If his comment was ironic, it was not clever, because *it works*.
If it was not, I wonder why some one want to prefer a plane for a road trip.
Pro Measuring instruments are supposed to be designed with good enough line isolation and AC filtering. Not most of the HIFI gears.
In a laboratory equipment, if it changes your results by 1 or 10% of their values, who cares ? As long it is not for Rockets trajectories.
In a hifi system, if it improves your listening pleasure in such an obvious way that many people that tried-it had described, It should be a better place to use it.
On my side, I have never listened to this particular device "Monster ....". But I know by experience how much cleaning the AC, working with batteries and isolating grounds can change the clarity of the musical signal, separation between instruments, precision, easy listening and fatigue reduction comparing the same system AC powered.
And I am confident that if it is Richard that had designed-it, it has been done according to the best rules of art and scientific correctness.
I am tired of this permanent negativity, here, from the few "all amps sound the same" bunch of people that believe they know everything, but, obviously just demonstrate their lack of experience. That criticates products they have never even seen nor measured. Just because it was not in their school books.
(I don't say this about anatech ;-)
Cleaning AC lines form HF and distortion, isolating ground leakages DO WORK.
It improves a lot the listening experience and the change is easy to measure if you understand how: I indicated one way earlier.
If you can measure a difference, if you can hear-it, but if *your* distortion measurements cannot, the only conclusion is: you are trying to measure a temp change with a watch: think twice and discover a way to measure what you heard.
Last edited:
Just so there is no doubt about it..... I did characterize and measured the problem..... thus, leading to the solution I chose.
That investigation and solution was all technical. The more interesting part is it is audible.
Mark was a good subject in that he is technical and skeptical.
THx-RNMarsh
That investigation and solution was all technical. The more interesting part is it is audible.
Mark was a good subject in that he is technical and skeptical.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi Tryphon,
If you are referring to my comment about using the Monster AC mains filter box on the bench instead of my sound system, it's easy to explain. My bench is where I study and experiment. It is where I can confirm the quality of my work, so anything that allows me to "see" into the residuals of a THD analyser or into the grass of a spec-an benefits not only me, but everyone I do work for. It might even help me do a better job and earn more. My monetary resources are very tight and each and everything I buy must pull it's weight. My sound systems are tuned here on the bench, so having the filter here benefits me as well. If I earn more and can afford it, then by all means, I'll buy another for my main system.
One piece of equipment I would very much like to save up for is an AC line regenerator. They make these with an arbitrary waveform generator built in so that I can recreate some really "ugly" waveforms to make certain my power supply sections can reject these impairments. I know for certain this will make me a better designer, and my products improved. It would also allow me to test these AC mains cleaners and maybe even some Bybee technologies. Something that would then be a repeatable test and that really makes the testing valid.
So Tryphon, what do you think? Would installing the line filter on my bench make sense, or does it prove I'm not interested in listening to my stereo? Given the resources I would buy one for each use, but I will have to choose. I will also have to wait for this.
Best, Chris
I'm also at a loss for your meaning. I think I'm on record as a strong believer in listening to equipment and even power supplies.
If you are referring to my comment about using the Monster AC mains filter box on the bench instead of my sound system, it's easy to explain. My bench is where I study and experiment. It is where I can confirm the quality of my work, so anything that allows me to "see" into the residuals of a THD analyser or into the grass of a spec-an benefits not only me, but everyone I do work for. It might even help me do a better job and earn more. My monetary resources are very tight and each and everything I buy must pull it's weight. My sound systems are tuned here on the bench, so having the filter here benefits me as well. If I earn more and can afford it, then by all means, I'll buy another for my main system.
One piece of equipment I would very much like to save up for is an AC line regenerator. They make these with an arbitrary waveform generator built in so that I can recreate some really "ugly" waveforms to make certain my power supply sections can reject these impairments. I know for certain this will make me a better designer, and my products improved. It would also allow me to test these AC mains cleaners and maybe even some Bybee technologies. Something that would then be a repeatable test and that really makes the testing valid.
So Tryphon, what do you think? Would installing the line filter on my bench make sense, or does it prove I'm not interested in listening to my stereo? Given the resources I would buy one for each use, but I will have to choose. I will also have to wait for this.
Best, Chris
If my lab results vary by 1-10% of their values, I might as well be using my eye to measure micron-sized particulate. I'm frequently looking for changes in biological systems in the 0.1% range, and my test equipment needs to be two orders of magnitude below that (which means each part of the instrument another couple below that). Puts me solidly in the PPM range.
I get so tired of the adage that test equipment isn't sensitive enough--that's ridiculous. Keeping everything past the electronics the same*, the only way you're going to change the sound hitting your ears is by changing the transfer function of those electronics. For which test equipment can be made exquisitely sensitive to changes and small spurious signals. Applicability of said tests to audibility is another kettle of fish, but we regularly talk about 1 PPM test gear in people's garage benches. I don't think anyone, outside of Mark, is talking about PPM-levels of audible sensitivity from human beings.
Which goes a long ways to say if you can't measure the difference in an appropriate test, it's very very likely not there audibly. The corollary is that not everything measured is audible.
And all the "playing with expectations" blah blah: Mark's impressions are anecdotes, not rigorous and the plurality of anecdote is still not data. I hope he likes it because ultimately audio is a hedonistic pursuit for most of us, but it doesn't help the rest of us.
* forgot to write out the caveats of everything the same: we can't really control the listening room's atmosphere, nor the listener's disposition. Both have large effects.
Last edited:
Hi Daniel,
It's true that if you can hear something, its a large enough change to be measured. That old argument is dead and gone these days. Maybe the wrong test is done, or that particular technician doesn't have modern equipment, or sophisticated equipment. But with someone who is well equipped, if you can hear it, the anomaly can be measured and quantified.
-Chris
It's true that if you can hear something, its a large enough change to be measured. That old argument is dead and gone these days. Maybe the wrong test is done, or that particular technician doesn't have modern equipment, or sophisticated equipment. But with someone who is well equipped, if you can hear it, the anomaly can be measured and quantified.
-Chris
Sure it is possible to measure most anything alright, if you have the test equipment and know what you are looking to measure exactly. Let's see, looks like the first thing we need to add in the way of test equipment would be a power conditioner... Or at least we will know if that's what we need to add after we get one and measure what it does. Let's see, what do we need to get to measure what it does...
Hi Mark,
I'm keeping an open mind. This would be an excellent test to see if a power conditioner is doing anything useful. We can, for example, take a sweep with a shorted input, then add the power conditioner and take another sweep. The differences will be visible if there are any. This device for sweeping can be an excellent Hewlett Packard/Agilent/Keysight spec-an or network analyser, or something like the RTX-6001. I would expect that if there is any difference, you might see it on the RTX unit. It's shielding and power supply isn't done to the quality level of the Hewlett Packard equipment. There isn't anything wrong with the RTX, but it doesn't weight in at 40 pounds or so either, like the older HP gear does.
Hey, if I see a difference, I'm a believer. If not, it's time to look for even worse power supply designs to try this with. There is no shortage of audio equipment with poorly designed power supplies to test.
-Chris
I'm keeping an open mind. This would be an excellent test to see if a power conditioner is doing anything useful. We can, for example, take a sweep with a shorted input, then add the power conditioner and take another sweep. The differences will be visible if there are any. This device for sweeping can be an excellent Hewlett Packard/Agilent/Keysight spec-an or network analyser, or something like the RTX-6001. I would expect that if there is any difference, you might see it on the RTX unit. It's shielding and power supply isn't done to the quality level of the Hewlett Packard equipment. There isn't anything wrong with the RTX, but it doesn't weight in at 40 pounds or so either, like the older HP gear does.
Hey, if I see a difference, I'm a believer. If not, it's time to look for even worse power supply designs to try this with. There is no shortage of audio equipment with poorly designed power supplies to test.
-Chris
Since we agree we can test anything, how are we usually testing for audio equipment sensitivity to HF and RF on the power lines, as well as sensitivity to radiated EMI/RFI? Is it only the big companies that can afford to send their designs out to specialized labs for that?
What good if we see that an amp is rated for .00001% distortion and then feel confident nobody could hear any distortion from it, if we don't know if how it is performing wherever it is plugged in right now?
What good if we see that an amp is rated for .00001% distortion and then feel confident nobody could hear any distortion from it, if we don't know if how it is performing wherever it is plugged in right now?
Last edited:
Hi Mark,
We are left with crude, but inexpensive tests - like activating a cell phone very close to the cables running in & out of the unit.
For testing RF on the power line, I would build a filter circuit, like a crossover, and inject the RF into the power line with RF generators I have on my bench The source out from my HP 3585A would allow a sweep up to about 40 MHz. Of course this is a specialized and highly dangerous project The actual injection of the RF should be done through a transformer to maintain isolation from the line. The transformer used would have to be rated for this application with very high breakdown voltage.
-Chris
We are left with crude, but inexpensive tests - like activating a cell phone very close to the cables running in & out of the unit.
For testing RF on the power line, I would build a filter circuit, like a crossover, and inject the RF into the power line with RF generators I have on my bench The source out from my HP 3585A would allow a sweep up to about 40 MHz. Of course this is a specialized and highly dangerous project The actual injection of the RF should be done through a transformer to maintain isolation from the line. The transformer used would have to be rated for this application with very high breakdown voltage.
-Chris
That's the logical equivalent of the slippery slope argument. Don't be ridiculous.
As Chris wrote, measuring your equipment in place (and add your cell phones) will tell you and you in specific whether there's hash showing up (and folding back into the audio band). We don't need to test every possibility, we need to test our own.
My point was not test every possibility. It was that we should not be overly certain people who claim to hear this or that are imagining things because it should be impossible to hear any such thing based on this or that published number. That's all.
We say anything can be measured which is true, but it may be a lot easier to say it than do it especially if not equipped for it, or perhaps if it is a specialist's type of measurement.
Yet, claims from some listeners are quite non-credible. I don't know what the answer is, except to defer judgement sometimes.
Last edited:
Thanks T, for your evaluation of how things are evaluated here. I was trying to find a proper response myself, but I just could not find the words, without upsetting someone.
When some of us have done years of design and development of audio products, it is disappointing to be told what we do is irrelevant for the most part.
For example, Richard has actually put in man-months, if not years on designing power conditioners, using pretty good test equipment. Why not accept what he states?
As far as using isolation transformers on test equipment, it works, but usually doesn't change much the resolution, or baseline with quality HP or TEK test equipment. However, I do have a portable digital scope power supply that can be easily detected by my Stanford Research SR-1 when placed in the power line, in parallel, without a power conditioner of some kind.
When some of us have done years of design and development of audio products, it is disappointing to be told what we do is irrelevant for the most part.
For example, Richard has actually put in man-months, if not years on designing power conditioners, using pretty good test equipment. Why not accept what he states?
As far as using isolation transformers on test equipment, it works, but usually doesn't change much the resolution, or baseline with quality HP or TEK test equipment. However, I do have a portable digital scope power supply that can be easily detected by my Stanford Research SR-1 when placed in the power line, in parallel, without a power conditioner of some kind.
Hi John,
I don't know about the rest of what you have said though. I've never rejected the value of a line filter. Taken a bit further it becomes a line conditioner, and I certainly wouldn't reject that idea. I don't remember anyone having a problem with that actually.
-Chris
I'll believe that
I don't know about the rest of what you have said though. I've never rejected the value of a line filter. Taken a bit further it becomes a line conditioner, and I certainly wouldn't reject that idea. I don't remember anyone having a problem with that actually.
-Chris
Yes, I don't see any relationship between an "AC filter/conditionner" and a Bybee device.
The first one is a technical piece of gear, made with electronic components on the shelf, (trasfos, capacitances, inductances) and you know what it does and how.
The other is a mysterious thing, made of mysterious material (from Roswell ?) that provide mysterious benefits based on a mysterious science of "Quantum".
So, if it is not mental confusion, it looks like an outrageous attempt to make believe Mr. Marsh is some kind of a charlatan.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.