will cause no ground problems . No magnetic induction . Some people do not have the simplest measuring equipment , this is one less thing to get right . Also wood working is a skill most can master. I'm sorry to say this should have been obvious, how can an avoidable grounding problem sound good ? .
Hypex on class D amps say the reason for using balanced inputs was to avoid problems with case work . As they say double insulated designs may solve some problems , they go on to say don't bring them questions about radio breakthrough . The Hypex site is good reading .
Copper Heatsinks . For most people to get it to work is 99% a job done . My son uses water cooling on his computer, why not if you want to ?
Capacitors will sound different . Use ones made for computer switch mode power supplies . These are ideal and not expensive ( low ESR ) . 100 v polyester work well in values up to 10 uF . 10 pf to 10 nF in NPO or COG ceramics are far better than thought , if used for decoupling or stability they are devices of first choice .
A wood encloser will cause no ground problems . No magnetic induction . Some people do not have the simplest measuring equipment , this is one less thing to get right . Also wood working is a skill most can master. I'm sorry to say this should have been obvious, how can an avoidable grounding problem sound good ? .
Hypex on class D amps say the reason for using balanced inputs was to avoid problems with case work . As they say double insulated designs may solve some problems , they go on to say don't bring them questions about radio breakthrough . The Hypex site is good reading .
Copper Heatsinks . For most people to get it to work is 99% a job done . My son uses water cooling on his computer, why not if you want to ?
Capacitors will sound different . Use ones made for computer switch mode power supplies . These are ideal and not expensive ( low ESR ) . 100 v polyester work well in values up to 10 uF . 10 pf to 10 nF in NPO or COG ceramics are far better than thought , if used for decoupling or stability they are devices of first choice .
Actually Mr. Peter I'm far from being angry. I would say that I am totally fed up with people claiming to hear a difference between different components without any means to back up the claim. Some have an agenda such as increased sales of their product. How can they increase their sales? They increase their sales by making claims they cannot back up. They can claim for example increased clarity because they use a teak side panel for instance.
The gereral public is powerless to challenge their claim and therefore they get off scott free.
For example you claim there is a difference between the issolated chip and the chip requiring an insulator. As I pointed out there is no schematic part difference or difference is circuitry. Now how you came about this so called sonic difference is I guess one of your major secrets and I guess if it helps sell your product then more power to you right?
I also have a LM3886 gainclown that uses a non-insulated chip. Guess what? No sonic difference. Its just easier to use because it requires less care to mount.
How did I judge this Mr. Peter? After conducting a battery of tests I employed a double blind listening test comprised of a number of both educated people and blue collar people. People without any agenda at all. Not one person heard any sonic differences.
Getting back to the enclosure thing.... Given that there are no instability problems or grounding problems or any problems associated with cable layout there are no sonic benefits to be gained by the specific usage of any particular cabinet product.
Again Mr. Peter I used specific equipment capable of not only measuring for example noise floor and harmonic distortion but also graphing the same. What people claim to be hearing is possibly a difference in harmonic distortion as a result of very poor design and layout.
As in any audio design and or product the layout and implimentation of same can make or break a design. Mr. Peter I really don't care how you sell your product. What I do care about is proof that a particular part for example actually does make a sonic difference. If it cannot be proved that a particular part or cabinet design for example actually makes a sonic difference then you have no buisness making the claim.
The gereral public is powerless to challenge their claim and therefore they get off scott free.
For example you claim there is a difference between the issolated chip and the chip requiring an insulator. As I pointed out there is no schematic part difference or difference is circuitry. Now how you came about this so called sonic difference is I guess one of your major secrets and I guess if it helps sell your product then more power to you right?
I also have a LM3886 gainclown that uses a non-insulated chip. Guess what? No sonic difference. Its just easier to use because it requires less care to mount.
How did I judge this Mr. Peter? After conducting a battery of tests I employed a double blind listening test comprised of a number of both educated people and blue collar people. People without any agenda at all. Not one person heard any sonic differences.
Getting back to the enclosure thing.... Given that there are no instability problems or grounding problems or any problems associated with cable layout there are no sonic benefits to be gained by the specific usage of any particular cabinet product.
Again Mr. Peter I used specific equipment capable of not only measuring for example noise floor and harmonic distortion but also graphing the same. What people claim to be hearing is possibly a difference in harmonic distortion as a result of very poor design and layout.
As in any audio design and or product the layout and implimentation of same can make or break a design. Mr. Peter I really don't care how you sell your product. What I do care about is proof that a particular part for example actually does make a sonic difference. If it cannot be proved that a particular part or cabinet design for example actually makes a sonic difference then you have no buisness making the claim.
Analog SA, I have just removed your last post. Any more like that and you'll be spending time in the bin.
Well, there are actually some physical reasons why the enclosure can affect the sound:
1. Shielding: Both between PS and the electronics and also between blocks.....especiallt if you have both analog and digital blocks (not an issue for a chip-amp). Also RF-shielding can be important...or am I the only one who has build a chip-amp with interference with cell phones??? No! 😀
2. Mechanical stability. All components (especially caps and oscillators) are sensitive to vibrations. I have built sensitive uW-VCOs and it is impossibe to remove the sensitivity to g-forces. IMPOSSIBLE!
Just because you can't measure this effect doesn't mean it is not there. Usually it was too difficult to measure the g-sensitivity of only the component...but together with the VCO the effect was seen.
Also a really good vinyl player can still be amazingly god but with measured thd & noise that is really bad compared to a cheap CD player. So measured distortion, noise and frequency response do not tell us everything about the sound!!!
That's what I think anyway....and you don't have to agree!
😀
1. Shielding: Both between PS and the electronics and also between blocks.....especiallt if you have both analog and digital blocks (not an issue for a chip-amp). Also RF-shielding can be important...or am I the only one who has build a chip-amp with interference with cell phones??? No! 😀
2. Mechanical stability. All components (especially caps and oscillators) are sensitive to vibrations. I have built sensitive uW-VCOs and it is impossibe to remove the sensitivity to g-forces. IMPOSSIBLE!
Just because you can't measure this effect doesn't mean it is not there. Usually it was too difficult to measure the g-sensitivity of only the component...but together with the VCO the effect was seen.
Also a really good vinyl player can still be amazingly god but with measured thd & noise that is really bad compared to a cheap CD player. So measured distortion, noise and frequency response do not tell us everything about the sound!!!
That's what I think anyway....and you don't have to agree!
😀
burnedfingers said:
I would be interested to hear what you can say to back up your claim you made few posts back:
burnedfingers said:
You are correct in a matter that I certainly cannot make a claim, and I can only describe my observations. So from now on, I will be more careful with my wording. A proper way to express my opinion would be saying that "this is my observation that chassis built and chassis matrial can influence the sound of a complete amp." As such, I should not be required to present any proof.
burnedfingers said:
Similarly, you cannot yet prove that the chassis construction does not make a difference, you can only observe that in the comparison examples you and your blue and white collar subjects participated, the difference was not detected, but it still does not create a sufficient prove that other possibility cannot exist. So untill you do that consistently, reliably and present evidence without shadow of doubt, you have no business on that forum making such claims. Do we have an understanding here?
burnedfingers,
i have a request. would it be possible for you to describe some of the tests you carried out in detail? not the listening tests but the other tests you referred to.
i think many forum members would be interested in this.
more specifically, what did you measure?
what were the limitations of your measurements (ex. sampling frequency)? in other words, what differences can you expect to capture with the specific test. this may seem obvious to someone with lots of experience in this field, but someone who is new to it like myself could definitely benefit from some simple explanations.
lastly, can you make a change that is measurable to provide a positive control?
i realize that this is a significant request because of the work involved but i think this type of data is necessary to push the thinking in forum in the direction i think you want it to go. one strategy would be to provide data from a single test, maybe the insulated and uninsulated form of a chip, that way the discussion could stay focused and the work involved minimized.
thanks
i have a request. would it be possible for you to describe some of the tests you carried out in detail? not the listening tests but the other tests you referred to.
i think many forum members would be interested in this.
more specifically, what did you measure?
what were the limitations of your measurements (ex. sampling frequency)? in other words, what differences can you expect to capture with the specific test. this may seem obvious to someone with lots of experience in this field, but someone who is new to it like myself could definitely benefit from some simple explanations.
lastly, can you make a change that is measurable to provide a positive control?
i realize that this is a significant request because of the work involved but i think this type of data is necessary to push the thinking in forum in the direction i think you want it to go. one strategy would be to provide data from a single test, maybe the insulated and uninsulated form of a chip, that way the discussion could stay focused and the work involved minimized.
thanks
burnedfingers said:
Your guesses here are as ridiculous as the rest of your argumentation. I mentioned non insulated chip package advantage only once on a forum. It was 3 years ago and under no circumstances it was part of my marketing strategy. I advice you to be more careful with your guesses, Mr. burnedfingers:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=333297#post333297
If you look into the link, you can also see it was not a claim, it was actually an observation.
camshaft said:
And I'm not here to give an end to discussion by presenting any solid explanations.
It is my observation though, that the enclosure influences the sound of the audio equipment and I can only speculate that it is caused by mechanical resonances and vibrations that effects electrical components.
Don't ask me how, as I have no idea, and I have no problem admitting it.
My favourite example was always that thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17641&highlight=
Some other interesting forum discussions can be found here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20424&highlight=
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8988&highlight=
Mr. Peter,
At least you do remember making the statement that in itself is progress. Am I to understand that you do not believe there is a sonic difference between the issolated chip and the non now?
Well, I kind of gathered this. It seems that you cannot show any proof for your beliefs because you do not believe in the merits of test equipment and you don't believe in the merits of blind testing. Therefore the only true testing is going to be what your ears hear as a change.
Mr. Peter I am suggesting that if an enclosure was designed correctly there would be no mechanical resonances or vibrations.
If two identical enclosures both of which had no mechanical resonances or vibrations or problems associated by poor grounding and so forth they would both sound the same.
And again Mr. Peter you will not accept any blind testing or the merits of test equipment therefore you will not except this.
Mr. Peter I must admit that I envy your superior hearing abilities. I wonder how much better our audio world would be if everyone was as gifted as you are.
Hi BF. Is it your assertion that if it can't be seen on a scope or distortion analyzer then it doesn't exist? What is your purpose in hijacking this thread? Companys in the audio industry have been making heavy, well damped, enclosures for decades. Why don't you write to them? I would think that the density of a material would impact the amount of vibration it conducts to the components. I think that in turn would effect the sound. Are you claiming that a scope can capture, and measure, everything the human ear can hear? Who invited you to pull out your soapbox?
burnedfingers said:
I am very interested in this "correct" design. It sounds like it can revolutionise physics, let alone audio. Can you supply details?
Dear Mr. G
Major problems can and usually are seen with a scope. Grounding problems for instance. Hacking the thread? I guess I could say the same of you. Please have someone read my prior post to you and possibly explain it to you. I realize that companies have been making well dampened enclosures and my point should have been obvious. Mr. Peter seems to think that a wooden enclosure sounds better than a metal one. My point is since you missed it that a metal enclosure void of any resonances or mrchanical vibration will sound the same as a wooden enclosure.
Who invited me to pull out my soapbox you ask? Well, Mr. G I could ask the same of you. You have tatally missed the point because your agenda was to jump on the bandwagon with Peter.
Unfortunately what we have so far is this... people that refuse to accept the merits of equipment and or blind testing. People that claim to hear difference on the merit that they can hear it without any proof.
analog_sa
This is your second attempt to jump in here. Congratulations this one hasn't been taken off yet.
Please read my prior post again or have someone read it to you.
I am stating the obvious here.... All things being equal between enclosures there will be no sonic advantage to the wooden one over the metal one. You are free of course to have your own opinion here.
I have been watching this thread for some time and just cant stand by anymore😉
I am one of the first people to condemn the marketing of "esoteric" audio stuff, $5000.00 speaker cables, heat sinks blessed by Budist munks, toroids made from irradiated iron ore from a 5000 year old asteroid, ect...........
But I will side with Mr. Daniels on this one, besides the common thing like wood enclosures and similiar, that are common sense grounding and noise benifits, but I see posts that the laws of physics apply.
Well yes they do and all metals amorphouse or not interact with other metals magnetic fields, electrons ect. so yes there can be a differance of what type of heat sink material is used, issolated chip or non.
Take a non issolated chip directly coupled to the heat sink and issolated from ground, question
the chips tab is at volts negative they are directly connected to a conductive heat sink, what will be the impact of this????? resonance, electron interaction, noise, I bet there will be some kind off tangable differance"measurable" good or bad I dont know. I will say I personally found direct to copper sounds better " at least to my ears" then alluminum or issolated.
I am one of the first people to condemn the marketing of "esoteric" audio stuff, $5000.00 speaker cables, heat sinks blessed by Budist munks, toroids made from irradiated iron ore from a 5000 year old asteroid, ect...........
But I will side with Mr. Daniels on this one, besides the common thing like wood enclosures and similiar, that are common sense grounding and noise benifits, but I see posts that the laws of physics apply.
Well yes they do and all metals amorphouse or not interact with other metals magnetic fields, electrons ect. so yes there can be a differance of what type of heat sink material is used, issolated chip or non.
Take a non issolated chip directly coupled to the heat sink and issolated from ground, question
the chips tab is at volts negative they are directly connected to a conductive heat sink, what will be the impact of this????? resonance, electron interaction, noise, I bet there will be some kind off tangable differance"measurable" good or bad I dont know. I will say I personally found direct to copper sounds better " at least to my ears" then alluminum or issolated.
burnedfingers said:
I told you already to be careful with your guesses. The worst sounding enclosure I've built so far was that wooden cuboid, custom ordered: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=230711&stamp=1062711093
- Status
- Not open for further replies.