I did, as I'm sure you read my post even if it seems you didn't; we're just on a different page when it comes to these matters.
I do not believe "opinions" or mysteries have a place in audio reproduction/engineering etc but that's just me.
What we (hopefully) have in common is the respect for Bruno's work.
So forget about me and look up his approach on these matters.
It's not often that he cares to comment on such stuff (sometimes silence is an answer in itself), but Google is your friend in finding some of his previous comments.
Last edited:
TheShaman,
I know his stand point -I respect it, but I don´t swallow everything raw. That´s just me and yes we are not on the same page there obviously...
My problem was that you specifically quoted me (seemingly) out of context, and implied me to say or state something I did not. That´s a problem for having any fruitful discussion IMHO.
If you feel that I have misread you, I am truly sorry and would appreciate if you could point out where and how I did so.
I do respect your opinions and I also find them useful when you are not doing what I felt you did to my post.
I know his stand point -I respect it, but I don´t swallow everything raw. That´s just me and yes we are not on the same page there obviously...
My problem was that you specifically quoted me (seemingly) out of context, and implied me to say or state something I did not. That´s a problem for having any fruitful discussion IMHO.
If you feel that I have misread you, I am truly sorry and would appreciate if you could point out where and how I did so.
I do respect your opinions and I also find them useful when you are not doing what I felt you did to my post.
That's the great thing with a technical no-nonsense approach.
You don't have to swallow everything raw, since you can check and verify the reasoning/theory/whatever behind a claim.
When we talk about mysteries, opinions and "stuff that cannot be measured but can be heard", we don't have the same luxury.
In the words of Howard Hollowitz (while having a fantasy of being in bed with Katee Sackhoff):
Having re-read our posts, I honestly fail to see the misunderstanding.
This:
...seemed to me like a comparison of amplifiers' "placement needs" to those of a turntable. Sorry if I misread it.
The fact remains: amps are routinely installed inside loudspeakers of the highest "pedigree" (NCores among them, in the case of LS1).
That's the great thing with a technical no-nonsense approach.
You don't have to swallow everything raw, since you can check and verify the reasoning/theory/whatever behind a claim.
When we talk about mysteries, opinions and "stuff that cannot be measured but can be heard", we don't have the same luxury.
In the words of Howard Hollowitz (while having a fantasy of being in bed with Katee Sackhoff):
Having re-read our posts, I honestly fail to see the misunderstanding.
This:
...seemed to me like a comparison of amplifiers' "placement needs" to those of a turntable. Sorry if I misread it.
The fact remains: amps are routinely installed inside loudspeakers of the highest "pedigree" (NCores among them, in the case of LS1).
TheShaman,
Thanks for a more thorough reply. That is very appreciated.
Yes I do recon the non nonsense technical approach fruitful in many ways, and that "believing" in ones ears often opens more questions than it closes. We are totally on wavelength there if I read you correctly. So yes it is not as "luxury".
Well I actually do examine the reasoning behind these claims.
My problem is that any technical account is purified, meaning that it is based on leaving out stuff. That is not a bad thing, that is in fact a very powerful thing -especially to make it useful. -AND "truthful", but that IS only in a very narrow sense do to what has been left out. This is not a controversial view in science, if I may add.
When we deal with audio, we can either believe that we know it all or that we don´t know everything yet. I propose that last one to be the more likely option of the two (I frankly wouldn´t expect anyone to honestly disagree, neither you nor Bruno)
If we accept both these reasonings the question arise that how can we know that our technical (purified) approach has not left out something important that we cannot yet account for in a reasonable technical way?
This is by no means an attempt to say forget about technical and science based approaches, but more to be careful about how we apply them. Because we will by definition have left out something. Some things we know that we have left out (those we can reason about) but there will also be things that we don´t know that we have left out nor the consequence of having left them out.
Saying that something is not there because we cannot measure it does not mean that it is not there. It only means that we cannot not measure it.
- We probably had what we now know as bacteria before we could detect them in the way that we recognize them today... Audio is probably not that different is my humble guess. Your guess may be different but then it is not humble enough IMHO of course
Regarding the misunderstandings:
My intention was not to say that amps and TTs are the same (which you implied that I did) nor that they should necessarily have the same placement, but merely to emphasize the importance of the mechanical coupling of audio gear. What you didn´t quote was my explanation of my experience which was not restricted to either amps nor TT. (anything can be made to sound wrong out of context)
But yes i do mean that my amps responds audibly to what they are placed on. And yes some speakers do build in amps in their speaker enclosures and I am not saying that it cannot be done well, but I am saying that I have heard very audible differences depending on what my amps has been placed on.
Whether that holds true for the ncore´s and the specific implementation in either the GRIMMs or in your amps I have deliberately not said anything about. BTW I am not sure that the GRIMM implementation and that on the floor are actually comparable either, if I may add.
What was a worse "reading" of what I asked was that you implied that I asked whether a regulated SMPS would be better by referring to what Bruno has said about them not being measurably better.
I specifically asked whether there was any technical reason for why a REGULATED SMPS should be WORSE than an non-regulated SMPS.
If you fail to see that as a misconception I am not sure we speak the same language here... At least we fail to communicate
all the best,
Last edited:
Just try 1.5k or higher. Another option would be to use another LED. The one I use produces maximal 5 mcd..
You mean, like this?
Exactly like that
Lets agree that they are not entirely acoustically isolated in that implementation.
I guess that it isn´t a permanent solution?
I guess that it isn´t a permanent solution?
It is. And what's the problem with that?
all this just for a led...
just buy whatever led from the local shop and use a pot to determine the required resistance for the light output you like. the higher the resistance the longer the lifetime.
There is absolutely no problem at all StigErik
- because it is not my system
Though you may not believe that it has any audible influence, I would suggest you to try other possible and practical placements and also try different materials underneath the amps. In your case my guess would be that hard coupling is not a viable option (due to present placement) but soft coupling may be worthwhile though it may alter system balance a little.
You can try old mouse map cut into small pieces and placed under the corners. The low weight of the amp as is, will probably mean that it is difficult to find the 4Hz mechanical frequency(which many seems to be aiming for), but who cares it if works
Note that I am not promoting snake oil but old mouse map which potentially is for free...
cheers,
I think you are, to some degree.
If this had been a highly microphonic tube-amp, I would have never mounted the amp inside the speaker, but with the Ncore.... should be no problem at all. There is no reason at all it should be a problem, and when you try to fix something that's not broken, it is snake oil in my opinion.
And I have tried the amps tucked away from the speakers, and there was no audible difference.
Yeh, I know but like I said, for some reason the type I wanted seem to be rare. Most blue flat top LEDs are super bright. I buy everything online and as resistors cost pennies I thought I'd ask so that I can get an idea of a sensible selection to try. When you've not done anything like this before, even the simplest things can take time to work out and I would like to have everything ready for when my ncores arrive
Last edited:
If you can´t hear the diff, then no prob. Simple as that.
I don´t think that we have quite the same idea about snake oil. I don´t think that I have said anything about anything being broken (and I´m not sure snake oil is exactly about that either).
To me the devil is in the detail and in a system as expensive as I guess yours is, I see little reason for not trying to optimize it -which typically would imply some test and trial to hit the nails where they seem to matter. Snake oil, not IMHO.
cheers,
you can dim the LED with a high value resistor. you'll have to experiment as they're nowhere near linear in this respect. that's what I did with my vandal switch, I used a pot to find the intensity I like, enough to be seen during the day and not too obtrusive in dim light.
also, use a diffuse type LED, they're not as bright and look better for this application.
also, use a diffuse type LED, they're not as bright and look better for this application.
I have ordered diffused LEDs as I agree with you. I'll get some 1K, 1K5 and 1K8 resistors to try as I don't have a pot around (thought that is a sensible idea). I was going to go for a latching vandal switch but in the end have decided it would be too large and dominant for the front panel design I've decided to run with. Also it is odd that the blue Schurter switches are a lot more than the red and green and the 19mm blue is almost double the price of the red at RS!
1k to 1k8 won't give much of a variation in brightness with LEDs. it depends on LED type and in my experience it's worse with high brightness ones. human perception of brightness is nonlinear in its own but the brightness over current curve of LEDs even more so.
damn we are doing LEDs 101 on the NCORE thread. I guess it's OK since we're between batch deliveries
here's some link I found: LED center How is LED brightness related to current?
400% current variation gives little brightness variation.
here's some link I found: LED center How is LED brightness related to current?
400% current variation gives little brightness variation.
The LEDs I ordered are 250 mcd diffused which I am now thinking is probably too bright. I must admit that I probably made a mistake with this due to most search results showing up LEDs with 6,000 mcd, 8,000 mcd and I missed the bit in the description of these with 250 mcd where it does describe them as high brightness (I had spent far too long looking for an LED which was supposed to be an easier option than an illuminated switch!).
So, as this has an impact on the faceplate design (drilling etc) I now need to find an alternative quickly (as drawings are being finalised with the manufacturer).
Can anyone find me a flat topped ideally diffused blue 3mm LED that is low intensity as I just can't seem to find one?
.....the devil is always in the detail!
So, as this has an impact on the faceplate design (drilling etc) I now need to find an alternative quickly (as drawings are being finalised with the manufacturer).
Can anyone find me a flat topped ideally diffused blue 3mm LED that is low intensity as I just can't seem to find one?
.....the devil is always in the detail!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.