Wow, what a slew of posts!
A couple of comments from my POV
To Peter: what I objected to is your statement that "a hard pad gives airy sound, a soft pad dull sound". Apart from the obvious anthropomorphing that apparently has gone into this, I implied that this gives the risk that people run out to buy hard pads because they want airy sound, just on your unsubstantiated statement. And I don't think that's fair to your fellow DIYs.
As far as proof is required, I think it is essential. If someone really is onto something worthwhile, it must be repeatable by others with the same result. If not, I'm not going to belief it, period. If it is not repeatable, it may be a fluke, or only valid in those specific equipment setup, or whatever. Remember cold fusion? They really WANTED it to be true, it was their baby. These were grown-up seasoned scientists, trained in critical thinking, but they fell flat. If someone reports that his amp sounds MUCH better with BG-s, and the next one says, hey, BG-s suck, XBC is much, much better, I'm not going to believe either of them.
Did you ever ask why after all these years we are still turning around in circles in audio, essentially not getting anywhere in sound quality, while, say, car engines steadily improve on fuel efficiency? Demonstrable and repeatably? Because car manufacturers employ the scientific method, while in audio we use humbug, unsubstantiated opinions, etc. Hell, most audiphiles do so much jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle that they must be very fit physically!
IMNSHO, blind testing is the only method I know to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. If may not be perfect, but it beats "I heard it, so you must do the same to enjoy nirwana" hands down IF we want to get somewhere. That somewhere may be that those 200$ you spend on special wire doesn't make a difference. If you are intellectually honest to yourself, you should be prepared to swallow that, and be a better man (or woman) of it.
Jan Didden
A couple of comments from my POV
To Peter: what I objected to is your statement that "a hard pad gives airy sound, a soft pad dull sound". Apart from the obvious anthropomorphing that apparently has gone into this, I implied that this gives the risk that people run out to buy hard pads because they want airy sound, just on your unsubstantiated statement. And I don't think that's fair to your fellow DIYs.
As far as proof is required, I think it is essential. If someone really is onto something worthwhile, it must be repeatable by others with the same result. If not, I'm not going to belief it, period. If it is not repeatable, it may be a fluke, or only valid in those specific equipment setup, or whatever. Remember cold fusion? They really WANTED it to be true, it was their baby. These were grown-up seasoned scientists, trained in critical thinking, but they fell flat. If someone reports that his amp sounds MUCH better with BG-s, and the next one says, hey, BG-s suck, XBC is much, much better, I'm not going to believe either of them.
Did you ever ask why after all these years we are still turning around in circles in audio, essentially not getting anywhere in sound quality, while, say, car engines steadily improve on fuel efficiency? Demonstrable and repeatably? Because car manufacturers employ the scientific method, while in audio we use humbug, unsubstantiated opinions, etc. Hell, most audiphiles do so much jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle that they must be very fit physically!
IMNSHO, blind testing is the only method I know to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. If may not be perfect, but it beats "I heard it, so you must do the same to enjoy nirwana" hands down IF we want to get somewhere. That somewhere may be that those 200$ you spend on special wire doesn't make a difference. If you are intellectually honest to yourself, you should be prepared to swallow that, and be a better man (or woman) of it.
Jan Didden
The main difference being I know exactly what to measure to compute fuel efficiency, I have no idea what to measure to assess sound quality - as stated above, the end result of the former is an objective fact, the latter a subjective assessment.
In fact Jan, here's your challenge 😉
Listen to the effect of the level-shift zener in the Jung / Didden regulator - (i.e. remove the bypass cap), then resolve the sonic difference you hear, with a measurement at the output of the device you are powering.
Andy.
ALW said:
No, Andy, not at all. As is stated in some of the above posts, it is very well possible to have independent (remote I think it was called) tests where participants agree on improvements, PROVIDED they don't know what the differences are, and PROVIDED they have no vested interest. (Sorry about all the caps, I get excited again).
And BTW, if what you say is true, this whole thread, indeed this whole forum becomes just an exercise in irrelevancy. Why spend time & money on super regulators if, (your words) "I have no idea what to measure to assess sound quality"? Why should I take YOUR word for it that it improves MY sound?
Jan Didden
Milwood, you're becoming the resident bore. It may be news to you, but thousands of audio lovers have been assembling their systems based on what they hear for for at least the last 40 years. And most of them don't care one bit about the physics or engineering behind their systems. Or if good sound is measurable or not.
peter
SY said:
How I look at this is that ea. of us listens to music in a different way, we have different habbits and preferences. Our years of conditioning, subcontiously or not, and our believe system (and acceptance patterns), all this also influences what we hear and what not. Again this is not a claim or statement, but only my belief.
So if someone is presented with an undisputed proof that there is a diference between setups A & B, he might actually perceive that difference from now on. So indeed a proof might improve person's hearing abilities. It's not that it changes his hearing, but simply opens the door to new possiblities.
ALW said:
Easy. I know from experience I cannot hear a difference in most of those tweaks (haven't tried this one though), BUT I measure a difference. (on the supply, not on the powered device, I grant you that).
Now give me a real challenge 😉
Jan Didden
After so many years, i've never witnessed such a transformation. If can't hear, you stay deaf and that's that 🙂
Peter:
The idea of a test like this is to remove the psychological factors and see if there's a purely audible phenomenon. We design amps to be flat because there's auditory evidence that people can hear spectral balance changes on the order of 0.1 dB. If we get a null result on this test, it doesn't mean that your effect is inaudible all the time to everybody, and it doesn't stop you or anyone else from continuing to experiment the way you want.
The idea of a test like this is to remove the psychological factors and see if there's a purely audible phenomenon. We design amps to be flat because there's auditory evidence that people can hear spectral balance changes on the order of 0.1 dB. If we get a null result on this test, it doesn't mean that your effect is inaudible all the time to everybody, and it doesn't stop you or anyone else from continuing to experiment the way you want.
analog_sa said:
You see there is one track I like to use for testing. It is track 3 from The Wall album. At exactly 3:26 min into the track there is a peculiar sound from the gitar strings. Depending on a system, I can hear it or not. But I also had this album for years, it came out in early '80s and I never heard it untill last year, when I built new transport and DAC. Form now on I can also hear it on my lesser machines, the ones I was using before and never heard this sound in the speakers (the right speaker).
Peter Daniel said:
I fully agree. Hearing is mechanical, but is's the perception that counts, that is what you are (become) aware off. And that is heavily influenced by all the factors you mention.
Got to run now, have this blonde with the high heel shoes and the low neck sweater waiting. Have fun.
Jan Didden
SY said:
We design amps to be flat, but I think that there are other more important design issues than a flat frequency. I usually put soundstage, depth, accustic resolution and a feeling of "space" above flat spectrum. While I can measure freq response easily, I cannot measure the other "effects". I can only "adjust" them by ear.
janneman said:
There is some truth in what you say here. I never actually realised that with my observation, I might influence other DIY and they will be biased by that in their projects. So there is some danger in passing this type of comments.
But I also believe, that anybody who is willing to experiment, will use that info in a more smart and appropriate way. We had a comment in this thread, from Mad_K, who did try both types of pads and he made his own conclusion what he preferred http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=206490#post206490
This is also a completely separate finding from mine, which also suggests the difference in pads. I, OTOH, stated before as well, that this is very depandant on a whole setup, and both pads may have advantage in those different setups. The linked post is the best example of that.
I also regard myself as DIYer, and I'm not really interested in proofing anything to the public. I'm not scientist and the whole process of proofing takes the mystery out of what we do, and audio becomes less interesting. I wouldn't like it to be that way, unless I was a banker, maybe😉
Hi,
Absolutely.
While a deviation from a flat frequency response may give the amp a distinct character compared to a neutral sounding one ( is there any?) it may still be utterly musically convincing.
I wonder how one measures tonal balance anyway?
To give an example using respected names: take a YBA, a VTL and a Rowland Research, all of which have a distinct sound one can easily recognise once one is familiar with those products.
Now I wouldn't know how on earth to measure for a correlation to find out what it is that gives them this distinct sonic signature.
It would surely advance the current state of the art if a repeatable proof could be devised for this.
Until than we'll just need to listen and measure in our more conventional ways.
Cheers,😉
Absolutely.
While a deviation from a flat frequency response may give the amp a distinct character compared to a neutral sounding one ( is there any?) it may still be utterly musically convincing.
I wonder how one measures tonal balance anyway?
To give an example using respected names: take a YBA, a VTL and a Rowland Research, all of which have a distinct sound one can easily recognise once one is familiar with those products.
Now I wouldn't know how on earth to measure for a correlation to find out what it is that gives them this distinct sonic signature.
It would surely advance the current state of the art if a repeatable proof could be devised for this.
Until than we'll just need to listen and measure in our more conventional ways.
Cheers,😉
Ok Jan,
1. Try changing the reference filter and gain bypass caps in the reg's from 'lytics, to good quality film caps (3.3u polyester, for example). Scale the impedances at the input to preserve similar 3dB points.
2. Listen - I'll be frankly astonished if you can't hear the difference.
3. Measure the change at the output of the device being powered - this is the critical bit, measuring the change at the PSU may be easy, but at the device may be much harder, but that is where your ears resolve the difference, and therefore where, by the arguments presented here, the measurement should be made.
Could keep you busy on a cold winters eve 😉
Andy.
1. Try changing the reference filter and gain bypass caps in the reg's from 'lytics, to good quality film caps (3.3u polyester, for example). Scale the impedances at the input to preserve similar 3dB points.
2. Listen - I'll be frankly astonished if you can't hear the difference.
3. Measure the change at the output of the device being powered - this is the critical bit, measuring the change at the PSU may be easy, but at the device may be much harder, but that is where your ears resolve the difference, and therefore where, by the arguments presented here, the measurement should be made.
Could keep you busy on a cold winters eve 😉
Andy.
I've got one like that, too. The last track on "Stand Up" by Jethro Tull. The song seems to end, then suddenly a little cymbal and drum riff starts a reprise. Cymbals, drums, cymbals, drums, then the rest of the band. In the second drum part, there's a tiny little "plop" sounding like a champagne cork. Or maybe it's an edit done sloppily. In any case, it's inaudible unless you really do things right with speakers, room, amplification, and source- or use something like Stax headphones.
BTW, my example of frequency response was just an example. Don't conflate that with a specious claim that frequency response is the ONLY thing that's important.
Peter Daniel said:
As humans we all err. and I am sure I have a long list of grander mistakes too.
BTW, have you talked to those good folks at Bombardier about vibration and its impact on electronics? thinking about full throttle take-off and those sensitive avonics onboard their BRJs. They might be interested in hearing what you have found.
Millwood, I understand your points and agree with many of them, but you might want to think about how you're making them. There's a difference between open-minded skepticism and curmudgeonly grumbling. The former can actually get you somewhere, I'm convinced- Peter is a pretty intelligent and sincere guy, as I believe you are. The latter just digs everyone in a bit deeper.
>After so many years, I've never witnessed such a transformation. If can't hear, you stay deaf and that's that.<
As I have mentioned on previous occasions, I have witnessed, participated in and implemented (or at least _tried_ to implement) various forms of blind testing. (No guarantees as to the competence of those tests 🙂) From those tests, I have gleaned a variety of observations. Note that the following points are simply my personal observations as a rank amateur - there is a possibility that these points may not well withstand more competent scrutiny.
1. In general, most people (including audiophiles) do not appear to have dependable, reliable listening ability (hearing plus cognitive processing). Listening is also affected by physical and mental condition, and by how relaxed the listener feels in the test environment. Therefore if you want a rigorous, disciplined approach to blind testing, selecting the listening panel and making sure that they are in good condition and relaxed before asking them to perform any work is a major part of the game.
2. Individuals have different degrees of listening acuity to various sonic flaws - just because someone is capable of discerning one-octave 0.1dB anomolies does not necessarily mean that the same person would be able to hear group-delay errors. (Likewise true for musicians - a flutist is attuned to and listens for different things than, say, a bassist will.)
3. Most audio systems are not set up nearly precisely enough to allow truly critical listening to take place in a reliable and efficient manner. It is highly unusual to find an audio system that does _not_ suffer from gross speaker placement errors or room acoustic problems, ground loops, too-high background noise or vibration, et al, and unless these problems are dealt with, reliably identifying sonic issues under blind conditions may be fairly difficult. In practice, this tends to conflict with the above point 1 - for keeping the listener relaxed and comfortable, in many cases using the listener's own system is preferable, but OTOH, most home audio systems are not well-suited for critical, efficient listening.
4. Expectations and attitudes have a major effect on listening - particularly short-term (one reason may be that the initial euphoria of finally owning something that was strongly desired wears off over time, in a similar manner as a summer romance). When an audiophile sees a tube amplifier and a solid state amp, just the fact of seeing will frequently predispose the listener to "hear" a certain type of sound from each box - which may or may not exist in reality (this is a strong reason why conducting blind listening tests are a useful control - at least some of the time). OTOH, the reverse is equally true. For example, I have tried out at least one listener who happened to believe that competently designed amplifiers all sound alike. In some of the experiments, I played amplifiers that had measureable 0.1 ~ 0.3dB differences in their frequency response, and the result was that the listener declared the amplifiers to sound identical. Yet the same listener was able to reliably identify a 0.1dB anomoly when it was separately presented to him as such.
As far as listening is concerned - it appears that the brain is powerful enough to create something when nothing is there. But it also appears that the brain is powerful enough to obliterate something that _is_ there.
At least from my admittedly amateur perspective, dealing with subjective/interpretive senses such as listening appears to be very, very tricky (my take is that hearing is what the ear does and is essentially objective/automated, while listening to music is far more akin to auditory linguistics - neither functions without substantial cognitive processing and subjective interpretation).
So, in response to the quote at the beginning of this post (finally!), yes, I have witnessed such a transformation.
Apologies for the long and rambling post.
jonathan carr
As I have mentioned on previous occasions, I have witnessed, participated in and implemented (or at least _tried_ to implement) various forms of blind testing. (No guarantees as to the competence of those tests 🙂) From those tests, I have gleaned a variety of observations. Note that the following points are simply my personal observations as a rank amateur - there is a possibility that these points may not well withstand more competent scrutiny.
1. In general, most people (including audiophiles) do not appear to have dependable, reliable listening ability (hearing plus cognitive processing). Listening is also affected by physical and mental condition, and by how relaxed the listener feels in the test environment. Therefore if you want a rigorous, disciplined approach to blind testing, selecting the listening panel and making sure that they are in good condition and relaxed before asking them to perform any work is a major part of the game.
2. Individuals have different degrees of listening acuity to various sonic flaws - just because someone is capable of discerning one-octave 0.1dB anomolies does not necessarily mean that the same person would be able to hear group-delay errors. (Likewise true for musicians - a flutist is attuned to and listens for different things than, say, a bassist will.)
3. Most audio systems are not set up nearly precisely enough to allow truly critical listening to take place in a reliable and efficient manner. It is highly unusual to find an audio system that does _not_ suffer from gross speaker placement errors or room acoustic problems, ground loops, too-high background noise or vibration, et al, and unless these problems are dealt with, reliably identifying sonic issues under blind conditions may be fairly difficult. In practice, this tends to conflict with the above point 1 - for keeping the listener relaxed and comfortable, in many cases using the listener's own system is preferable, but OTOH, most home audio systems are not well-suited for critical, efficient listening.
4. Expectations and attitudes have a major effect on listening - particularly short-term (one reason may be that the initial euphoria of finally owning something that was strongly desired wears off over time, in a similar manner as a summer romance). When an audiophile sees a tube amplifier and a solid state amp, just the fact of seeing will frequently predispose the listener to "hear" a certain type of sound from each box - which may or may not exist in reality (this is a strong reason why conducting blind listening tests are a useful control - at least some of the time). OTOH, the reverse is equally true. For example, I have tried out at least one listener who happened to believe that competently designed amplifiers all sound alike. In some of the experiments, I played amplifiers that had measureable 0.1 ~ 0.3dB differences in their frequency response, and the result was that the listener declared the amplifiers to sound identical. Yet the same listener was able to reliably identify a 0.1dB anomoly when it was separately presented to him as such.
As far as listening is concerned - it appears that the brain is powerful enough to create something when nothing is there. But it also appears that the brain is powerful enough to obliterate something that _is_ there.
At least from my admittedly amateur perspective, dealing with subjective/interpretive senses such as listening appears to be very, very tricky (my take is that hearing is what the ear does and is essentially objective/automated, while listening to music is far more akin to auditory linguistics - neither functions without substantial cognitive processing and subjective interpretation).
So, in response to the quote at the beginning of this post (finally!), yes, I have witnessed such a transformation.
Apologies for the long and rambling post.
jonathan carr
- Status
- Not open for further replies.