mwaters10 said:
SY an audiophool after just a few cool posts?! Some of us have worked for years for the privelege. It's just not fair.
Don't be shy, tell the world why the orientation of a non-polarised capacitor might affect noise in the example you gave, eg: a decoupler.
You started with an explanation about high impedance at one end, and low impedance at the other.
In alternating current (AC, also ac) the movement (or flow) of electric charge periodically reverses direction. An electric charge would for instance move forward, then backward, then forward, then backward, over and over again.
So I ask you which direction is right for a non polarised capacitor, bearing in mind that the current is alternating through it.
Outside foil toward the lower impedance point. The fact that there's an inside and an outside foil on actual physical capacitors doesn't show up in SPICE, sorry.
mwaters10 said:
I wasn't talking about the capacitor.
mwaters10 said:
The idea is to use the outer foil as a screen from external interference as well as minimising the possibility of interfering with other components close to it. This may indirectly influence SQ. Nothing to do with the ac signal.
The fact that you're probably the most experienced, cogent and ardent defender of scientific process on this site? Not me.
thanks jacob for your writeup.
so are we moving closer to agreement that we can use a switch in these tests? (surely the munich test used a switch)
c'mon andy, we are getting closer now.
alternatively, who else in nsw would like to participate? brett?? big gay al? anyone else?
key, tried downloading your results...gave up..any chance for a precis?
so are we moving closer to agreement that we can use a switch in these tests? (surely the munich test used a switch)
c'mon andy, we are getting closer now.
alternatively, who else in nsw would like to participate? brett?? big gay al? anyone else?
key, tried downloading your results...gave up..any chance for a precis?
Ok I can accept this sounds a perfectly logical approach for film capacitors that are of wound construction, you want external noise to have the lowest impedance return path to ground.
I hadn't thought of that so I'll F Off with my tail between my legs, but I think you should explain about your comment on directionality of inductor coils, all you could add to support this claim was "possibly stray fields ..."
99% of film capacitors are wound. This is why I was trying to focus you on real, physical chunks that we build real amplifiers from.
Now... think about a coil that has one end on the inside and one end on the outside. That's a typical winding. Presumably these ends are connected to different parts of the circuit. Now is the loop area the same on inside and out? Are the capacitances between loops the same on the inside as the outside? How about the capacitance to ground from the nearby chassis? No? Then what happens when a field intersects that loop area?
I can complicate it a bit more by adding resistances and coupling but I think you see where this is going.
Again, I have not claimed that these effects are universally audible, but they are measurable, they're within the laws of physics and known engineering, and cannot be summarily dismissed in the way one can dismiss (say) demagnetization of CDs.
Now... think about a coil that has one end on the inside and one end on the outside. That's a typical winding. Presumably these ends are connected to different parts of the circuit. Now is the loop area the same on inside and out? Are the capacitances between loops the same on the inside as the outside? How about the capacitance to ground from the nearby chassis? No? Then what happens when a field intersects that loop area?
I can complicate it a bit more by adding resistances and coupling but I think you see where this is going.
Again, I have not claimed that these effects are universally audible, but they are measurable, they're within the laws of physics and known engineering, and cannot be summarily dismissed in the way one can dismiss (say) demagnetization of CDs.
will post the numbers I guess. All tests used these settings
Testing device Analog out 7-8 (Onyx 400F)
Sampling mode 24-bit, 192 kHz
Interface MME
Testing chain External loopback (line-out - line-in)
RMAA Version 6.2.2
20 Hz - 20 kHz filter OFF
Normalize amplitude ON
Level change -0.5 dB / -0.5 dB
Mono mode OFF
Calibration singal, Hz 1000
Polarity correct/correct
Switchcraft 1/4" TRS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.6 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.6 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.9 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -105.6 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
Radioshack1/4" TRS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.5 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.6 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.7 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -104.7 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
Fender/DiMarzio 1/4" TS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.2 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.2 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.8 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -104.4 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
Radioshack 1/4" TS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.5 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.6 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.8 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -105.4 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
If anyone wants to send me some Quad Canare 1/4" TRSs I would be more than happy to test them and keep them 😀
Testing device Analog out 7-8 (Onyx 400F)
Sampling mode 24-bit, 192 kHz
Interface MME
Testing chain External loopback (line-out - line-in)
RMAA Version 6.2.2
20 Hz - 20 kHz filter OFF
Normalize amplitude ON
Level change -0.5 dB / -0.5 dB
Mono mode OFF
Calibration singal, Hz 1000
Polarity correct/correct
Switchcraft 1/4" TRS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.6 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.6 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.9 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -105.6 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
Radioshack1/4" TRS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.5 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.6 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.7 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -104.7 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
Fender/DiMarzio 1/4" TS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.2 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.2 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.8 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -104.4 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
Radioshack 1/4" TS
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.03, -0.05 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A) -109.5 Excellent
Dynamic range, dB (A) 109.6 Excellent
THD, % 0.0014 Excellent
THD + Noise, dB (A) -93.8 Very good
IMD + Noise, % 0.018 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -105.4 Excellent
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.021 Good
If anyone wants to send me some Quad Canare 1/4" TRSs I would be more than happy to test them and keep them 😀
That's not true.
There are just as many stacked film types in the RS catalogue as there are wound, if not more.
As a DIYer I think it is quite acceptable to dismiss anything that does not make a difference to the sound quality. I try to achieve the best quality sound for my budget, it makes no sense to try and engineer a solution that makes no difference to audio. This should not be confused as ignorance of the existance of potential problems either, but for example, it makes no difference to me that there is a magnetic field formed in an inductor, if it has no audible affect on sound quality.
I'm not sure that when you say "they are measurable" if you are referring to measurements in the audio range, or if you are referring to other phenomenan like EM noise, magnetic flux strength etc ..
I accept there is potential for many problems in audio reproduction, the point to all of these dicussions on a diyAudio forum should be to make differences that are audible. Otherwise, I would be on a Physics forum, right ?
Whether or not they are audible depends very much on the particulars of use. For example if those differences in the RF cause instability, if strays upset the feedback, if a coil polarity couples ground currents, the effect can be audible even if its out of the audio band.
I can't disagree with anything you said there.
The problems is, in the quest to eliminate noise, and other potential problems in audio systems, you are always constrained by the limits of the technology.
A musical system is not necessarily a system that has low noise.
The output stage of a CD player is one example where the use of op-amps and SM components to eliminate ultra-sonic noise
also serves to colour and distort the musical audible range, and bypassing this circuitry altogether can make a considerable difference.
Analogue radio broadcasts sounded more musical than a lot of CD recordings today, FM is a very noisy medium but it proved how EM waves could transport a musical signal through the air, preserving most of it's originality
Often, it is better to use a valve with higher noise levels, than use a transistor with low noise levels.
So over-engineering can often be synonymous with poorer sound quality in audio.
We have to decide if the reasons are due to the technology or the design, and what works musically is not what necessarily works on paper. To my thinking, expensive cables and orientation of coils and non-polarised caps are some of the most insignificant issues.
The problems is, in the quest to eliminate noise, and other potential problems in audio systems, you are always constrained by the limits of the technology.
A musical system is not necessarily a system that has low noise.
The output stage of a CD player is one example where the use of op-amps and SM components to eliminate ultra-sonic noise
also serves to colour and distort the musical audible range, and bypassing this circuitry altogether can make a considerable difference.
Analogue radio broadcasts sounded more musical than a lot of CD recordings today, FM is a very noisy medium but it proved how EM waves could transport a musical signal through the air, preserving most of it's originality
Often, it is better to use a valve with higher noise levels, than use a transistor with low noise levels.
So over-engineering can often be synonymous with poorer sound quality in audio.
We have to decide if the reasons are due to the technology or the design, and what works musically is not what necessarily works on paper. To my thinking, expensive cables and orientation of coils and non-polarised caps are some of the most insignificant issues.
terry j said:
Brett has always posted a negative on all types of similar tests. What would this test achieve in his case? You should concentrate on test subjects who claim to hear a difference.
Probably nothing, but I am willing to be convinced.analog_sa said:
I would however lend assistance for the logistics if required.
Edit: and it wasn't 'always' but years of experimenting have shown me there is a trivial, and I mean truly trivial difference WRT cables, and nothing that cannot be ascribed to LRC.
analog_sa said:
you didn't think I realised that?
but seein as how the tumbleweeds and wind is blowin thru that ghost town of subjectivists called "willing to put up" I really had little other choice
- Status
- Not open for further replies.