Focus on claims requiring new physics? I would have some concerns about possible backfire effect.
Just watched an interesting video on that channel.
YouTube
BTW, the amp has a switch to add 10dB negative feedback, or zero (disconnect). Taken after the OPT. One review I found online says it sounds a lot better without feedback. I would sure like to audition it.
Which reminds me of that movie that the San Franciscan made, where he say's:
"Go ahead make my day."
(no pop guns either)
🙂 but was really looking for the dancing banana so my little girl will smile.
Cheers,
That seems like an awful lot of work and expense for a capacitor orientation checker.
😕
The one I just posted is another video, Tube Amplifier Troubleshooting and Modification. That´s the tube amp schematic.
-Alex
-Alex
I should have said "entertaining", this is the word. Rather than interesting.
Still would like to audition the amp and try the switch - zero feedback vs. 10dB
Scott, I believe there is not such a thing like "what can be heard or not".
And I am always surprised by this stupid reference to so calling "Golden ears".
In audio, like for the guys that create perfumes or wine's expert and producers, it is a question of culture ... and taste. Never a question of some special accuracy of their audition, taste and smell.
Music and its reproduction is something artistic, subjective. Of course with a part of science and technology.
Because what we hear is not the result of some kind of objective microphone more or less sensible and accurate. It is *deeply* processed by our brains.
It is a question of knowledge of the instruments, and knowledge of the defects in reproduction systems that some can recognise and compare... or not.. (Friend's faces in a crowd.) .
And we are all differents in our tastes and preferences. Some are more sensible to microdynamic, others to soundstages, linearity of the response curves, various distortions, added noise etc...
Last edited:
You only have to pay the postmaster for the round trip. I'll take care of the rest. The updates are not sonically trivial.
Hi Tryphon,
I think we differ in opinion here. If the reproduced sound sounds just like the original sound, the system is accurate and makes music. The closer we get to that ideal response, the more alike different amplifier and speakers will sound (by definition).
I know there are things we can't hear. I am often brought equipment for a modification and find it has some sort of failure that once mended, eliminates the need for the modification they were asking for.
It's always amazing how people can listen to equipment with faults and accept it as working in perfect health.
-Chris
I think we differ in opinion here. If the reproduced sound sounds just like the original sound, the system is accurate and makes music. The closer we get to that ideal response, the more alike different amplifier and speakers will sound (by definition).
I know there are things we can't hear. I am often brought equipment for a modification and find it has some sort of failure that once mended, eliminates the need for the modification they were asking for.
It's always amazing how people can listen to equipment with faults and accept it as working in perfect health.
-Chris
True. 🙂 and that was almost a lot of fun back in the day..... Whose inaccuracies are documented and heard.
.... and there is a large body not dedicated to the LP system, also.
.... and there is a large body dedicated to accuracy.
Enjoy.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Thank you.For years I have bought different audio capacitors from their distributors.Mostly from Michael Percy .Once,in 2007, I contacted them directly for a limited order of Audiocap PPMF,RT(100vdc), for bypassing preamp and mc / mm phono where is limited space.
Now it's a similar situation. Also, here I read that it is possible to order the exact value of the teflon film capacitance for phono RIAA eq.
That's why I wanted to contact them directly.
I have to phone because they don't have another available email address.
You probably need to describe the changes in technical terms to lure him in. Like:
- bandwith
- noise
- dist/IM
- in and out impedance
- power consumption
- mechanical noise
- radiated EMI
as a function of:
- input level
- temperature and humidity
- mains (level, noise, dist)
- vibration
- induced EMI
- drive and load impedance
and not only the usual "averaging" type measurement but also wavelet/envelop as well as "waterfall" analysis.
Is there more? I think thats what characterises an "information conveyor" function.
//
I actually suspect the body dedicated to accuracy is a lot smaller than one might think. Sadly.
(Note accuracy and LP are not entirely mutually exclusive as you can try and pull as much as possible off a LP, but you have to accept that, from an accuracy perspective you don't have to spend much on digital to surpass it).
(Note accuracy and LP are not entirely mutually exclusive as you can try and pull as much as possible off a LP, but you have to accept that, from an accuracy perspective you don't have to spend much on digital to surpass it).
I don't feel we differ.
As both a sound engineer and a designer, I was always looking and working to find "transparent" systems. Because we can only rely at what we hear during studio production.
A pure utopia.
Is is enough to record the acoustic output of a speaker to be horrified !
There are numerous videos on the Internet to justify this claim.
Only few speakers, in a very limited angle, distance, and acoustic levels in rooms with a huge acoustic treatment are able to create this "illusion", and even those, on a limited kind of instruments and for a short time: That works on voices does not on Drums & vice versa.
I notice the only few systems that can make the trick are, on my opinion, always based on horns and compression drivers.
YouTube
YouTube
YouTube
The worse are speakers assembly with more than 2 ways (don't know how to say this in English). I mean a set of traditional speakers (diaphragm, or membrane ?) with crossovers for sub bass, bass, low medium, high medium and tweeters.
YouTube
YouTube (at 11.1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBvytiLyFzs
Hugly monsters to produce a fairy sound so awful that i wonder how our ears and brain can process this nightmare in such a way that we can feel this acceptable and, even, sometimes, transparent ;-)
And I am not talking about the prices of those pieces of ... that J.C. should call "High end" ?
You will notice how much do they excite acoustic reverberation of the rooms, compared to the real instruments !
Oh, Lord, we can continue here to fight endlessly about what can be heard or not, and cut harmonic distortions of our amps in pieces of 0.0001% in the name of the orthodox science ;-)
And Mr. Wilson to make conferences in the manner of an hypnotist to sell his "magic" when he "voice" his bullhorns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=eJkgDW5ojkQ
Last edited:
Sorry to intrude, at this time, about the mains-filter topic (so long ago 🙂).
Attached is a AC graph and schematic of the mains-filter as depicted in RN Marsh his US patent 5260862.
There are two questions that I have about the simulation:
1: Why do I not see 20dB of more suppression at 1kHz (maybe I made some wrong assumptions about the mains impedance (or otherwise) and maybe I made some wrong assumption about the load).
2: What about the 56u capacitor (C8), is that not a bit large? and if 56u is needed would this be a suitable capacitor https://nl.mouser.com/datasheet/2/212/F3303_C44E-1104307.pdf
Frans.
Attached is a AC graph and schematic of the mains-filter as depicted in RN Marsh his US patent 5260862.
There are two questions that I have about the simulation:
1: Why do I not see 20dB of more suppression at 1kHz (maybe I made some wrong assumptions about the mains impedance (or otherwise) and maybe I made some wrong assumption about the load).
2: What about the 56u capacitor (C8), is that not a bit large? and if 56u is needed would this be a suitable capacitor https://nl.mouser.com/datasheet/2/212/F3303_C44E-1104307.pdf
Frans.
Attachments
Hi Tryphon,
From experience I will disagree with you. In some respects you are right, but you still need a three way system at the very least, actively crossed over will create the illusion you mention. The problem with a two way system is that the doppler effect tears the sonic image apart.
Early in my career I designed a two way system that featured Peerless drivers the two positions. The 8" woofer and 1" soft dome tweeter integrated well around 3 KHz or so. The response extended down to roughly 35 Hz -3 dB. That is extremely low for an 8" driver, but it had the effect of controlling the woofer on low notes - reducing distortion. What I wasn't prepared for was the amount of doppler "distortion" that exists with 2 way systems.
Later I bought a pair of PCB Stratus Gold speakers that addressed this problem fairly well. These are a three way speaker that use a 10" woofer, a 6.5" mid range driver in a sealed enclosure and an aluminium tweeter, 1" diaphragm. The reason these speakers are so successful is due to the crossover frequencies they used. I can't remember what they are right now, but he basically made a two way system with an integrated sub woofer. This really helped with the doppler effect as the bass frequencies are not handled by the midrange that is crossed over before the start of the range used by vocals. It also helped to defragment the crucial midrange frequencies that we are sensitive to.
I don't think a classic two way system can reproduce a convincing audio image if there is any bass happening at the same time. The full range speaker designs suffer even worse than the two way speakers do. A successful speaker system really does need to divide the range of operation between at least three drivers.
-Chris
Okay, so you mean a woofer, midrange and tweeter.
From experience I will disagree with you. In some respects you are right, but you still need a three way system at the very least, actively crossed over will create the illusion you mention. The problem with a two way system is that the doppler effect tears the sonic image apart.
Early in my career I designed a two way system that featured Peerless drivers the two positions. The 8" woofer and 1" soft dome tweeter integrated well around 3 KHz or so. The response extended down to roughly 35 Hz -3 dB. That is extremely low for an 8" driver, but it had the effect of controlling the woofer on low notes - reducing distortion. What I wasn't prepared for was the amount of doppler "distortion" that exists with 2 way systems.
Later I bought a pair of PCB Stratus Gold speakers that addressed this problem fairly well. These are a three way speaker that use a 10" woofer, a 6.5" mid range driver in a sealed enclosure and an aluminium tweeter, 1" diaphragm. The reason these speakers are so successful is due to the crossover frequencies they used. I can't remember what they are right now, but he basically made a two way system with an integrated sub woofer. This really helped with the doppler effect as the bass frequencies are not handled by the midrange that is crossed over before the start of the range used by vocals. It also helped to defragment the crucial midrange frequencies that we are sensitive to.
I don't think a classic two way system can reproduce a convincing audio image if there is any bass happening at the same time. The full range speaker designs suffer even worse than the two way speakers do. A successful speaker system really does need to divide the range of operation between at least three drivers.
-Chris
I presume excursion has a large part to play in this effect, as you can guess from my signature I like the woofer supported wideband approach, what would you suggest is a reasonable crossover frequency in this case?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.