Fred, if it's so boring to you, don't read it
You have proved my point......... Post on, I have made my point and you and whoever can go on with your viewpoint as long as you want. Ignorance is your right and far be it for me to deny you views that you are comfortable with.
You have proved my point......... Post on, I have made my point and you and whoever can go on with your viewpoint as long as you want. Ignorance is your right and far be it for me to deny you views that you are comfortable with.
I don't mean to take part in the fighting and I have not
personally done any listening tests of passive components yet.
However, since a lot of people claim to hear differences and
there are some attempts at explaining why, I keep an open
mind. So, let me just throw in a potential suggestion why
the issue was not known/discussed until the 70's. Could it
be that passive components generally were of fairly high
quality until then, and that the chase for low production costs
forced the manufacturers to redesign all mainstream passive
components, having unfortunate consequences for their use
in audio equipment? I don't know how reasonable this
explanation is, but there were fewer types of capacitors, often
of types now considered to big and expensive for most use (mica)
or being discontinued (eg. polystyrene). Components are also
getting smaller and smaller, perhaps leading to scrifices in
internal design. An analogy could be the car industry, where
cars manufactured up to the early 70s tended not to rust
very much, while cars produced later have a much higher
tendency to rust (although various chemical treatments may
improve matters). The main reason for this is that the car
industry started to use recycled steel in the 70s.
personally done any listening tests of passive components yet.
However, since a lot of people claim to hear differences and
there are some attempts at explaining why, I keep an open
mind. So, let me just throw in a potential suggestion why
the issue was not known/discussed until the 70's. Could it
be that passive components generally were of fairly high
quality until then, and that the chase for low production costs
forced the manufacturers to redesign all mainstream passive
components, having unfortunate consequences for their use
in audio equipment? I don't know how reasonable this
explanation is, but there were fewer types of capacitors, often
of types now considered to big and expensive for most use (mica)
or being discontinued (eg. polystyrene). Components are also
getting smaller and smaller, perhaps leading to scrifices in
internal design. An analogy could be the car industry, where
cars manufactured up to the early 70s tended not to rust
very much, while cars produced later have a much higher
tendency to rust (although various chemical treatments may
improve matters). The main reason for this is that the car
industry started to use recycled steel in the 70s.
Re: Fred, if it's so boring to you, don't read it
You had a point? I must have missed it. One minute you're telling somebody they're clueless for not choosing metal film resistors, then the next post you're calling me clueless for not believing in the mythological properties of capacitors. I don't think I'm the one who's clueless.
Fred Dieckmann said:
You had a point? I must have missed it. One minute you're telling somebody they're clueless for not choosing metal film resistors, then the next post you're calling me clueless for not believing in the mythological properties of capacitors. I don't think I'm the one who's clueless.
Thanks for the constructive input Peter. How many cases are on your cd player now?
Well, I guess no one else thinks it's odd that this is a new phenomena. Ok, fine.
I'm just thankfull that the success or failure of my amps doesn't depend on which resistor or cap I happen to have in the bin that day. That must be a scary feeling!
Well, I guess no one else thinks it's odd that this is a new phenomena. Ok, fine.
I'm just thankfull that the success or failure of my amps doesn't depend on which resistor or cap I happen to have in the bin that day. That must be a scary feeling!
Joel said:That must be a scary feeling!
And that's exactly what I think about your approach. You're just too scared to face the truth.😉 But if this makes you happy, I'm happy with you.
Peter Daniel said:
Why don't you turn that investigative journalism back on yourself? I think you're scared to put the work into understanding electronics, so it's easier to believe that the parts you choose is more important anyway. That doesn't require any hard work, or thought, just some money. Must be nice!
Do you ever read High Fidelity? I have almost every issue from the the early 60's up to '71 or so. In each issue they carry out quite extensive reviews of amps & speakers, etc, in which they included scope displays, THD measurements, ratings, and listening test results. Very thorough. In over 100 issues, covering thousands of amps, tape decks, preamps, etc, they do not once mention the choice of a capacitor or resistor type, or brand. They do not discuss wire. They do not discuss "interconnects". They do not talk about "power conditioning". They don't think to cover the topic of tube brands. So, maybe that doesn't say anything to you, but it speaks volumes to me.
I've never read much of High Fidelity. Maybe I should try. OTOH I do a lot of critical listening tests.😉
Gentlemen,
It has been my observation:
1. That before the time period of the early 70s the number of choices for parts was much more limited. Manufacturers needed to use the most cost effective parts (performance/dollar).
2. After that time a number of new types of components became avilable. Several poeple started to rebuild the older equipment and play around with the new parts looking for that last 1% improvement in the sound. Some times they got it with special parts.
3. Joel, being from NY, NY seems to see the world in Black or White. I have never seen a post from him that even admits to any shade of gray.
I intend no insult here, it's just my observation.
Later
Bruce
It has been my observation:
1. That before the time period of the early 70s the number of choices for parts was much more limited. Manufacturers needed to use the most cost effective parts (performance/dollar).
2. After that time a number of new types of components became avilable. Several poeple started to rebuild the older equipment and play around with the new parts looking for that last 1% improvement in the sound. Some times they got it with special parts.
3. Joel, being from NY, NY seems to see the world in Black or White. I have never seen a post from him that even admits to any shade of gray.
I intend no insult here, it's just my observation.
Later
Bruce
Bruce,
I think that's an unfair categorization. You haven't been in enough discussions with me to say I only see the world in black and white. (another insult) 🙁
And, why is it that I have been called "clueless" by people, and yet you don't tell them they are being inflexible?
I guess intelligence on diyaudio is measured by how closely your opinions follow the majority.
I think that's an unfair categorization. You haven't been in enough discussions with me to say I only see the world in black and white. (another insult) 🙁
And, why is it that I have been called "clueless" by people, and yet you don't tell them they are being inflexible?
I guess intelligence on diyaudio is measured by how closely your opinions follow the majority.
No Joel, I'm from Iowa and live in the Chicago area now.
A high percentage of the people I have meet from NY, NY seem to have very rigid opinions. You, Joel, Will argue with anyone that does not have the same opinion as you do. Not discuss, Joel, argue. This is based on what I have read in your posts to the forum.
I am not tring to insult you Joel. If I were, you would know it. I'm just stating my observations.
Bruce Zediker
Field Engineer
ATSC Broadcast Products
N9LSH
PS: I will no longer respond to your posts because you also seem to try to bait people into these arguments.
A high percentage of the people I have meet from NY, NY seem to have very rigid opinions. You, Joel, Will argue with anyone that does not have the same opinion as you do. Not discuss, Joel, argue. This is based on what I have read in your posts to the forum.
I am not tring to insult you Joel. If I were, you would know it. I'm just stating my observations.
Bruce Zediker
Field Engineer
ATSC Broadcast Products
N9LSH
PS: I will no longer respond to your posts because you also seem to try to bait people into these arguments.
Re: Re: Fred, if it's so boring to you, don't read it
Joel, I start to learn that you never can be wright if you are discussing anything "audioplilic" but you are probely always wrong.
If I say polyester is cool, others say styrol is the best. If I say mica is the best others say polypropulene is the best and so on.... You can't never win!
Joel said:
Joel, I start to learn that you never can be wright if you are discussing anything "audioplilic" but you are probely always wrong.
If I say polyester is cool, others say styrol is the best. If I say mica is the best others say polypropulene is the best and so on.... You can't never win!
Joel,
Let me quote you a letter send by a reader to a famous audio magazine:
>Editor:
I am concluding my stint as an audiphile. I'm not going over to the Dark Side of PC-based music, or even home theater. It's just that I love music and am not enjoying it nearly as much as I did in my mid-fi days. How did this happen?
As a teenager in the early 1980s, I packed up my warm, reliable, and semiportable 1962 Voice of Music changer for some bottom-of-the- line Japanese components (after giving due consideration to such important Stereo Revue specs as fast-forward winding time). They were probably a bit less musical, but they played louder and had lots of entertaining lights and sliders. I had a blast, and they still work today. As I earned some more money over the following years, I bought better mass-market components, listening to some passable Denon/Yamaha/etc.-quality sound a lot of hours each day.
Then, in the early '90s, I started reading the high-end press and learned that I was missing something. Those first, relatively cheap improvements were great. I replaced that $20 Audio-Technica with a Sumiko Blue Point. Wow! Replaced the hashy early CD player with an Optimus 3400. Nice. Preached to all my friends that they should read Stereophile. And so I journeyed along that never-ending upgrade path that is familiar to many.
So here I sit today, with monoblocks that cost more to re-tube each year than an entire rack system, electrostatic speakers that take up half my living room, cables that could trip a horse. You know how it goes. The real problem is, I hardly ever use the system!
For one thing, although my gear is from reputable high-end players, some component is almost always either out at the manufacturer for repair ( often for many month, sometimes expensive) or buzzing and hissing for a trip. i don't think there has been anytime in the past two years that everything worked properly at the same time.
Second, the system is a huge pain to operate. The power up sequence requires flipping switches all over the room and waiting for LEDs to change color over a ten minute period. What would have been time enough to sneak in an album side in the mid-fi days now is not enough time to justify listening at all. Then there is the heat. Tip:A better mass market system in a quiet room sounds better than a high end system with a A/C unit whiring away on a nice spring day.
The end result of all the hours and dollars i spend on my system is that I still look forward to hearing my new CDs-in the car or on my office mini system-and I've stopped buying vinyl. Whose fault is this? Obviously I am responsible for the choices i made. But its also partly the fault of the high end press. Reviewers and reporters who have deticated listening rooms, atypical budgets, many hours to futz around with equipment, and a professional interest in finding novel ways to wring out that last drop of fidelity, do not, in my view, review equipment from a perspective that leads readers to make intelligent purchases.
Sure, you guys often aknowledge when a component is heavy, runs hot, or is particularly difficult to set-up. But this is mere color comentary for many reviewers, on a par with the thickness of a face plate, when these should be essential aspects in deciding whether a component will render long term musical pleasure to us average Joe Singlemalts.
Well, it kills me to take a step backward in sound qaulity. Hopefully, some of the user-oriented companies such as Linn will prevent that step from being to huge. I'll miss my neighbors' dropping jaws when they see my system (and hear it on the occasions it's working and they have time to wait for it to warm up). But I won't miss all the extra boxes and cables, and I won't have to miss listening to my record collection any longer.
***** ******
Brooklyn, NY
<<
I found this letter yesterday, and kinda liked it. In certain ways it describes my views and if yours are different, you might be actually a happier person. But please don't claim anymore that parts don't make a difference, I had to pay my son $5 to write it down for me.😉
Let me quote you a letter send by a reader to a famous audio magazine:
>Editor:
I am concluding my stint as an audiphile. I'm not going over to the Dark Side of PC-based music, or even home theater. It's just that I love music and am not enjoying it nearly as much as I did in my mid-fi days. How did this happen?
As a teenager in the early 1980s, I packed up my warm, reliable, and semiportable 1962 Voice of Music changer for some bottom-of-the- line Japanese components (after giving due consideration to such important Stereo Revue specs as fast-forward winding time). They were probably a bit less musical, but they played louder and had lots of entertaining lights and sliders. I had a blast, and they still work today. As I earned some more money over the following years, I bought better mass-market components, listening to some passable Denon/Yamaha/etc.-quality sound a lot of hours each day.
Then, in the early '90s, I started reading the high-end press and learned that I was missing something. Those first, relatively cheap improvements were great. I replaced that $20 Audio-Technica with a Sumiko Blue Point. Wow! Replaced the hashy early CD player with an Optimus 3400. Nice. Preached to all my friends that they should read Stereophile. And so I journeyed along that never-ending upgrade path that is familiar to many.
So here I sit today, with monoblocks that cost more to re-tube each year than an entire rack system, electrostatic speakers that take up half my living room, cables that could trip a horse. You know how it goes. The real problem is, I hardly ever use the system!
For one thing, although my gear is from reputable high-end players, some component is almost always either out at the manufacturer for repair ( often for many month, sometimes expensive) or buzzing and hissing for a trip. i don't think there has been anytime in the past two years that everything worked properly at the same time.
Second, the system is a huge pain to operate. The power up sequence requires flipping switches all over the room and waiting for LEDs to change color over a ten minute period. What would have been time enough to sneak in an album side in the mid-fi days now is not enough time to justify listening at all. Then there is the heat. Tip:A better mass market system in a quiet room sounds better than a high end system with a A/C unit whiring away on a nice spring day.
The end result of all the hours and dollars i spend on my system is that I still look forward to hearing my new CDs-in the car or on my office mini system-and I've stopped buying vinyl. Whose fault is this? Obviously I am responsible for the choices i made. But its also partly the fault of the high end press. Reviewers and reporters who have deticated listening rooms, atypical budgets, many hours to futz around with equipment, and a professional interest in finding novel ways to wring out that last drop of fidelity, do not, in my view, review equipment from a perspective that leads readers to make intelligent purchases.
Sure, you guys often aknowledge when a component is heavy, runs hot, or is particularly difficult to set-up. But this is mere color comentary for many reviewers, on a par with the thickness of a face plate, when these should be essential aspects in deciding whether a component will render long term musical pleasure to us average Joe Singlemalts.
Well, it kills me to take a step backward in sound qaulity. Hopefully, some of the user-oriented companies such as Linn will prevent that step from being to huge. I'll miss my neighbors' dropping jaws when they see my system (and hear it on the occasions it's working and they have time to wait for it to warm up). But I won't miss all the extra boxes and cables, and I won't have to miss listening to my record collection any longer.
***** ******
Brooklyn, NY
<<
I found this letter yesterday, and kinda liked it. In certain ways it describes my views and if yours are different, you might be actually a happier person. But please don't claim anymore that parts don't make a difference, I had to pay my son $5 to write it down for me.😉
You paid $5…? Not bad… I normally have to pay my son the computer for two hours.
All of you talks like electronics experts. I am not an expert but an audiophile, and I believe that the different components make different results. At the same time however I do not believe that all differences work all positive ways as much as we desire. Most time the difference is nothing and disappointing. If I am lucky at mere chance the difference is found positive. I have once read an article, not here, about the different solders and sounds. The writer has made a comment at the end: “You pay your money and you take your choice.” You know? This reminds me of my old silly habits.
If the price of a new component is nothing or very low, you could propose it and insist that it make different and better sound. But, if the component price is high, I would call you be careful in saying so. I think you know well why many stupid commercial advertisements are blamed and they lose their values.
And, I wish to read in this diyAudio forum more about the principles of parts and circuits of electronics than about the comparison of different resistors, capacitors, solders, PCBs and wires. And, I really hope the toilet scribbles will be stopped soon.
JH
All of you talks like electronics experts. I am not an expert but an audiophile, and I believe that the different components make different results. At the same time however I do not believe that all differences work all positive ways as much as we desire. Most time the difference is nothing and disappointing. If I am lucky at mere chance the difference is found positive. I have once read an article, not here, about the different solders and sounds. The writer has made a comment at the end: “You pay your money and you take your choice.” You know? This reminds me of my old silly habits.
If the price of a new component is nothing or very low, you could propose it and insist that it make different and better sound. But, if the component price is high, I would call you be careful in saying so. I think you know well why many stupid commercial advertisements are blamed and they lose their values.
And, I wish to read in this diyAudio forum more about the principles of parts and circuits of electronics than about the comparison of different resistors, capacitors, solders, PCBs and wires. And, I really hope the toilet scribbles will be stopped soon.
JH
jh6, Per, and Peter,
Thank you for three thoughtful replies.
I liked that letter too.
I tried my best, but don't seem to be convincing anybody!
The "toilet scribbles" will cease (from me at least - I can't vouch for Fred).
And Bruce, I promise never to bait anybody on the forum, ever again.
Thank you for three thoughtful replies.
I liked that letter too.I tried my best, but don't seem to be convincing anybody!
The "toilet scribbles" will cease (from me at least - I can't vouch for Fred).
And Bruce, I promise never to bait anybody on the forum, ever again.
Fred's toilet scribbles actually ceased pretty much a good while back.
this _is_ the kinder, more gentle reincarnation of Fred 😉
Ken
Joel said:
this _is_ the kinder, more gentle reincarnation of Fred 😉
Ken
Good article Pete, thanks. I send all the carbon comps I pull out of old amps I get and send them to a guitar tech I know, because he uses them for exactly the reasons stated in the article, to "voice" a particular amp to a certain sound. A guitar amp is a musical instrument after all.PeteMcK said:
I also liked the Alembic preamp circuit there, as I need to build a new pre for my bass. Previously I had an Alembic Distillate bass, the most beautiful instrument I've ever seen.
Don't you find squirrels hard to get in Oz? I'm rather partial to bilbies m'self, but I bet you're finding that most of the ones around Sinny at the moment are smokin' enough on their own.
Cheers
Gabe,Gabevee said:
I'm inferring from your post that you are blaming AES for multiple billing of your CC account when you use Paypal. Paypal do this sort of thing to me regularly (last time was for $US1800), so much so that I now simply ring my bank and have the multiples instantly deleted. I beleive it has to do with the way the funds are processed by Paypal through an intermediary bank, and software hiccups cause bounces and multiple sends of the same information (this is what tech support at my bank told me)
I have been dealing with AES for years and find their service excellent and fast. They are not the cheapest though not that expensive, but usually the least hassle. I pay directly with a CC, not through Paypal.
My apologies if I have misconstrued your statement.
You really do love to rant don't you?
There are many more technologies availble to us today than there were in the 50's, and especially the 30's when much of the RDH was written. It is conceit on your part to think that the great and creative engineers of yesteryear would not be experimenting with and utilising what technologies are available today. After all, that's what they were doing then: working on the cutting edge of the technology.
I got my first copy of RDH at 17 from a friend of my mother's who was an engineer at AWV in the 50's and worked with Fritz. He spent many hours explaining and building circuits with me, both before and during the time I was studying electronics at Uni up until he died. Since then, I have spent years working in many areas of electronics design, testing and maintenance, often designing my own test gear when I found that what was available was inadequate or inappropriate to the particular need at hand. I also have many texts and papers on audio and acoustics that I have studied over the years, by people such as Harry Olson, Norman Crowhurst, D.E.L. Shorter, Paul Klipsch, Paul Voight, Walt Jung, Beranek, Dr Malcolm Hawkesford, Valley and Wallman, John Dinsdale, F Alton Everest as well a a large number of tech manuals from HP, WE, RCA, JBL and Tek amongst others.
There are many other engineers, technicians and commentators whose writings I've read and benefitted from such as Matt Kamna, Gary Pimms, John Broskie, Steve Bench, John Curl, Lynn Olson, Dr Thomas Danley, Dr Bruce Edgar, Allen Wright, Ben Duncan and Max Townshend to name a few. Many people are not able to reveal all they have found because of commercial reasons, but if you understand the principles, you can often work out what they're doing from the snippetts thay do give.
I am not alone in having this sort of experience. There are many good engineers here such as Jocko and Phred as well as Frank and I enjoy learning from their experiences. I'm certain that you are not an engineer, both by your lack of knowledge and understanding, but mostly from your closed mindedness. From what I have read you post, I feel you beleive an engineer is someone who designs from the textbook.
The person on this board that shows a little technical knowledge, and certainly no desire to learn anything beyond what little they already know is you.
Passives do change the sound of equiptment, and for many people that is all that they are capable of doing. So? If they enjoy the hobby and the sound they get from thier systems, so what. Most of the passive component changes recommended to people here are very modest in cost, and even if the person doesn't find any difference, they are richer for the experience. Most would do much better than to listening to you, who spouts off a lot, but who has not actually done the work himself.
True learning involves doing too. I suggest you look at the Suzuki method.
All I've seen you have zero tolerance for is stuff that is either beyond your experience, compertence (technically) or ken.Joel said:
There is an objective reality, but unlike some people, I would rather listen to what the gear sounds like than decide whether it is good based <i><b>solely</b></i> on a set of objective measurements that fail to even remotely characterise the sound quality of a particular unit/topology/implementation.
There are many more technologies availble to us today than there were in the 50's, and especially the 30's when much of the RDH was written. It is conceit on your part to think that the great and creative engineers of yesteryear would not be experimenting with and utilising what technologies are available today. After all, that's what they were doing then: working on the cutting edge of the technology.
So you've read RDH for 2 years. BFD. Am I supposed to be impressed?
I got my first copy of RDH at 17 from a friend of my mother's who was an engineer at AWV in the 50's and worked with Fritz. He spent many hours explaining and building circuits with me, both before and during the time I was studying electronics at Uni up until he died. Since then, I have spent years working in many areas of electronics design, testing and maintenance, often designing my own test gear when I found that what was available was inadequate or inappropriate to the particular need at hand. I also have many texts and papers on audio and acoustics that I have studied over the years, by people such as Harry Olson, Norman Crowhurst, D.E.L. Shorter, Paul Klipsch, Paul Voight, Walt Jung, Beranek, Dr Malcolm Hawkesford, Valley and Wallman, John Dinsdale, F Alton Everest as well a a large number of tech manuals from HP, WE, RCA, JBL and Tek amongst others.
There are many other engineers, technicians and commentators whose writings I've read and benefitted from such as Matt Kamna, Gary Pimms, John Broskie, Steve Bench, John Curl, Lynn Olson, Dr Thomas Danley, Dr Bruce Edgar, Allen Wright, Ben Duncan and Max Townshend to name a few. Many people are not able to reveal all they have found because of commercial reasons, but if you understand the principles, you can often work out what they're doing from the snippetts thay do give.
I am not alone in having this sort of experience. There are many good engineers here such as Jocko and Phred as well as Frank and I enjoy learning from their experiences. I'm certain that you are not an engineer, both by your lack of knowledge and understanding, but mostly from your closed mindedness. From what I have read you post, I feel you beleive an engineer is someone who designs from the textbook.
Having had the opportunity to measure <i><b>and</b></i> listen to the gear I've built over the years, I have found little to no correlation between how a device measures using the standard tests favoured by the hardcore objectivists, unless it is faulty.
Capacitors do sound different, as do resistors, between type and manufacturer. Tubes of the same type will sound different based on where and when they were made :different factories used different equiptment, QC, had variations in construction in terms of plate and filament design, rods, micas, spacing, envelope, vacuum and the materials used in the construction and manufacture of all these parts. Capacitors are easy to measure for differences in performance due to differences in construction, as well as things like microphony, which are audible enough, but do not show up in the standard (grossly inadequate) tests. As I have said before passive account for maybe 10% of the final result in voicing an amp, and speaker cables and i/c's even less than that for a total system.
The person on this board that shows a little technical knowledge, and certainly no desire to learn anything beyond what little they already know is you.
Great strawman, but not valid. Show me where someone here has said they are as good or better than the classic engineers. In many cases we are able to go beyond what they could 50 years ago because of improved (and new) technology, manufacturing techniques and discoveries. Mainly though, we are able to see much farther now because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. I am deeply indebted to the engineers that have gone before us and laid the groundwork, both those I have worked with personally, and those I know only through their published work. Every good engineer I've ever worked with has been a creative person, able to look beyond what has already gone before, and find new ways of doing things, and many have encouraged those newer engineers and techo's to do the same.
Passives do change the sound of equiptment, and for many people that is all that they are capable of doing. So? If they enjoy the hobby and the sound they get from thier systems, so what. Most of the passive component changes recommended to people here are very modest in cost, and even if the person doesn't find any difference, they are richer for the experience. Most would do much better than to listening to you, who spouts off a lot, but who has not actually done the work himself.
That is absurd. If people want to read tech articles they will.
True learning involves doing too. I suggest you look at the Suzuki method.
I agree that many people would be better off reading Crowhurst than trying to discuss anything with you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.