Depends upon the quality of the system. With my lab system (now home), speaker wire makes a sonic
difference. Personally, I use 10 parallel 18 gauge wires on both '+/-'. This minimizes the total inductance
as well as the capacitance between +/- leads. YMMV. If I go either 9 or 11 with just one leg, a sonic
difference is heard.
Also, a 5pf capacitor paralleled across the main ~55ufd poly caps to the full range driver is also heard.
Adjusting a resistor by 1 part in 4.1 million (a pot across a fixed resistor combination in
the crossover).
Going essentially all polypropylene capacitors opens up a whole new world in reproduction.
Caveat: My entire system from DAC through speaker crossover is polypropylene decoupling except the
amplifier B+ supply to the output tubes (bypassed with poly), and the cathode bypass capacitors.
If possible, I recommend going as much poly capacitors in the power supplies as possible.
cheers
pos
difference. Personally, I use 10 parallel 18 gauge wires on both '+/-'. This minimizes the total inductance
as well as the capacitance between +/- leads. YMMV. If I go either 9 or 11 with just one leg, a sonic
difference is heard.
Also, a 5pf capacitor paralleled across the main ~55ufd poly caps to the full range driver is also heard.
Adjusting a resistor by 1 part in 4.1 million (a pot across a fixed resistor combination in
the crossover).
Going essentially all polypropylene capacitors opens up a whole new world in reproduction.
Caveat: My entire system from DAC through speaker crossover is polypropylene decoupling except the
amplifier B+ supply to the output tubes (bypassed with poly), and the cathode bypass capacitors.
If possible, I recommend going as much poly capacitors in the power supplies as possible.
cheers
pos
I am so sorry, rather than put that much time, effort, and money into my amplifiers, and into my listening room I am considering . . .
Going back to spending my time and effort to design and properly conduct double blindfold listening tests.
Man with one watch knows the time; man with two watches is never sure.
Without properly designed and properly conducted double blindfolded listening tests - - - we can only look at measurement results:
And . . . how many of you have ever conducted realistic measurements of an amplifier While it is connected to a real world loudspeaker?
(Not connected to a load resistor). Yes, easier said than done. You need some very expen$ive test and measurement equipment.
Gated Real Time Measurements, anybody?
Back to the drawing boards . . .
Going back to spending my time and effort to design and properly conduct double blindfold listening tests.
Man with one watch knows the time; man with two watches is never sure.
Without properly designed and properly conducted double blindfolded listening tests - - - we can only look at measurement results:
And . . . how many of you have ever conducted realistic measurements of an amplifier While it is connected to a real world loudspeaker?
(Not connected to a load resistor). Yes, easier said than done. You need some very expen$ive test and measurement equipment.
Gated Real Time Measurements, anybody?
Back to the drawing boards . . .
Last edited:
First, is it ok to discuss dbt/abx testing on the forum? If not, please advise.
Do you have proof that a double blind test equates to normal listening?
What authorities can you present to support your opinion that dbts are scientific and accurate?
Would you please name all the variables involved in audio double blind testing?
Please explain how you perform your own dbt tests? Please be specific
I will be gone most of the weekend.
cheers
pos
Do you have proof that a double blind test equates to normal listening?
What authorities can you present to support your opinion that dbts are scientific and accurate?
Would you please name all the variables involved in audio double blind testing?
Please explain how you perform your own dbt tests? Please be specific
I will be gone most of the weekend.
cheers
pos
It has been discussed a lot over the years.
Rather the proof is to the opposite unless the listener is well trained to be familiar and comfortable with DBT, especially for ABX. For untrained listeners, ABX in particular tends to have a false negative bias. However, it can be overcome with sufficient training. Also, there are other good DBT protocols besides ABX that are less biased for untrained listeners.
Positron,
I have never seen a definition of "normal listening", not on diyAudio, and not published anywhere else.
Educate me.
I have designed 2 completely different double blindfold tests.
For each proof that you want to do to answer a specific question, the test setup has to be designed completely differently, than the test that is to answer a different question.
A successful study of parallel tubes was conducted. But, some will never believe the results; so I tried for 6 months to design a double blindfold test as a listening proof of the other results of the study, finally I figured a correct way to do the listening tests.
That double blindfold listening test was written about as part of the cover article of Glass Audio, Volume 12, Number 5, 2000.
The article was "Paralleling Tubes Effects".
It was a very involved study, conducted by an engineer, and two very experienced technicians of a major test and measurement company.
They were all designing circuits for their work assignments, and designing solid state and vacuum tube audio amplifiers for personal use.
That article was very comprehensive, with 600 measurements, and data correlation. Then software that analyzed and agreed with the measurement conclusions.
Then a proof that involved using electric field principals, and other things, right out of classical physics.
The double blindfold test that I conducted was in 3 different Venues; with 3 different audiences; and with 3 different speaker systems.
Later, I presented the essence of that article at one of the VSACs at Silverdale Washington.
I also presented a different study of vacuum tube amplifiers, and then conducted a double blindfold listening test at VSAC 2008.
But as soon as I set up the listening test in the conference room, I realized the one flaw in the test.
No success that time.
But everyone enjoyed the listening test anyway.
If you have always wanted to know something for sure, you might be able to design and conduct a technically correct and properly conducted double blindfold listening test.
Easier said than done.
Have Fun!
Listening tests are great, even if not done double blindfolded.
But do not leave out measurements, they have their place.
I have been making calibrated measurements since 1959.
I have never seen a definition of "normal listening", not on diyAudio, and not published anywhere else.
Educate me.
I have designed 2 completely different double blindfold tests.
For each proof that you want to do to answer a specific question, the test setup has to be designed completely differently, than the test that is to answer a different question.
A successful study of parallel tubes was conducted. But, some will never believe the results; so I tried for 6 months to design a double blindfold test as a listening proof of the other results of the study, finally I figured a correct way to do the listening tests.
That double blindfold listening test was written about as part of the cover article of Glass Audio, Volume 12, Number 5, 2000.
The article was "Paralleling Tubes Effects".
It was a very involved study, conducted by an engineer, and two very experienced technicians of a major test and measurement company.
They were all designing circuits for their work assignments, and designing solid state and vacuum tube audio amplifiers for personal use.
That article was very comprehensive, with 600 measurements, and data correlation. Then software that analyzed and agreed with the measurement conclusions.
Then a proof that involved using electric field principals, and other things, right out of classical physics.
The double blindfold test that I conducted was in 3 different Venues; with 3 different audiences; and with 3 different speaker systems.
Later, I presented the essence of that article at one of the VSACs at Silverdale Washington.
I also presented a different study of vacuum tube amplifiers, and then conducted a double blindfold listening test at VSAC 2008.
But as soon as I set up the listening test in the conference room, I realized the one flaw in the test.
No success that time.
But everyone enjoyed the listening test anyway.
If you have always wanted to know something for sure, you might be able to design and conduct a technically correct and properly conducted double blindfold listening test.
Easier said than done.
Have Fun!
Listening tests are great, even if not done double blindfolded.
But do not leave out measurements, they have their place.
I have been making calibrated measurements since 1959.
Last edited:
Positron,
I have never seen a definition of "normal listening", not on diyAudio, and not published anywhere else.
Educate me.
I have designed 2 completely different double blindfold tests.
For each proof that you want to do to answer a specific question, the test setup has to be designed completely differently, than the test that is to answer a different question.
A successful study of parallel tubes was conducted. But, some will never believe the results; so I tried for 6 months to design a double blindfold test as a listening proof of the other results of the study, finally I figured a correct way to do the listening tests.
That double blindfold listening test was written about as part of the cover article of Glass Audio, Volume 12, Number 5, 2000.
The article was "Paralleling Tubes Effects".
It was a very involved study, conducted by an engineer, and two very experienced technicians of a major test and measurement company.
They were all designing circuits for their work assignments, and designing solid state and vacuum tube audio amplifiers for personal use.
That article was very comprehensive, with 600 measurements, and data correlation. Then software that analyzed and agreed with the measurement conclusions.
Then a proof that involved using electric field principals, and other things, right out of classical physics.
The double blindfold test that I conducted was in 3 different Venues; with 3 different audiences; and with 3 different speaker systems.
Later, I presented the essence of that article at one of the VSACs at Silverdale Washington.
I also presented a different study of vacuum tube amplifiers, and then conducted a double blindfold listening test at VSAC 2008.
But as soon as I set up the listening test in the conference room, I realized the one flaw in the test.
No success that time.
But everyone enjoyed the listening test anyway.
If you have always wanted to know something for sure, you might be able to design and conduct a technically correct and properly conducted double blindfold listening test.
Easier said than done.
Have Fun!
Listening tests are great, even if not done double blindfolded.
But do not leave out measurements, they have their place.
I have been making calibrated measurements since 1959.
----------
Thank you for your eloquent and positive posts, both initially and just now.
However, I see you failed to answer my previous basic questions to you. Here are 3.
You provided scant information concerning your dbt testing. However, we can glean some information.
You developed your own dbt listening tests.
You only addressed sight, no other variables mentioned, let alone addressed.
No mention of what questions were answered from your 2 dbts.
You found 1 flaw but failed to mention what that flaw was.
Your listening testing for each crowd was less than one day.
As one can see, not much information is provided. Hopefully you will be more
forthcoming with the information requested for further investigation of if your claims
are scientific and have any validity.
Cheers
pos
I have never seen a definition of "normal listening", not on diyAudio, and not published anywhere else.
Educate me.
I have designed 2 completely different double blindfold tests.
For each proof that you want to do to answer a specific question, the test setup has to be designed completely differently, than the test that is to answer a different question.
A successful study of parallel tubes was conducted. But, some will never believe the results; so I tried for 6 months to design a double blindfold test as a listening proof of the other results of the study, finally I figured a correct way to do the listening tests.
That double blindfold listening test was written about as part of the cover article of Glass Audio, Volume 12, Number 5, 2000.
The article was "Paralleling Tubes Effects".
It was a very involved study, conducted by an engineer, and two very experienced technicians of a major test and measurement company.
They were all designing circuits for their work assignments, and designing solid state and vacuum tube audio amplifiers for personal use.
That article was very comprehensive, with 600 measurements, and data correlation. Then software that analyzed and agreed with the measurement conclusions.
Then a proof that involved using electric field principals, and other things, right out of classical physics.
The double blindfold test that I conducted was in 3 different Venues; with 3 different audiences; and with 3 different speaker systems.
Later, I presented the essence of that article at one of the VSACs at Silverdale Washington.
I also presented a different study of vacuum tube amplifiers, and then conducted a double blindfold listening test at VSAC 2008.
But as soon as I set up the listening test in the conference room, I realized the one flaw in the test.
No success that time.
But everyone enjoyed the listening test anyway.
If you have always wanted to know something for sure, you might be able to design and conduct a technically correct and properly conducted double blindfold listening test.
Easier said than done.
Have Fun!
Listening tests are great, even if not done double blindfolded.
But do not leave out measurements, they have their place.
I have been making calibrated measurements since 1959.
----------
Thank you for your eloquent and positive posts, both initially and just now.
However, I see you failed to answer my previous basic questions to you. Here are 3.
- Do you have proof that a double blind test equates to normal listening?
- (If you don’t understand the question, how do you know the conditions are the same and equate. You don’t.)
- Would you please name all the variables involved in your audio double blind testing? (If you cannot name the variables besides sight, you again do not know if the conditions are the same and equate. See Pt. 1)
- Please explain how you perform your own dbt tests? Please be specific”
You provided scant information concerning your dbt testing. However, we can glean some information.
You developed your own dbt listening tests.
You only addressed sight, no other variables mentioned, let alone addressed.
No mention of what questions were answered from your 2 dbts.
You found 1 flaw but failed to mention what that flaw was.
Your listening testing for each crowd was less than one day.
As one can see, not much information is provided. Hopefully you will be more
forthcoming with the information requested for further investigation of if your claims
are scientific and have any validity.
Cheers
pos
Last edited:
Positron,
It was years ago when I did those dbt listening tests. About 1999 or 2000; and the flawed one in 2008.
Sorry you were not there to see and discuss.
I will leave the future of double blindfold tests to those who are younger, smarter, and more energetic than my 78 year old body.
Anybody want to attempt it?
A challenge for you, Positron:
The last issue of Glass Audio (2000) . . .
I am a great believer in the copy right laws. (c)
Just because I was one of the three that did that article (both all the tests and the authorship), does not give me the rights to re-publish it.
I have suggested multiple times that readers on diyAudio contact the publisher for permission, but . . .
Nobody on diyAudio has ever contacted the publisher for permission to re-publish it. The title and details are in my Post # 75.
So . . .
Why don't you see if you can get permission to re-publish it.
Then, everybody on diyAudio can analyze, and see how good or how bad the double blindfold testing was; how good or bad the measurements were; how good or bad the math proof was; and how good or bad the physical proof was.
As to my Flawed dbt in VSAC 2008, it was written up in one of the audio web page reports of that show/conference.
Look it up.
Have Fun!
Sorry, no more to say now, I have to get off to a Real Live Community Band Concert.
'Nuf Said
It was years ago when I did those dbt listening tests. About 1999 or 2000; and the flawed one in 2008.
Sorry you were not there to see and discuss.
I will leave the future of double blindfold tests to those who are younger, smarter, and more energetic than my 78 year old body.
Anybody want to attempt it?
A challenge for you, Positron:
The last issue of Glass Audio (2000) . . .
I am a great believer in the copy right laws. (c)
Just because I was one of the three that did that article (both all the tests and the authorship), does not give me the rights to re-publish it.
I have suggested multiple times that readers on diyAudio contact the publisher for permission, but . . .
Nobody on diyAudio has ever contacted the publisher for permission to re-publish it. The title and details are in my Post # 75.
So . . .
Why don't you see if you can get permission to re-publish it.
Then, everybody on diyAudio can analyze, and see how good or how bad the double blindfold testing was; how good or bad the measurements were; how good or bad the math proof was; and how good or bad the physical proof was.
As to my Flawed dbt in VSAC 2008, it was written up in one of the audio web page reports of that show/conference.
Look it up.
Have Fun!
Sorry, no more to say now, I have to get off to a Real Live Community Band Concert.
'Nuf Said
Positron,
It was years ago when I did those dbt listening tests. About 1999 or 2000; and the flawed one in 2008.
Sorry you were not there to see and discuss.
I will leave the future of double blindfold tests to those who are younger, smarter, and more energetic than my 78 year old body.
Anybody want to attempt it?
A challenge for you, Positron:
The last issue of Glass Audio (2000) . . .
I am a great believer in the copy right laws. (c)
Just because I was one of the three that did that article (both all the tests and the authorship), does not give me the rights to re-publish it.
I have suggested multiple times that readers on diyAudio contact the publisher for permission, but . . .
Nobody on diyAudio has ever contacted the publisher for permission to re-publish it. The title and details are in my Post # 75.
So . . .
Why don't you see if you can get permission to re-publish it.
Then, everybody on diyAudio can analyze, and see how good or how bad the double blindfold testing was; how good or bad the measurements were; how good or bad the math proof was; and how good or bad the physical proof was.
As to my Flawed dbt in VSAC 2008, it was written up in one of the audio web page reports of that show/conference.
Look it up.
Have Fun!
Sorry, no more to say now, I have to get off to a Real Live Community Band Concert.
'Nuf Said
I tell you what. You attacked my post and science presented without first asking questions as to how I obtained my results. So now I am going to present my credentials.
I started in electronics at ~7 years old, got my engineering degree, ran the college lab. I worked in my own lab for over 40 years before retiring. I have had university professors send me engineering students. I have discussed engineering and listening dbt tests with both NASA friends (New Horizon Space Mission) and Harvard Medical School (my sister is deaf and mom nearly so). I have run multiple and proprietary listening tests for decades, especially back in the 90s/2000s to develop electronic components in the lab that do not alter any parameters from input to output.
Yes, it is difficult and takes a long time to create and perform a true listening test. From the tests I have seen/read in the past, I have yet to find a dbt or abx test that does not skew the results towards no sonic difference. That is 100% of the time and worse than sighted. A dbt test tends to change the conditions from normal listening, even by simply blindfolding (no light) vs simply turning around yet still seeing light. As such, from your own admission, you have little idea of how to perform a basic audio listening test without skewing it towards no sonic difference. Your so called comparisons and math means nothing since your dbt tests are so flawed. The quality of the electronic component and system also influences the conclusions due to masking effects etc.
Masking is one of the worst forms of audio distortion as true inner detail is missing. A little hint; it is easier to obtain a conclusion of no sonic difference when masking is increased. One of the causes is electrolytic capacitors since the DA is so high, ~10%, and ESR and Inductance are relatively high.
Polypropylene capacitors have a DA of ~ 0,02%. ESR and Inductance are mainly determined by the winding/termination techniques. The decoupling capacitor in an audio stage is directly in the signal path.
Attached below are graphs showing the resonance of typical electrolytic capacitors and poly type capacitors. Notice the electrolytic capacitors tend to curve much more than the poly types which tend to be more straight lined, much higher Q. After bottoming out, internal inductance becomes dominant. Electrolytic capacitors cause much more masking than poly type capacitors. That is why the exceptional transparency I posted earlier.
I am not going to go any farther except to suggest that if you see something you do not understand or disagree with, simply ask questions. Never attempt to ridicule the science I present or I won’t be so polite.
Cheers
pos
It was years ago when I did those dbt listening tests. About 1999 or 2000; and the flawed one in 2008.
Sorry you were not there to see and discuss.
I will leave the future of double blindfold tests to those who are younger, smarter, and more energetic than my 78 year old body.
Anybody want to attempt it?
A challenge for you, Positron:
The last issue of Glass Audio (2000) . . .
I am a great believer in the copy right laws. (c)
Just because I was one of the three that did that article (both all the tests and the authorship), does not give me the rights to re-publish it.
I have suggested multiple times that readers on diyAudio contact the publisher for permission, but . . .
Nobody on diyAudio has ever contacted the publisher for permission to re-publish it. The title and details are in my Post # 75.
So . . .
Why don't you see if you can get permission to re-publish it.
Then, everybody on diyAudio can analyze, and see how good or how bad the double blindfold testing was; how good or bad the measurements were; how good or bad the math proof was; and how good or bad the physical proof was.
As to my Flawed dbt in VSAC 2008, it was written up in one of the audio web page reports of that show/conference.
Look it up.
Have Fun!
Sorry, no more to say now, I have to get off to a Real Live Community Band Concert.
'Nuf Said
I tell you what. You attacked my post and science presented without first asking questions as to how I obtained my results. So now I am going to present my credentials.
I started in electronics at ~7 years old, got my engineering degree, ran the college lab. I worked in my own lab for over 40 years before retiring. I have had university professors send me engineering students. I have discussed engineering and listening dbt tests with both NASA friends (New Horizon Space Mission) and Harvard Medical School (my sister is deaf and mom nearly so). I have run multiple and proprietary listening tests for decades, especially back in the 90s/2000s to develop electronic components in the lab that do not alter any parameters from input to output.
Yes, it is difficult and takes a long time to create and perform a true listening test. From the tests I have seen/read in the past, I have yet to find a dbt or abx test that does not skew the results towards no sonic difference. That is 100% of the time and worse than sighted. A dbt test tends to change the conditions from normal listening, even by simply blindfolding (no light) vs simply turning around yet still seeing light. As such, from your own admission, you have little idea of how to perform a basic audio listening test without skewing it towards no sonic difference. Your so called comparisons and math means nothing since your dbt tests are so flawed. The quality of the electronic component and system also influences the conclusions due to masking effects etc.
Masking is one of the worst forms of audio distortion as true inner detail is missing. A little hint; it is easier to obtain a conclusion of no sonic difference when masking is increased. One of the causes is electrolytic capacitors since the DA is so high, ~10%, and ESR and Inductance are relatively high.
Polypropylene capacitors have a DA of ~ 0,02%. ESR and Inductance are mainly determined by the winding/termination techniques. The decoupling capacitor in an audio stage is directly in the signal path.
Attached below are graphs showing the resonance of typical electrolytic capacitors and poly type capacitors. Notice the electrolytic capacitors tend to curve much more than the poly types which tend to be more straight lined, much higher Q. After bottoming out, internal inductance becomes dominant. Electrolytic capacitors cause much more masking than poly type capacitors. That is why the exceptional transparency I posted earlier.
I am not going to go any farther except to suggest that if you see something you do not understand or disagree with, simply ask questions. Never attempt to ridicule the science I present or I won’t be so polite.
Cheers
pos
Attachments
Last edited:
Positron,
1. Please, would you copy the text of my Post(s) where I attacked your Post(s).
No, not a complete Post of mine, as you have been copying. Please list specific attacking statements.
And, please tell me the Post # of your Post(s) that I attacked, and the text in it that I attacked.
I may have missed something.
I misunderstood you, very possible.
You misunderstood me, perhaps?
Thank You.
2. An example of a "double blindfold" test:
It does not use any blindfold over the eyes of anybody.
A single switch has 2 positions, corresponding to the 2 conditions of the test.
An operator does not know what either switch position does; he has been instructed to switch back and forth multiple times; With different times in each position, sometimes long in each position, sometimes medium time in each position.
Listeners do not know what is being tested, just to listen for any change in the sound of the system.
They can not see the operator change the switch positions.
The listeners are asked to listen for differences.
After the test the listeners may describe the differences that they hear (Yes, you can argue that this is skewed toward no differences; I can argue that it is skewed to any differences that can reasonably be heard).
Perhaps a second test could be conducted, that purposefully and measurably causes a difference of the same type as the original test should be conducted; as a second validation.
The test needs to control all differences, has to eliminate all of them, except the one item that could cause a difference in the sound.
As I said, easier said than done.
3. Again, I wish you were there at my presentation and discussion at VSAC 2003, of the essence of my Glass Audio article of 2000.
4. I like your graphs of the plastic caps. I remember doing those tests when I had access to a Rohde & Schwarz VNA and precision cal kit.
I had a 1uF plastic cap with 1-1/2 inch leads that gave the deepest series resonant null I have ever seen.
1. Please, would you copy the text of my Post(s) where I attacked your Post(s).
No, not a complete Post of mine, as you have been copying. Please list specific attacking statements.
And, please tell me the Post # of your Post(s) that I attacked, and the text in it that I attacked.
I may have missed something.
I misunderstood you, very possible.
You misunderstood me, perhaps?
Thank You.
2. An example of a "double blindfold" test:
It does not use any blindfold over the eyes of anybody.
A single switch has 2 positions, corresponding to the 2 conditions of the test.
An operator does not know what either switch position does; he has been instructed to switch back and forth multiple times; With different times in each position, sometimes long in each position, sometimes medium time in each position.
Listeners do not know what is being tested, just to listen for any change in the sound of the system.
They can not see the operator change the switch positions.
The listeners are asked to listen for differences.
After the test the listeners may describe the differences that they hear (Yes, you can argue that this is skewed toward no differences; I can argue that it is skewed to any differences that can reasonably be heard).
Perhaps a second test could be conducted, that purposefully and measurably causes a difference of the same type as the original test should be conducted; as a second validation.
The test needs to control all differences, has to eliminate all of them, except the one item that could cause a difference in the sound.
As I said, easier said than done.
3. Again, I wish you were there at my presentation and discussion at VSAC 2003, of the essence of my Glass Audio article of 2000.
4. I like your graphs of the plastic caps. I remember doing those tests when I had access to a Rohde & Schwarz VNA and precision cal kit.
I had a 1uF plastic cap with 1-1/2 inch leads that gave the deepest series resonant null I have ever seen.
Last edited:
Positron,
NASA . . . Thanks for reminding me of when my co-worker and I were on a conference call, supporting a NASA scientist.
We spent 45 minutes; I described the characteristics of a digital modulated signal he was going to use from our signal generator, the symbol point locations, the acceleration and deceleration of the modulation path leading from symbol to symbol, undershoot, overshoot, evm calculation, (error vector magnitude), and so forth. At the same time, my co-worker was coaching him which buttons to press, and the functions there of.
At the end of the discussion, he said: "Boy, it takes a Rocket Scientist to operate this generator!"
I agree with your statement:
"The decoupling capacitor in an audio stage is directly in the signal path."
Yes, all capacitors that are in the signal path.
So many readers understand the issue, for the bypass capacitor that is across a self bias resistor, for example.
But many do forget that the B+ caps are also in the signal path.
I hope we can keep working together to improve things, and help others along the way.
Thanks!
NASA . . . Thanks for reminding me of when my co-worker and I were on a conference call, supporting a NASA scientist.
We spent 45 minutes; I described the characteristics of a digital modulated signal he was going to use from our signal generator, the symbol point locations, the acceleration and deceleration of the modulation path leading from symbol to symbol, undershoot, overshoot, evm calculation, (error vector magnitude), and so forth. At the same time, my co-worker was coaching him which buttons to press, and the functions there of.
At the end of the discussion, he said: "Boy, it takes a Rocket Scientist to operate this generator!"
I agree with your statement:
"The decoupling capacitor in an audio stage is directly in the signal path."
Yes, all capacitors that are in the signal path.
So many readers understand the issue, for the bypass capacitor that is across a self bias resistor, for example.
But many do forget that the B+ caps are also in the signal path.
I hope we can keep working together to improve things, and help others along the way.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Positron,
1. Please, would you copy the text of my Post(s) where I attacked your Post(s). No, not a complete Post of mine, as you have been copying. Please list specific attacking statements.
And, please tell me the Post # of your Post(s) that I attacked, and the text in it that I attacked.
I may have missed something.
I misunderstood you, very possible.
You misunderstood me, perhaps?
Thank You.
2. An example of a "double blindfold" test:
It does not use any blindfold over the eyes of anybody.
A single switch has 2 positions, corresponding to the 2 conditions of the test.
An operator does not know what either switch position does; he has been instructed to switch back and forth multiple times; With different times in each position, sometimes long in each position, sometimes medium time in each position.
Listeners do not know what is being tested, just to listen for any change in the sound of the system.
They can not see the operator change the switch positions.
The listeners are asked to listen for differences.
After the test the listeners may describe the differences that they hear (Yes, you can argue that this is skewed toward no differences; I can argue that it is skewed to any differences that can reasonably be heard).
Perhaps a second test could be conducted, that purposefully and measurably causes a difference of the same type as the original test should be conducted; as a second validation.
The test needs to control all differences, has to eliminate all of them, except the one item that could cause a difference in the sound.
As I said, easier said than done.
3. Again, I wish you were there at my presentation and discussion at VSAC 2003, of the essence of my Glass Audio article of 2000.
4. I like your graphs of the plastic caps. I remember doing those tests when I had access to a Rohde & Schwarz VNA and precision cal kit.
I had a 1uF plastic cap with 1-1/2 inch leads that gave the deepest series resonant null I have ever seen.
----------
I know you don’t want me to quote the complete post for proper context.
2. So now you did not blindfold anyone. Which is it? Ok, let’s continue. Your procedures mean nothing since you are not dealing with the confounding variables of perception.
There is no argument, As I have already shown, your dbt test is skewed 100% of the time towards No sonic difference, so Not scientific in any sense. Repeat an obvious flawed test, a test with multiple flaws??
Let’s check for a flaw with respect of repeatability that 6A3 suggests. Since most don’t have a second audio system, let’s borrow another’s amplifier, same spl etc. Now let’s place a blanket over your speakers but use a sonic transparent cloth over everythiing. You don’t know the blanket is there.
No sonic difference between the two amplifiers? Let’s do a 2nd, 3rd, 4th series of tests. We repricated over and over, no sonic difference, same results/conclusions. Does that mean the two amplifiers sound the same, the results are valid? Well, yes when a blanket is placed over the speakers. However, you did not know the blanket was there to manipulate the results. This only works when the tester and public are not aware of what is involved, and/or not given all the information, the variables etc. Knowledge is power and control.
Still waiting for proof that dbt testing equates to normal listening. More questions.
4. Yes, interesting indeed. The electrolytic curves are so bad, resonance in the low khz, and curving much lower. DA masks, lacks dynamics, smears, degrades sonics since in the direct audio path.
----------
“Positron,
I agree with your statement:
"The decoupling capacitor in an audio stage is directly in the signal path."
Yes, all capacitors that are in the signal path.
So many readers understand the issue, for the bypass capacitor that is across a self bias resistor, for example.
But many do forget that the B+ caps are also in the signal path.
I hope we can keep working together to improve things, and help others along the way.
Thanks!”
----------
Yes, in my research over the decades, as I removed electrolytic capacitors from the signal path, the sonics improved. The more electrolytics removed the greater the transparency. The high voltage B+ for the output tubes, and cathode bypass caps are troublesome, but can be mostly overcome by techniques.
pos
1. Please, would you copy the text of my Post(s) where I attacked your Post(s). No, not a complete Post of mine, as you have been copying. Please list specific attacking statements.
And, please tell me the Post # of your Post(s) that I attacked, and the text in it that I attacked.
I may have missed something.
I misunderstood you, very possible.
You misunderstood me, perhaps?
Thank You.
2. An example of a "double blindfold" test:
It does not use any blindfold over the eyes of anybody.
A single switch has 2 positions, corresponding to the 2 conditions of the test.
An operator does not know what either switch position does; he has been instructed to switch back and forth multiple times; With different times in each position, sometimes long in each position, sometimes medium time in each position.
Listeners do not know what is being tested, just to listen for any change in the sound of the system.
They can not see the operator change the switch positions.
The listeners are asked to listen for differences.
After the test the listeners may describe the differences that they hear (Yes, you can argue that this is skewed toward no differences; I can argue that it is skewed to any differences that can reasonably be heard).
Perhaps a second test could be conducted, that purposefully and measurably causes a difference of the same type as the original test should be conducted; as a second validation.
The test needs to control all differences, has to eliminate all of them, except the one item that could cause a difference in the sound.
As I said, easier said than done.
3. Again, I wish you were there at my presentation and discussion at VSAC 2003, of the essence of my Glass Audio article of 2000.
4. I like your graphs of the plastic caps. I remember doing those tests when I had access to a Rohde & Schwarz VNA and precision cal kit.
I had a 1uF plastic cap with 1-1/2 inch leads that gave the deepest series resonant null I have ever seen.
----------
I know you don’t want me to quote the complete post for proper context.
- Your post is against all the previous posts, including mine, that speaker cables make no sonic difference, based on your flawed dbt test that you designed.
- Your posts are also square against components sounding different especially transparency, of which mine is by far the most transparent.
2. So now you did not blindfold anyone. Which is it? Ok, let’s continue. Your procedures mean nothing since you are not dealing with the confounding variables of perception.
There is no argument, As I have already shown, your dbt test is skewed 100% of the time towards No sonic difference, so Not scientific in any sense. Repeat an obvious flawed test, a test with multiple flaws??
Let’s check for a flaw with respect of repeatability that 6A3 suggests. Since most don’t have a second audio system, let’s borrow another’s amplifier, same spl etc. Now let’s place a blanket over your speakers but use a sonic transparent cloth over everythiing. You don’t know the blanket is there.
No sonic difference between the two amplifiers? Let’s do a 2nd, 3rd, 4th series of tests. We repricated over and over, no sonic difference, same results/conclusions. Does that mean the two amplifiers sound the same, the results are valid? Well, yes when a blanket is placed over the speakers. However, you did not know the blanket was there to manipulate the results. This only works when the tester and public are not aware of what is involved, and/or not given all the information, the variables etc. Knowledge is power and control.
Still waiting for proof that dbt testing equates to normal listening. More questions.
- Approximately how many subjects were in each of your three tests?
- Please post any photos of the venues?
- Approximately how many times did you A/B the subjects in your tests?
- The time intervals between A/Bs?
- How variably long in each position?
4. Yes, interesting indeed. The electrolytic curves are so bad, resonance in the low khz, and curving much lower. DA masks, lacks dynamics, smears, degrades sonics since in the direct audio path.
----------
“Positron,
I agree with your statement:
"The decoupling capacitor in an audio stage is directly in the signal path."
Yes, all capacitors that are in the signal path.
So many readers understand the issue, for the bypass capacitor that is across a self bias resistor, for example.
But many do forget that the B+ caps are also in the signal path.
I hope we can keep working together to improve things, and help others along the way.
Thanks!”
----------
Yes, in my research over the decades, as I removed electrolytic capacitors from the signal path, the sonics improved. The more electrolytics removed the greater the transparency. The high voltage B+ for the output tubes, and cathode bypass caps are troublesome, but can be mostly overcome by techniques.
pos
Last edited:
Positron,
You did not sort out which of my posts “attacked” the ‘title’ of this thread, That is OK.
But I will attempt do do so for the other readers, who are wondering about my “attacks”.
I will comment on my own posts, one at a time (too much time to do all my posts in this thread all at once).
My post #11:
I talked about someone else's post # 10 which mentioned ‘Gain Bandwidth Product’.
The reciprocal of gain bandwidth product is is the frequency where gain = 1
That concept is about amplifiers, not speaker cables.
(That is not an “attack” on the presence, or absence, of sound differences of speaker cables)
Would you apply gain bandwidth product to a speaker cable?
The highest gain a cable can have is already 1 (Unity); Except in the case of resonance, but that resonance has to include all three things: the amplifier, speaker cable, and speaker (not the cable by itself).
In defense of my above statements . . . I ask everyone:
When ever did a speaker cable manufacturer specify the gain bandwidth product of their speaker cable?
Careful, a speaker cable marketeer might do that, and charge you more $ for the feature.
‘Nuf Said about my post #11
Thank you readers for hanging in there, and reading this post.
When I get time, I will pick my next post #, and discuss it.
I hope everyone enjoys the journey.
You did not sort out which of my posts “attacked” the ‘title’ of this thread, That is OK.
But I will attempt do do so for the other readers, who are wondering about my “attacks”.
I will comment on my own posts, one at a time (too much time to do all my posts in this thread all at once).
My post #11:
I talked about someone else's post # 10 which mentioned ‘Gain Bandwidth Product’.
The reciprocal of gain bandwidth product is is the frequency where gain = 1
That concept is about amplifiers, not speaker cables.
(That is not an “attack” on the presence, or absence, of sound differences of speaker cables)
Would you apply gain bandwidth product to a speaker cable?
The highest gain a cable can have is already 1 (Unity); Except in the case of resonance, but that resonance has to include all three things: the amplifier, speaker cable, and speaker (not the cable by itself).
In defense of my above statements . . . I ask everyone:
When ever did a speaker cable manufacturer specify the gain bandwidth product of their speaker cable?
Careful, a speaker cable marketeer might do that, and charge you more $ for the feature.
‘Nuf Said about my post #11
Thank you readers for hanging in there, and reading this post.
When I get time, I will pick my next post #, and discuss it.
I hope everyone enjoys the journey.
My Post # 14 is in response to Isaacc7’s Posts # 1, and Post # 3.
My post basically says, that an amplifier, speaker cable, and loudspeaker need to be analyzed as a System.
Some systems fit together good, some do not.
I did not make any statement in my Post # 14 that “attacks” the idea that speaker cables can, or can not, change the sound of the System.
‘Nuf Said about my Post # 14.
My post basically says, that an amplifier, speaker cable, and loudspeaker need to be analyzed as a System.
Some systems fit together good, some do not.
I did not make any statement in my Post # 14 that “attacks” the idea that speaker cables can, or can not, change the sound of the System.
‘Nuf Said about my Post # 14.
My Post # 19 is a story about an Audionics solid state amplifier.
I was told the story by an employee of Audionics.
It illustrated that an amplifier can have trouble when connected to a speaker cable and speaker (instead of a non-inductive load resistor).
It was not an “attack” on whether speaker cables do, or do not, sound different.
Well, I do have to admit they did not make any sound, after the amplifiers blew up.
Nuf Said about my Post # 19.
I was told the story by an employee of Audionics.
It illustrated that an amplifier can have trouble when connected to a speaker cable and speaker (instead of a non-inductive load resistor).
It was not an “attack” on whether speaker cables do, or do not, sound different.
Well, I do have to admit they did not make any sound, after the amplifiers blew up.
Nuf Said about my Post # 19.
My Post # 29:
I made a statement, perhaps obscure, about transmission line theory (or fact if you take it that way).
I also made a statement that an Audio Amplifier is for the purpose of Audio;
It was not made to be an intentional RF Transmitter.
Where is the “attack” that said speaker cables do, or do not, change the sound?
‘Nuf Said about my Post # 29.
I made a statement, perhaps obscure, about transmission line theory (or fact if you take it that way).
I also made a statement that an Audio Amplifier is for the purpose of Audio;
It was not made to be an intentional RF Transmitter.
Where is the “attack” that said speaker cables do, or do not, change the sound?
‘Nuf Said about my Post # 29.
My Post # 32:
I talked about the measurement results, of testing 2 different speaker cable types, using a very capable Vector Network Analyzer.
I said those cables would work very well in my stereo systems.
But I also said:
“Your measurement results may vary.
Your listening results may very.”
I did not state that speaker cables do, or do not, make a difference in the sound you hear.
‘Nuf Said about my Post # 32.
Thanks for reading all of these posts!
I talked about the measurement results, of testing 2 different speaker cable types, using a very capable Vector Network Analyzer.
I said those cables would work very well in my stereo systems.
But I also said:
“Your measurement results may vary.
Your listening results may very.”
I did not state that speaker cables do, or do not, make a difference in the sound you hear.
‘Nuf Said about my Post # 32.
Thanks for reading all of these posts!
My Post # 45,
I made statements that oscillations might be a problem.
I also said if your amplifier oscillates at several MHz, then fix, or replace it.
* Stated by me Now: I guess I should have said: or replace the offending cable, or the offending speaker.*
Then I made statements about the wavelength of electric fields in cable, and that ‘slow’ cables would have velocities less than the speed of light.
* Stated by me Now in this post, not my original Post # 45.
(By the way, all cable velocities are less than the speed of light, they are all low pass filters of sorts; except waveguides that are brick wall high pass filters).*
Then I stated about ins and outs of VNA tests, and results of [partial] wavelengths of the speaker cables.
Then I made a statement about Carl Frederich Gauss.
I did not "attack", the idea that speaker cables do, or do not, sound different.
The * and * that enclose a sentence, or word, indicates new statements or words in this thread, that were not in the original Post # 45.
‘Nuf Said about my post # 45.
I made statements that oscillations might be a problem.
I also said if your amplifier oscillates at several MHz, then fix, or replace it.
* Stated by me Now: I guess I should have said: or replace the offending cable, or the offending speaker.*
Then I made statements about the wavelength of electric fields in cable, and that ‘slow’ cables would have velocities less than the speed of light.
* Stated by me Now in this post, not my original Post # 45.
(By the way, all cable velocities are less than the speed of light, they are all low pass filters of sorts; except waveguides that are brick wall high pass filters).*
Then I stated about ins and outs of VNA tests, and results of [partial] wavelengths of the speaker cables.
Then I made a statement about Carl Frederich Gauss.
I did not "attack", the idea that speaker cables do, or do not, sound different.
The * and * that enclose a sentence, or word, indicates new statements or words in this thread, that were not in the original Post # 45.
‘Nuf Said about my post # 45.