Yes.
As far as the "mechanical" side, we agree.
Absolutely not.
Working principles are different, architecture is different, components themselves are different, behaviour under high output and clipping are different.
Materials used pale before that.
And that is the understatement of the year.
As far as mechanical vibrations, fine.
Influence on "electrical" signals is on a wholly different map.
What does THAT mean?
A speaker "sounds SET like" ??? 😲
To lubricate moving parts I expect.
What do you expect to hear?
So we can get into the proper influenced state of mind.
You mean wires vibrating or something?
Not Audio coming out of speakers?
What would the influence be on Audio coming from speakers?
Is it relevant?
I have heard OTs and TO3 metallic transistors "sing", from magnetostriction (or plain loose laminations) or done kind of Piezo effect, when/if speakers are disconnected so room is silent.
Not sure how this relates to Audio reproduction.
You're pretty much correct to elaborate my meaning on dogma.
I'm stating that all work related to electrical measurements is correct and needed when designing devices for audio reproduction, necessary from the terms of minimizing the effect of audibility resulting from unwanted change in electrical signals, that is mostly harmonic and linear distortion, phase domain, etc.
However, my work also dictates that a secondary and audibly very dominant effect results from the acoustic properties of pretty much every audio device, including speakers, amplifiers, sources, power cables and distributors, etc. And has nothing to do with electrical signals.
I consider as dogma arguments trying to explain audible phenomena by really subtle or no objective electrical differences, for example some magic electrical direction in cables, some voodoo skin effects in speaker cables, etc. This is where my hypothesis kicks in, it has a logical explanation on vibration conduction deduced from the materials and geometries used.
I'll be looking to prepare a "teaser" of some kind, with A and B recordings.
@JMFahey , my claim is, simply explained, if one tries to implement two identical solid state amplifiers, identical by circuitry, measurements, pretty much all parts identical, one can achieve night and day sound differences just by the choice of the periphery of building materials, such as the chassis materials, the weight of the chassis. It has nothing to do with electrical signals, I think we can leave these alone.
As for the usage of liquids and liquid containing devices, no. I'm using these as dampeners, speaker walls and baskets for example. Liquids do dampen vibrations, it is no rocket science. My experiment proposal with the jars is a dampening device. Well no, I won't be hinting what you should expect to hear, however if someone has its curiosity struck, can experiment to listen and/or measure.
Wires do transmit vibrations. You can prove that by simply attaching a piece of wire to two paper cups (kid telephone experiment).
Where is the independent evidence to back up your dubious claims?
I'll let yoiu into a secret - music sounds much better if you stand on your head, whilst sucking your big toe.
This statenment is as valid as your claims.
I'll let yoiu into a secret - music sounds much better if you stand on your head, whilst sucking your big toe.
This statenment is as valid as your claims.
A few posts back, I explained it is still a hypothesis due to my remaining job of putting all these finds together into a book of detailed, objective measurements. A claim by definition does not contain proof.
Claim = state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
No need to undertake an aggressive stance for no apparent reason, as if it was a personal insult of some kind.
This is the exact kind of language that discourages people off from doing useful research.
Claim = state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
No need to undertake an aggressive stance for no apparent reason, as if it was a personal insult of some kind.
This is the exact kind of language that discourages people off from doing useful research.
I thought batteryman's comment was rude and uncalled for, but it's easily brushed off. Having experimented with different building materials myself for 30+ years, I find a lot of 50AE's ideas interesting and not without validity. I certainly don't feel threatened by them, not do I find his presentation offensive, which is not always the case. For a long time I used only breadboards for builds, literally maple blocks or cutting boards. At one point someone convinced me that that I'd get better results with a heavy-gauge steel chassis. They were wrong. I also recall some vintage oil-filled power transformers and chokes I got at a hamfest, and was struck by how much smoother and nicer the music sounded. For the past few years I've been more focused on understanding and learning to measure feedback amplifiers, and I'm not really interested at the moment in other sorts of experiments, but I'm still very concious of the sonic properties of the materials I use to build such amps.
What about a concrete chassis and / or speaker cabinets (aka Ferrocement which was a boat building material that seems to have gone out of favour).
If you don't mind the weight, nothing is more rigid for speaker cabinets.
It's cheap, fairly easy to use: make a steel mesh frame and 'plaster' it with cement/sand mix, when prtially dry, polish with a wet trowel.
For your tube amp, make a conecrete housing (with vents) that will stop microphony.
If you don't mind the weight, nothing is more rigid for speaker cabinets.
It's cheap, fairly easy to use: make a steel mesh frame and 'plaster' it with cement/sand mix, when prtially dry, polish with a wet trowel.
For your tube amp, make a conecrete housing (with vents) that will stop microphony.
Dampening as a main element to keep vibrations in check is the wrong solution. By the time the dampening has occured the damage/modification to the signal has already occurred. No way around this. Isolation instead is all about tossing out vibrations to a place and regime where they cannot damage the signal (so a working bandwidth needs to be defined) and only then are damped. The air spring is the best possible solution, on the condition that the body that needs to be free of vibrations effects is as rigid (non dampening) as possible.
If you go and visit any metrology lab you will see they use air-springs, not simple dampers or dampening materials as bodies for their equipment.
The next best thing (in my knoledge) after proper air-springs are the more compact and convenient Townshend seismic isolation pods. Of cource they are a bit less effective than proper airsprings but close nonetheless. Finally, elastic wire.
All these things share a low self resonance frequency and low-moderate damping. Which is "opposite" to strong damping alone. The self-resonance is the freqeucy where all vibrations are disspated: it goes from 0.5-1Hz of the air springs to 4-5 Hz of elastic wire. This is well below the audio range (which is the working band = where the signal lives). The reason for low damping is to get the best possible attenuation curve above the resonance. Ideally 12 db per octave as this behaves as second order filter.
Last edited:
There wasn't anything very sensitive about the circuit, it was a simple SE amp with a driver tube and a large VAIC 300B clone--literally a handful of caps and resistors and a pair of transformers. I pretty much transferred it directly from a maple cutting board. It sounded terrible. Maybe there was some interaction with the electrical properties of the steel. I assumed it was a mechanical interaction with a large, microphonic DHT. Either way, it was a bad combination.
...or I could just use fairly lightweight, easy to source, relatively inert materials like Delrin or wood, that have no magnetic properties and don't ring when you tap them. ;-) Which is what I usually do for amplifiers or preamps.
How do you know it wasn't the position of the planets or the atmospheric pressure? I don't know where the steel chassis phobia originated from. Nearly every piece of tube audio gear was built on a steel chassis. Nobody back then was ever claiming the steel was terrible for their McIntosh or Marantz amps.
Easy A B listening test is made with Mono signal to both channels of a stereo amp. Modify one amp channel and use balance knob to switch fast between left and right channel. But the loudspeakers must be placed identically to back and side walls in the room.
If no Mono music available you must put one source channel to both inputs in parallel with a spitted cable
If no Mono music available you must put one source channel to both inputs in parallel with a spitted cable
Since, in my experience, most of the differences will be in the presentation of the soundstage, this is an excellent method of insuring that you won't be able to perceive any differences.
Pete
Of course they were built on steel chassis. For safety, durability, ease of manufacturing and shipping, etc. Let's face it, one-off or exotic materials are simply not conducive to mass manufacturing processes. That doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference in the sound. Have you ever duplicated an Eico or Heathkit amplifier on a breadboard or Delrin top plate, and then compared that with the original steel version? If not, how can you be sure it doesn't make a difference? ;-)
When an Industry becomes SATURATED and no significant performance differences can be shown, Marketing demands non essential selling points are exaggerated.
As in: "look Ma! No steel"
Or "our amps are SUPERIOR... We don't use lossy sound damaging copper wiring but low resistivity Silver!" 🙄
As in: "look Ma! No steel"
Or "our amps are SUPERIOR... We don't use lossy sound damaging copper wiring but low resistivity Silver!" 🙄
Point-to-point wiring! Amorphous cores! VACUUM TUBES!!! God help us, where will at all end? ;-)
@45 ,
I agree with you mostly, and partially. To make sense why, well, I start with the fact audio preferences are subjective, which means they tend to vary from person to person. In that context, some tend to prefer a higher degree of dampening. And at specific frequencies. Others prefer lighter sound, faster sound, all different attempts to verbalize their subjective interpretation. I suspect you're getting my point. So, there are different materials recipes to get the necessary sound. At least I've been experimenting with all varieties of metals, alloys, heat treatment of them, woods, plastics, liquids (Hg included). Each individual system also varies, speakers IMHO being the most sensitive component. More mellow sounding drivers can require brighter sounding materials for achieving a balance and vise versa. In the end, I wouldn't call ultimate solutions, but more of looking for a balanced solution.
Btw, you have my gratitude of contributing to this topic at a finest level. Apologies to others for what it seems, hijacking the thread, so if a Mod decides, we could move the discussion to another one. Thanks for sharing these pictures, a lot of "material" knowledge is hidden there. And happy to know other folks have pursued such philosophies.
One dream project I'm willing to try in the future is a speaker enclosure which mimics body flesh, as I consider it with a very fine degree of dampening with little to no box panel harmonics. Body flesh has a mixture of skin, tendons, muscle fibers, fat and most importantly, circulating liquids such as blood. And bone acts as a frame. So casting some main frame, made of copper pipes filled with circulating oil, or a loop of hoses, all cast into soft bitumen, etc. Unfortunately, I currently have to manage transformer production, which devours my free resources for vast experiments at this time.
@grovergardner , drilling the chassis will help, check out the theory behind cymbals with holes. From logical deduction, you could also reach to a hypothetical explanation of the reason behind the audibility of mesh plate tubes and multistranded wire. You could also dampen a ringing steel chassis via liquid containing devices, or sticky/tacky ones. In my experience, look for honey consistency ones.
I agree with you mostly, and partially. To make sense why, well, I start with the fact audio preferences are subjective, which means they tend to vary from person to person. In that context, some tend to prefer a higher degree of dampening. And at specific frequencies. Others prefer lighter sound, faster sound, all different attempts to verbalize their subjective interpretation. I suspect you're getting my point. So, there are different materials recipes to get the necessary sound. At least I've been experimenting with all varieties of metals, alloys, heat treatment of them, woods, plastics, liquids (Hg included). Each individual system also varies, speakers IMHO being the most sensitive component. More mellow sounding drivers can require brighter sounding materials for achieving a balance and vise versa. In the end, I wouldn't call ultimate solutions, but more of looking for a balanced solution.
Btw, you have my gratitude of contributing to this topic at a finest level. Apologies to others for what it seems, hijacking the thread, so if a Mod decides, we could move the discussion to another one. Thanks for sharing these pictures, a lot of "material" knowledge is hidden there. And happy to know other folks have pursued such philosophies.
One dream project I'm willing to try in the future is a speaker enclosure which mimics body flesh, as I consider it with a very fine degree of dampening with little to no box panel harmonics. Body flesh has a mixture of skin, tendons, muscle fibers, fat and most importantly, circulating liquids such as blood. And bone acts as a frame. So casting some main frame, made of copper pipes filled with circulating oil, or a loop of hoses, all cast into soft bitumen, etc. Unfortunately, I currently have to manage transformer production, which devours my free resources for vast experiments at this time.
@grovergardner , drilling the chassis will help, check out the theory behind cymbals with holes. From logical deduction, you could also reach to a hypothetical explanation of the reason behind the audibility of mesh plate tubes and multistranded wire. You could also dampen a ringing steel chassis via liquid containing devices, or sticky/tacky ones. In my experience, look for honey consistency ones.
Last edited:
Freedom666,
A large number of Balance Controls on Both preamps, and on Integrated amplifiers have a problem.
The balance control centered gives a flat frequency response; not a problem.
The problem:
But, at the L and R extremes, the frequency response is no longer flat.
Yes it is equal L to R, but do you want to do a 'taste test' of a capacitor when the amplifier frequency response is not flat ?
A large number of Balance Controls on Both preamps, and on Integrated amplifiers have a problem.
The balance control centered gives a flat frequency response; not a problem.
The problem:
But, at the L and R extremes, the frequency response is no longer flat.
Yes it is equal L to R, but do you want to do a 'taste test' of a capacitor when the amplifier frequency response is not flat ?