PMA said:
For me, the most valuable highlight is the fact that - contrary to in other areas of science and engineering - the cost function or figure of merit as you like, is not a number but a **feeling**.
Can one transpose a pretty number to a feeling?
Don't think so, unless it is oneself the builder.
Then as usually, as long as one has a minimum of self respect and does decent numbers, one's contraption tends to sound really good, better than most.
Rodolfo
More like 'reference-less'. In any case ABX usually makes you lose track and everything sounds the same, BUT then it all comes back in normal listening, just like magic. Think about it, if you want to get to the answer to the problem.
Whatever happened to "wire with gain"😀
120 watt pc sound card!!
P.s. that just sounded funny!!🙂 🙂 (please no moderation)
hello , from the other side,
OS
120 watt pc sound card!!
P.s. that just sounded funny!!🙂 🙂 (please no moderation)
hello , from the other side,
OS
john curl said:
There's no magic involved John. All well known phenomena, well understood for decades, well documented. This is a non-issue.
Jan Didden
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/891awsi/
This misses the point completely in the context of this discussion. I don't deny amplifiers sound different which seems to be what JA is alluding to in his article.
I thought the thrust of the discussion here is that discrete and zero or low feedback designs sound better than IC or feedback designs. I contest this as a blanket statement and people and companeis that promote this viewpoint when it fact its done for purely mkt reasons.
The reason for a double blind test is so the sound can be assessed without any visual stimulae - so it s only the sound that counts.
I think JA is a bit disengenueous with his article - its really done to prop up Stereophiles methodology (which I dont think is bad, but lets keep it in the context of Stereophiles methodology).
This misses the point completely in the context of this discussion. I don't deny amplifiers sound different which seems to be what JA is alluding to in his article.
I thought the thrust of the discussion here is that discrete and zero or low feedback designs sound better than IC or feedback designs. I contest this as a blanket statement and people and companeis that promote this viewpoint when it fact its done for purely mkt reasons.
The reason for a double blind test is so the sound can be assessed without any visual stimulae - so it s only the sound that counts.
I think JA is a bit disengenueous with his article - its really done to prop up Stereophiles methodology (which I dont think is bad, but lets keep it in the context of Stereophiles methodology).
After modding out a given amplifier, over the past week/month..bit by bit...I finally got around to swapping out the Emitter Resistors.
It turned out to be the biggest change in the sonics of the amplifier, in sum total-from a single change. Mind you, plenty of other things were done first, so the change would show itself to be most efficacious, at that time.
Then I remembered, why the 'darker sound'? Why the seeming decrease in 'upper frequency information'?
Then I remembered. Oh yes. Transient impedance considerations, under an extremely complex load. Then throw in the feedback network's response behaviour. Remove the complex transient LCR considerations of a cheaper emitter resistor by substituting a far superior unit....combine that with how the ear hears things..and you've got an amplifier that would not measure different for about 99.999% or more of measurement criteria..but it SOUNDS drastically different.
Before, the amplifier would change in it's perceived tonality with an increase or change in drive or level. Now..the amplifier has a considerably decreased change in totality from any given drive level. IT scales volume in a very linear fashion. Now I have to listen closely to the speakers....as now (with their vestigial distortion changes due to level changes) they are my only clue that something is about to 'pop'.
Both Emitter resistors are entirely non-magnetic. Both absolute resistive values were and are essentially identical.
It was the tempco aspects of the resistive substrates that created this difference. The molecular considerations of the materials involved, and the overall design of the given two types.
It turned out to be the biggest change in the sonics of the amplifier, in sum total-from a single change. Mind you, plenty of other things were done first, so the change would show itself to be most efficacious, at that time.
Then I remembered, why the 'darker sound'? Why the seeming decrease in 'upper frequency information'?
Then I remembered. Oh yes. Transient impedance considerations, under an extremely complex load. Then throw in the feedback network's response behaviour. Remove the complex transient LCR considerations of a cheaper emitter resistor by substituting a far superior unit....combine that with how the ear hears things..and you've got an amplifier that would not measure different for about 99.999% or more of measurement criteria..but it SOUNDS drastically different.
Before, the amplifier would change in it's perceived tonality with an increase or change in drive or level. Now..the amplifier has a considerably decreased change in totality from any given drive level. IT scales volume in a very linear fashion. Now I have to listen closely to the speakers....as now (with their vestigial distortion changes due to level changes) they are my only clue that something is about to 'pop'.
Both Emitter resistors are entirely non-magnetic. Both absolute resistive values were and are essentially identical.
It was the tempco aspects of the resistive substrates that created this difference. The molecular considerations of the materials involved, and the overall design of the given two types.
PMA said:
It's not a lie if the person making the statement believe it to be true. Beside, it *may* well be true in the general sense.
Part of the discussion here is to try to establish whether there is something to it objectively.
Prejeduced it would be if it was stated without any examination. I believe, but cannot proof, that Bonzai did his share of examination.
Jan Didden
Unfortunately, only Corey 'gets it' in this case. At least in print so far.
This is because: "He tells it as it is, and rebels from participating, in future, in comparative listening tests that might be of the 'approved' variety.
This is because: "He tells it as it is, and rebels from participating, in future, in comparative listening tests that might be of the 'approved' variety.
Actually, the discussion was NEVER about whether a given part or design was capable of sounding better than another.
This was a confabulation and confusion brought about by folks coming into the thread and insisting on making the discussion move in that direction.
The reality is that some of us know that:
- parts and their design parameters make a difference in the sonics.
-Layout and location, substrates and casing makes a considerable difference (remember, the bulk of the signal is INVISIBLE-ie FIELD) in the sonics.
-That measurements, in their current form, are incapable of describing or capturing these differences.
Anything else, is just people polluting the thread with their lack of depth of knowledge of the top of the field of audiophile design, mixed in with their psychological issues and insecurities.
The trick..is to help folks get past those issues..and learn a bit more about how and why these techniques work.
It is their inner workings that disallow the discussion from moving forward from it's intended origins. We all do our best. Every now and then (ok..all the time!), their personal situations, vis-a-vis their knowledge and evident frustration (frustration on the knowledgeable side as well) get in the way of the forward movement of the discussion.
And..to add.. like in that of a war...it is the point man who is the first to die. So putting truths out in front of those who believe otherwise, is a good way to have one's *** kicked, by those who understand, at this point in their quest for knowledge that is all embracing...less than the point man.
Thus, a reticence on the part of the knowledgeable to hand over information that will be ridiculed regardless..and the point that for myself, that knowledge is used to make a living..and the information is knowledge based, it is not a physical thing. So the delivery of information that is seemingly 'weightless and insubstantial', is actually the core of the given person's capacity to make a living.
So we do what we can, (And I do fully realize that it sounds insulting-but it is an apt simile) but it's more than a bit like having one's arms bit to pieces by a pup one is trying to bandage. To take some of the sting off of that, I will say that (as we each know and remember) there are times when we are all guilty of this particular behaviour.
This was a confabulation and confusion brought about by folks coming into the thread and insisting on making the discussion move in that direction.
The reality is that some of us know that:
- parts and their design parameters make a difference in the sonics.
-Layout and location, substrates and casing makes a considerable difference (remember, the bulk of the signal is INVISIBLE-ie FIELD) in the sonics.
-That measurements, in their current form, are incapable of describing or capturing these differences.
Anything else, is just people polluting the thread with their lack of depth of knowledge of the top of the field of audiophile design, mixed in with their psychological issues and insecurities.
The trick..is to help folks get past those issues..and learn a bit more about how and why these techniques work.
It is their inner workings that disallow the discussion from moving forward from it's intended origins. We all do our best. Every now and then (ok..all the time!), their personal situations, vis-a-vis their knowledge and evident frustration (frustration on the knowledgeable side as well) get in the way of the forward movement of the discussion.
And..to add.. like in that of a war...it is the point man who is the first to die. So putting truths out in front of those who believe otherwise, is a good way to have one's *** kicked, by those who understand, at this point in their quest for knowledge that is all embracing...less than the point man.
Thus, a reticence on the part of the knowledgeable to hand over information that will be ridiculed regardless..and the point that for myself, that knowledge is used to make a living..and the information is knowledge based, it is not a physical thing. So the delivery of information that is seemingly 'weightless and insubstantial', is actually the core of the given person's capacity to make a living.
So we do what we can, (And I do fully realize that it sounds insulting-but it is an apt simile) but it's more than a bit like having one's arms bit to pieces by a pup one is trying to bandage. To take some of the sting off of that, I will say that (as we each know and remember) there are times when we are all guilty of this particular behaviour.
Of course, you are correct, KBK, but my issue is WHY ABX testing 'Throws the baby out with the bathwater'.
Normally, when discussing parts, etc with a fellow designer, like Charles Hansen, Demian Martin, or Jam, by telephone, we have no trouble accepting that one emitter resistor will often sound better than another. We might even note it for further comparison of our own.
What is amazing to me is how often we come up with essentially the same conclusions, while working completely independently, and competitively with each other.
It is like when race car teams find the same tire to be better, over many other similar brands.
Normally, when discussing parts, etc with a fellow designer, like Charles Hansen, Demian Martin, or Jam, by telephone, we have no trouble accepting that one emitter resistor will often sound better than another. We might even note it for further comparison of our own.
What is amazing to me is how often we come up with essentially the same conclusions, while working completely independently, and competitively with each other.
It is like when race car teams find the same tire to be better, over many other similar brands.
The objectivisits would have us believe that most of the nonsense about what sounds best is in our heads, but John you hit the nail on the head.john curl said:
If it were pure personal bias, speaker builder A would say "After extensive testing we decided that Mylar capacitors are best", speaker builder B would say "We've decided that Poly Carbonate dielectrics sound best" and builder C "Only Teflon capacitors will do". I think most agree that Teflon, film not metallized, sounds best in a crossover. Because of competitive pressure one would keep this secret if one could, but pretty much everyone independently arrives at the same conclusion.
Mass delusion? Not very likely. Considering what some of these devices cost if the evidence of better sound was wholly imaginary everyone would use Mylar and then use psychology to convince the buyer that they were indeed getting the best capacitors.
I believe the differences are perfectly real and remain amazingly unconcerned about whether or not we can measure the cause. Actually I think we can perfectly well measure most of the differences, but agree that it is quite hard to correlate a given measurement to a given sound signature, it just not that simple.
Capacitors for example have a number of second order flaws such as dielectric absorption, series resistance, series inductance, voltage induced deformation, microphonic effects, leakage resistance and probably a couple I didn't think of. Even if every possible defect had a very specific sonic attribute it would still be nearly impossible to correlate the given defect to a particular sound signature for a particular material or manufacturing process because all capacitors have all these defects, but in different proportions.
hermanv said:
But, Herman, there is also the trend, fashion effect. Right now, it is quite fashionable to have dipole, open baffle speakers. There are more of these coming to the market these days. Not so long ago, everybody wanted horn speakers.
There are easy, simple answers to why everyone likes the same capacitor or resistor. If John Curl says that resistor brand xx is best, next thing you know are posts sprouting up on this forum saying "we all know that brand xx is the best audio resistor...".
The result is that people KNOW that teflon's are the best, even if they haven't been within 20 miles of any of it.
Yes, everybody independently arrives at the same conclusion 😉
Jan Didden
It is not the way it is, except when there are measurable differences. You don't object to noting measurable differences, do you? Actually, for some applications, we have found that polystyrene actually sounds better than Teflon, and CHEAPER TOO!
john curl said:
OK, I accept that. I wasn't stating that by definition teflon is best, I was trying to give another reason why several people prefer the same parts types.
There are many people here that are of the opinion that, say, Caddocks sound better than Vishays. Have they all personally audioned these and other brands? That's what Herman suggested: they all came independently to the same conclusion. I don't think that's generally the case.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.