Konnichiwa,
Yes and no. NOT ALL rubber legs would make an improvement. The rubber will forma spring/mass resonant system with the component resting on it, at resonance the resulting amplitude may be higher than with just "pointy legs".
Error correction goes far beyond skipping or not. There is a wide range of states between the processor muting the data (skipping CD) and a completely accurate data, where a more or less large proportion is made up of linear interpolation "best guesses" of the processor, prior to Digital output and DAC.
I repeat, vibrating the CD sufficiently can cause the error correction to be so overtaxed that it can no longer interpolate the missing data and mustes. Knowing how CD Error correction works (you do I hope, given that you make authorative statements about it) it stands to reason that there times where the error correction can still interpolate to avoid muting, but signal fidelity is sutably impaired, regardless of the DAC used etc.
The CD Platyer I could make skip with a sporano voice was a marantz CD-67, sited on a very heavy and rigid rack on top of a heavy slab of MDF and pitch based damping sheets on top of a bicycle inner tube limply inflated while sited at least 2m away from the speakers and with the rack "spiked" directly to a poured concrete slab, froming the floor of the groundfloor room. Trust me, the player was sited such that any direct transission of noise to it's chassis was minimal, apart from air pressure delivered sound sources.
As there was very little vibration to transmit in the rack, what remains would have been rather effectively removed by the inner bicycle tube suspension and the "constrained layer" damping platform on which the Player was sited.
Hmmmm. As Far As You Know is non too far.
You cannot concieve a physical explanation that would agree with your sullen prejudice and muddy mental inertia. That is not the same as there not being any.
Could that be related in any particlar way or fashion to a profound ignorance of how CD actually works and a blind and irrational believe in the Digital Mantra "CD - Perfect Sound Forever!"?
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
Yes and no. NOT ALL rubber legs would make an improvement. The rubber will forma spring/mass resonant system with the component resting on it, at resonance the resulting amplitude may be higher than with just "pointy legs".
geewhizbang said:
Error correction goes far beyond skipping or not. There is a wide range of states between the processor muting the data (skipping CD) and a completely accurate data, where a more or less large proportion is made up of linear interpolation "best guesses" of the processor, prior to Digital output and DAC.
geewhizbang said:
I repeat, vibrating the CD sufficiently can cause the error correction to be so overtaxed that it can no longer interpolate the missing data and mustes. Knowing how CD Error correction works (you do I hope, given that you make authorative statements about it) it stands to reason that there times where the error correction can still interpolate to avoid muting, but signal fidelity is sutably impaired, regardless of the DAC used etc.
geewhizbang said:
The CD Platyer I could make skip with a sporano voice was a marantz CD-67, sited on a very heavy and rigid rack on top of a heavy slab of MDF and pitch based damping sheets on top of a bicycle inner tube limply inflated while sited at least 2m away from the speakers and with the rack "spiked" directly to a poured concrete slab, froming the floor of the groundfloor room. Trust me, the player was sited such that any direct transission of noise to it's chassis was minimal, apart from air pressure delivered sound sources.
geewhizbang said:
As there was very little vibration to transmit in the rack, what remains would have been rather effectively removed by the inner bicycle tube suspension and the "constrained layer" damping platform on which the Player was sited.
geewhizbang said:
Hmmmm. As Far As You Know is non too far.
geewhizbang said:
You cannot concieve a physical explanation that would agree with your sullen prejudice and muddy mental inertia. That is not the same as there not being any.
geewhizbang said:
Could that be related in any particlar way or fashion to a profound ignorance of how CD actually works and a blind and irrational believe in the Digital Mantra "CD - Perfect Sound Forever!"?
Sayonara
As an engineer I find it astonishing that one would want to spend money for something that has no purpose, other than reassure the builder that every precaution has been taking, including ones that make no sense.
Part of the MY purpose for DIY is to get a better bang for my buck. I think this is right in with the topic of this thread, because it is a perfect example how various ideas get passed around and become gospel, even those that don't make any logical sense.
I understand the theory about the speakers on carpet, but again, if the speakers are on a wood floor, you would be better off with rubber. Not only because that would scratch the floor less, but because the rubber would absorb some vibrations.
Even so the effect would be very slight.
What I'm talking about is putting spikes on a CD player. This CD player is almost certainly going to set down on a hard surface. So the spikes are not going to damp anything. They cannot transmit "energy" to a stiff piece of wood/mdf/ glass/marble etc. To do that the shelf would actually have to move or vibrate.
So I suppose you could put a rubber mat on the shelf then. That way you would get some damping, and the rubber would be moving to absorb the energy. But you would then get almost the same effect by simply putting rubber legs on the CD player or amplifier in the first place.
Any decent CD player is already mounted with shock absorbers inside the unit anyway. I would expect newer ones have a buffer so that they can do more than one attempt to read a passage.
And none of this explains the use of $15 worth of unnecessary pointy legs on a solid state amp, for goodness sake.
Part of the MY purpose for DIY is to get a better bang for my buck. I think this is right in with the topic of this thread, because it is a perfect example how various ideas get passed around and become gospel, even those that don't make any logical sense.
I understand the theory about the speakers on carpet, but again, if the speakers are on a wood floor, you would be better off with rubber. Not only because that would scratch the floor less, but because the rubber would absorb some vibrations.
Even so the effect would be very slight.
What I'm talking about is putting spikes on a CD player. This CD player is almost certainly going to set down on a hard surface. So the spikes are not going to damp anything. They cannot transmit "energy" to a stiff piece of wood/mdf/ glass/marble etc. To do that the shelf would actually have to move or vibrate.
So I suppose you could put a rubber mat on the shelf then. That way you would get some damping, and the rubber would be moving to absorb the energy. But you would then get almost the same effect by simply putting rubber legs on the CD player or amplifier in the first place.
Any decent CD player is already mounted with shock absorbers inside the unit anyway. I would expect newer ones have a buffer so that they can do more than one attempt to read a passage.
And none of this explains the use of $15 worth of unnecessary pointy legs on a solid state amp, for goodness sake.
Konnichiwa,
The Error correction first uses a checksum to attempt to restore the sample to the correct value. That failing it makes the whole frame from interpolation and that failing as the next farm is not there it repeats the previous frame and only after all possible methodes to conceal the error have failed ewill the processor mute the output (sending out digital silence samples).
How well the error correction copes is a question of design and programming, so at least in theory one should expect a high grade CD Player to have a pretty solid error correction. However, beyond a simple SINGLE SAMPLE not being read correctly the classic error correction is powerless and has to make up data to conceal that an error has occured.
So, I appreciate that your irrational religious believes do not allow you to admitt to it, but that are the facts, if you like them or not.
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
The Error correction first uses a checksum to attempt to restore the sample to the correct value. That failing it makes the whole frame from interpolation and that failing as the next farm is not there it repeats the previous frame and only after all possible methodes to conceal the error have failed ewill the processor mute the output (sending out digital silence samples).
How well the error correction copes is a question of design and programming, so at least in theory one should expect a high grade CD Player to have a pretty solid error correction. However, beyond a simple SINGLE SAMPLE not being read correctly the classic error correction is powerless and has to make up data to conceal that an error has occured.
So, I appreciate that your irrational religious believes do not allow you to admitt to it, but that are the facts, if you like them or not.
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
I can't believe what I read here.
Are you trying to say that because you don't find a reason for pointy devices to make sense as feet, I shouldn't be putting them on my amp, or offer such devices as an option for my chassis?
Are you completely lost in your self delusion?
That's the most arrogant request I've come across in a long while.
And wow, it still didn't work right after all of this trouble. There were probably simpler solutions. I would think that you would get a pretty good isolation putting the unit on top of small peices of thin plywood or cardboard underneath each leg with a peice of foam or even that gel stuff from shoe inserts glued to the bottom of each peice.
Total cost $1.00 to 6.00 depending on where you got the foam.
Perhaps you had a cavity resonance inside the case or the case itself was doing some sympathetic vibration. If it was the case, you could just glue some rubber to the inside of the case in a few places, and that would stop the vibration. If it was cavity resonance, then there would inexpensive ways to fix this as well.
I think the reason why you are attacking what I'm saying is that you enjoy this overengineering, so when some of us are trying to show why it is unnecessary, you don't like having us mess up your fun.
If you like being this elaborate, go ahead, but I doubt that much of your elaborate work actually benefits the sound.
I don't think CDs are perfect BTW. I prefer good analog.
You can put them on there if you want to.
I just think it is almost laughably silly to use these pointy feet on an amp, speaking as an engineer. It is not arrogant of me to point it out.
It is akin to the hood ornaments on luxury cars, which were originially there because the top-mounted external radiator cap had a thermometer in it that could be seen on the driver's side. Cheap cars didn't have thermometers so they didn't need ornaments. Hood ornaments thus got associated with expensive cars and we were stuck with the silly (and actually dangerous) things on American luxury cars for another sixty years, long after their original purpose was engineered away.
So you put the feet on because that looks "audiophile" to you. And pyschoacoustically, that just happens to sound good. But it is just as laughable as the hood ornaments on old big boat American cars.
I just think it is almost laughably silly to use these pointy feet on an amp, speaking as an engineer. It is not arrogant of me to point it out.
It is akin to the hood ornaments on luxury cars, which were originially there because the top-mounted external radiator cap had a thermometer in it that could be seen on the driver's side. Cheap cars didn't have thermometers so they didn't need ornaments. Hood ornaments thus got associated with expensive cars and we were stuck with the silly (and actually dangerous) things on American luxury cars for another sixty years, long after their original purpose was engineered away.
So you put the feet on because that looks "audiophile" to you. And pyschoacoustically, that just happens to sound good. But it is just as laughable as the hood ornaments on old big boat American cars.
Konnichiwa,
Well, in the ol engineering lingo they called that the "belt & braces" approach. BTW, much of the old "belts & braces" approach based mostly on "Engineers folk tales" was later shown to have real effects which where merely not well understood at the time and hence became an enginneres folk magioc tale "Do this and it will work". I am the first to prefer knowing what I do and why, bt I'm not averse to "it works, no idea why, but it still works".
Then you are wrong doing DIY. If you consider the economics of scale of mass production you are much better off working some paid overtime and buying a mass produced gadget, at least monetary.
DIY allows you control over variables often considered "unimportant" or "non existent" by mainstream engineers which you consider relevant.
Yup, yours and Mr Diddens insistence on the "perfect data being read from CD" is an excellent illustration of tof how such illogicall, obviously false ideas are being passed around and become the gospel, facts to the contrary nonwithstanding.
And the resonances in the ssytem formed out of the CD Player chassis, coupling mecahnism and shelf will have several resonance modes. These will differdepending upon the type of coupling element, it's placement and many other variables.
I suspect if you placed a stethoscope against the shelf you may find exactly that.
Those are assumptions which may or not be scrutinised empirically, however I doubt that without either extensive realistic simulation/moddeling and/or real world experiments a clear conclusion can be drawn as to the results.
The only thing that can draw conclusions without real world data is blind faith, which you amply demonstrate, however as you no doubt know, blind faith is not exactly aknowleged as scientific proof.
So it is. And what is the sort of resonance frequency of the suspension, or in other words, below which sort of frequency does the suspension fail to actually isolate the mechanism and instead couples vibrations to the transport?
You may expect a lot. You may expect England to win a Football Worldcup. You may expect Mana to fall from the Sky in the Siunai Desert. You may expect the moon to be made from green cheese. You may even expect buffers and multiple reads of the same passage for CD players. HOWEVER, if you are even modestly aware of the reality surrounding these subjects you should know that while may expect a lot, very little of you expect will happen any time soon.
Unless you are aware (among other things) that electrolytic capacitors are strongly microphonic. Again, i agree insuylation would seem preferable, but some people prefer to tune resonances to a sound they like, who am I to cide them for that.
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
Well, in the ol engineering lingo they called that the "belt & braces" approach. BTW, much of the old "belts & braces" approach based mostly on "Engineers folk tales" was later shown to have real effects which where merely not well understood at the time and hence became an enginneres folk magioc tale "Do this and it will work". I am the first to prefer knowing what I do and why, bt I'm not averse to "it works, no idea why, but it still works".
geewhizbang said:
Then you are wrong doing DIY. If you consider the economics of scale of mass production you are much better off working some paid overtime and buying a mass produced gadget, at least monetary.
DIY allows you control over variables often considered "unimportant" or "non existent" by mainstream engineers which you consider relevant.
geewhizbang said:
Yup, yours and Mr Diddens insistence on the "perfect data being read from CD" is an excellent illustration of tof how such illogicall, obviously false ideas are being passed around and become the gospel, facts to the contrary nonwithstanding.
geewhizbang said:
And the resonances in the ssytem formed out of the CD Player chassis, coupling mecahnism and shelf will have several resonance modes. These will differdepending upon the type of coupling element, it's placement and many other variables.
geewhizbang said:
I suspect if you placed a stethoscope against the shelf you may find exactly that.
geewhizbang said:
Those are assumptions which may or not be scrutinised empirically, however I doubt that without either extensive realistic simulation/moddeling and/or real world experiments a clear conclusion can be drawn as to the results.
The only thing that can draw conclusions without real world data is blind faith, which you amply demonstrate, however as you no doubt know, blind faith is not exactly aknowleged as scientific proof.
geewhizbang said:
So it is. And what is the sort of resonance frequency of the suspension, or in other words, below which sort of frequency does the suspension fail to actually isolate the mechanism and instead couples vibrations to the transport?
geewhizbang said:
You may expect a lot. You may expect England to win a Football Worldcup. You may expect Mana to fall from the Sky in the Siunai Desert. You may expect the moon to be made from green cheese. You may even expect buffers and multiple reads of the same passage for CD players. HOWEVER, if you are even modestly aware of the reality surrounding these subjects you should know that while may expect a lot, very little of you expect will happen any time soon.
geewhizbang said:
Unless you are aware (among other things) that electrolytic capacitors are strongly microphonic. Again, i agree insuylation would seem preferable, but some people prefer to tune resonances to a sound they like, who am I to cide them for that.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Actually, it worked rather well, except with one specific note on one CD (Vivaldis Gloria with Emma Kirkby btw) played at realsitic levels. Nothing else seemed to phaze the player otherwise.
Maybe, maybe not. I found that adding all this insulation below the player worked actually quite well and very little cost too.
That is likely, however the case had been quite extensively damped using heavy "pitch" mats normally used in quieting down cars and the like, so only the cavity resonance (or a resonance of the CD itself) remain, I was unabe to cure the problem (I tried, trust me).
Possibly, however, the CD-67 has very littel internal space to fit any substantial material to damp cavity resonance without upsetting thermal management and I dislike running mainspowered equipment without cover.
Who said I am attacking you? Are you paranoid? IU merely am pointing out that your arguiments are severely flawed, logically and factually and not consistent with a scientific worldview but consistent with a religious one. I call that observation (empiricism if you will), not attack. Unless of to disagree polietly with you and to point your errors is an attack, a viewpoint which BTW is entierly consistent with a religious worldview and inconsistent with a scientific one, if I may add a further observation on the topic.
I have since learned a lot more about dealing with vibrations and the like, including quite a bit of far out stuff.
Hmmm. Then surely you should be aware of how the medium works and exactly where there are weak points where the system falls down?
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
Actually, it worked rather well, except with one specific note on one CD (Vivaldis Gloria with Emma Kirkby btw) played at realsitic levels. Nothing else seemed to phaze the player otherwise.
geewhizbang said:
Maybe, maybe not. I found that adding all this insulation below the player worked actually quite well and very little cost too.
geewhizbang said:
That is likely, however the case had been quite extensively damped using heavy "pitch" mats normally used in quieting down cars and the like, so only the cavity resonance (or a resonance of the CD itself) remain, I was unabe to cure the problem (I tried, trust me).
geewhizbang said:
Possibly, however, the CD-67 has very littel internal space to fit any substantial material to damp cavity resonance without upsetting thermal management and I dislike running mainspowered equipment without cover.
geewhizbang said:
Who said I am attacking you? Are you paranoid? IU merely am pointing out that your arguiments are severely flawed, logically and factually and not consistent with a scientific worldview but consistent with a religious one. I call that observation (empiricism if you will), not attack. Unless of to disagree polietly with you and to point your errors is an attack, a viewpoint which BTW is entierly consistent with a religious worldview and inconsistent with a scientific one, if I may add a further observation on the topic.
geewhizbang said:
I have since learned a lot more about dealing with vibrations and the like, including quite a bit of far out stuff.
geewhizbang said:
Hmmm. Then surely you should be aware of how the medium works and exactly where there are weak points where the system falls down?
Sayonara
You're still replying, so how am I persisting any more than you are?
Have you done an ABX test on this, btw?
I am persisting because you just got done supplying an answer to someone about selling them extra-expensive premium kit, that in all likelihood doesn't sound significantly better than the basic one. This bugs me for some reason.
I would like to to do a bit more research, such as an actual scientific test, before you make claims that certain components sound better than others. The pointy feet are the perfect example that you don't know what you are talking about, since it is so unlikely that they could have any effect on a solid state amp's sound.
The people that have posted here in your defense are using the language of science at times, but I don't think they quite understand enough physics to understand just how minimal the effects of these feet would be both in assisting vibration damping along with the rather small effects that vibration has on solid state components in the first place.
****
If you are building speakers, then building your own is about 1/4 the cost of buying good commercial ones, BTW.
I don't think that building amps is necessarily lower in cost, but I would enjoy the challenge. But at the same time, I don't want to be wasting effort or time on useless tweaks.
Have you done an ABX test on this, btw?
I am persisting because you just got done supplying an answer to someone about selling them extra-expensive premium kit, that in all likelihood doesn't sound significantly better than the basic one. This bugs me for some reason.
I would like to to do a bit more research, such as an actual scientific test, before you make claims that certain components sound better than others. The pointy feet are the perfect example that you don't know what you are talking about, since it is so unlikely that they could have any effect on a solid state amp's sound.
The people that have posted here in your defense are using the language of science at times, but I don't think they quite understand enough physics to understand just how minimal the effects of these feet would be both in assisting vibration damping along with the rather small effects that vibration has on solid state components in the first place.
****
If you are building speakers, then building your own is about 1/4 the cost of buying good commercial ones, BTW.
I don't think that building amps is necessarily lower in cost, but I would enjoy the challenge. But at the same time, I don't want to be wasting effort or time on useless tweaks.
This may sound cynical, but PD is totally rational for including point feet in his product. Very simply, a significant segment of his target market wants and expects pointy feet. If the feet are not there he is going to loose sales. The segment od his market that doesn't care for pointy feet will probably buy it anyway; very few will reject the product as a result of the points.
Now let us also posit that PD's product is sonicly one of the very best availabvle at the price sonicly. This means that PD is a true benefactor to mandkind and the more units sold the greater the benefit. Thus, even if pointy feet have no sonic benefit, the fact that they enourage sales and therefore allow more people to benefit from a superior product means that putting pointy feet on the unit is an act not only of commercial accumen but of kindness. It partially protects the public fom inferior products that also have pointy feet.
To point out a historical analog, if this were 1957 only a fool would offer a car without tail fins no matter how good a product it otherwise was!
Now I understand. The reason is totally illogical. Wow, we could have got here right from the start.
I really doubt that an amp that wastes $200 on non-audible "improvements" can be the best DIY amp for the money.
But 'nuff said. As long as your willing to admit finally that the reason is just marketing, I can understand even while I don't buy into it myself.
I really doubt that an amp that wastes $200 on non-audible "improvements" can be the best DIY amp for the money.
But 'nuff said. As long as your willing to admit finally that the reason is just marketing, I can understand even while I don't buy into it myself.
Truly, you should demand you money back! A Sony Discman behaves better. The ease with which cheap but reliable CD units can demonstratively be stamped out by rhe thousands and put in discmen, boomboxes, etc. suggests to me that the is absolutely no excuse of higher priced "audiophile" units to have ANY problems in the mechanical and data acqusition area.
This is not to imply that I think cheapo units are indistingushable with regard to the DAC--> analog chain .
You operate in an entirely different plane of existence Peter. What seems so utterly reasonable to you seems like bad engineering to me.
I could build a very nice case for that amp that would be very attractive and cost about $50, if I built several of them at a time. I'm a pretty good amateur industrial designer, and almost anything I build people rather like. But I'm on a budget, and the $200 for the case is only somewhat less than what my speakers cost to build, and has almost nothing to do with the sound.
Then there is the premium golden-ear components, which are even more expensive yet.
The circuit boards and basic components are very reasonable, and fairly priced. But the heavily over-engineered case is an abomination.
I could build a very nice case for that amp that would be very attractive and cost about $50, if I built several of them at a time. I'm a pretty good amateur industrial designer, and almost anything I build people rather like. But I'm on a budget, and the $200 for the case is only somewhat less than what my speakers cost to build, and has almost nothing to do with the sound.
Then there is the premium golden-ear components, which are even more expensive yet.
The circuit boards and basic components are very reasonable, and fairly priced. But the heavily over-engineered case is an abomination.
geewhizbang said:
I'm not sure who you direct it to, but I'm not willing to admit that it's marketing. It's more about giving people a choice. The chassis is offered without any feet. Out of courtesy, I'm offering cones as this is the type of the footing that I observed to work the BEST with MY chassis. It's not even my amp, as it's not being sold as such.
You may argue about it or not, but whatever you say won't make much sense.
Konnichiwa,
I have done a number of blind tests (I reject ABX as you might have noticed as biased towards returning false null results), not on this though.
Moreover I am not interested if it makes a difference or not and if the result with if preferred to that without.
What I have been interrested to do though was to point out that many of your pronouncements of what happens how are not based on any knowledge of any relevant facts or any logical progression, but instead on illiogic, pure blind faith that things "should be so and no other" and the liek, and that your behaviour in this discussion shows all the hallmarks of somone who argues fanatically from a dogmatic, religious viewpoint and not a scientific one.
Of course, you are entitled to your believes, no matter how irrational they may be, but if you want to share them you must accept criticsm of them or simply shut up.
Funny, I thought this place here was about DIY and the difference in discussion in your particular case was the cost difference between a set of rubber feet for two bucks in total and a set of metal feet for fifteen bucks in total, a in essence irrelevant difference, monetary speaking.
Suit yourself, however you may find the results of applying yourself to a scientific empirical examination of audio incompatible with retaining your current believe, you have been warned.
I personally, here make no claims whatsoever that something sounds better one way or the other (though i may have remarked that TO ME PERSONALLY it sounded different and better), so no claim entered in any way.
Hmm. What particular research and data are you basing your pronouncement that "it is so unlikely that they could have any effect on a solid state amp's sound" upon? I am sure you have such data? Data on how microphonic power transistors, electrolytic capacitors, resistors (especially SMD) are? And data to illustrate why such microphonic effects MUST BE HIGHLY LIKELY to be reliably below any audibility treshold.
Or do you lack such data and you merely have blind faith that such is the case?
Hmm. You missed my point entierly. What I was refering to was a change of RESONANCES. now if a resonance falls in the right place and is excited even substantially rigid and solid structures can showdisturbingly large amplitudes of displacement. As a degreed mechanical engineer you should be aware of the phenomenae of an army marching over a bridge in step and equally that in such a bridge providing another support point a short distance from the main one can drastically cut such resonance amplitude. Surely you see the parallels?
You may find that you are rather mistaken. Maybe you should read Nousaine on the topic? Most modern "Mid-Fi" speakers are likely to offer a flatter frequency response than any speaker you will be able to DIY using the normal set of acoustic tools available to you.
You may find that in many cases inexpensive commercial amplifiers will comprehensively outperform your DIY Amplifiers in all commonly quantified parameters and thus (following your "logic") must be better, with a better finish and lower cost than you can achieve.
Why go through all the trouble UNLESS doing so gives you control over variables commonly not addressed? Now if such exist, surely it bears to at least consider with a reasonably open midn what they may be or not be.
Well, you seem to prefer to waste it on making by hand and expensively devices that measure poorely compared to what is inexpensively available commercially. What a tomfoolery, if you ask me.
Sayonara
geewhizbang said:
I have done a number of blind tests (I reject ABX as you might have noticed as biased towards returning false null results), not on this though.
Moreover I am not interested if it makes a difference or not and if the result with if preferred to that without.
What I have been interrested to do though was to point out that many of your pronouncements of what happens how are not based on any knowledge of any relevant facts or any logical progression, but instead on illiogic, pure blind faith that things "should be so and no other" and the liek, and that your behaviour in this discussion shows all the hallmarks of somone who argues fanatically from a dogmatic, religious viewpoint and not a scientific one.
Of course, you are entitled to your believes, no matter how irrational they may be, but if you want to share them you must accept criticsm of them or simply shut up.
geewhizbang said:
Funny, I thought this place here was about DIY and the difference in discussion in your particular case was the cost difference between a set of rubber feet for two bucks in total and a set of metal feet for fifteen bucks in total, a in essence irrelevant difference, monetary speaking.
geewhizbang said:
Suit yourself, however you may find the results of applying yourself to a scientific empirical examination of audio incompatible with retaining your current believe, you have been warned.
geewhizbang said:
I personally, here make no claims whatsoever that something sounds better one way or the other (though i may have remarked that TO ME PERSONALLY it sounded different and better), so no claim entered in any way.
geewhizbang said:
Hmm. What particular research and data are you basing your pronouncement that "it is so unlikely that they could have any effect on a solid state amp's sound" upon? I am sure you have such data? Data on how microphonic power transistors, electrolytic capacitors, resistors (especially SMD) are? And data to illustrate why such microphonic effects MUST BE HIGHLY LIKELY to be reliably below any audibility treshold.
Or do you lack such data and you merely have blind faith that such is the case?
geewhizbang said:
Hmm. You missed my point entierly. What I was refering to was a change of RESONANCES. now if a resonance falls in the right place and is excited even substantially rigid and solid structures can showdisturbingly large amplitudes of displacement. As a degreed mechanical engineer you should be aware of the phenomenae of an army marching over a bridge in step and equally that in such a bridge providing another support point a short distance from the main one can drastically cut such resonance amplitude. Surely you see the parallels?
geewhizbang said:
You may find that you are rather mistaken. Maybe you should read Nousaine on the topic? Most modern "Mid-Fi" speakers are likely to offer a flatter frequency response than any speaker you will be able to DIY using the normal set of acoustic tools available to you.
geewhizbang said:
You may find that in many cases inexpensive commercial amplifiers will comprehensively outperform your DIY Amplifiers in all commonly quantified parameters and thus (following your "logic") must be better, with a better finish and lower cost than you can achieve.
Why go through all the trouble UNLESS doing so gives you control over variables commonly not addressed? Now if such exist, surely it bears to at least consider with a reasonably open midn what they may be or not be.
geewhizbang said:
Well, you seem to prefer to waste it on making by hand and expensively devices that measure poorely compared to what is inexpensively available commercially. What a tomfoolery, if you ask me.
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.