Upupa Epops said:I broke my sword over this discussion here - now I see, where some guys are going for inspiration - positive vibration ! Jesus ! Wood knobs ! Only is missed silver wire with spider's fibre insulation.Some buy an 10 k buck " pot " in crazy wood box, while in " third world " is salary one buck per day. Strange times.
those guys will do everything to sell their stuff and most of them dont know anything about audio electronics.
also many people here that claim audible differences cant even calculate the gain of non enverted op amp.
Thats the way our mind works ,we see nice and shiny things and we think it sounds good because it looks good.
, even better.
Upupa Epops said:To Jeff : Whatabout 50 Ohm attenuator ?
Almost - I use an logarithmically tapped autotransformer with a DCR of about 100 ohms to adjust the volume in my system.
Dumping a very well thought of preamplifier for this was the biggest improvement I've ever made to my system.
If you don't want to try a low impdance attenuator, don't. It's your loss.
Re: ... bad pots sound bad...
Konnichiwa,
Well, in my considered EE opinion, bad Pot is the skunk they sell on the streets of Tottenham, Haringey and Hackney. It is VERY BAD Pot.
If you want a difition as to what a what makes an Adjustable resistor "bad" for certain applications you need to first specify:
1) Application
2) Desired quality of application
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Upupa Epops said:
Well, in my considered EE opinion, bad Pot is the skunk they sell on the streets of Tottenham, Haringey and Hackney. It is VERY BAD Pot.
If you want a difition as to what a what makes an Adjustable resistor "bad" for certain applications you need to first specify:
1) Application
2) Desired quality of application
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Yes, this appears to be the case, based on a wide range of observations by a large number of people. It appears that under a range of conditions passive devices such as capacitors, resistors and not the potentiomenters cause MEASURABLE levels of distortion. If such such levels are audible, there rages a large argument. I would suggest the correct position is that as of now no-one has provided proof that there are NO audible differences and the vast majority of experiements that have been aimed at providing proof that non exist are by far to flawed in their methodology and statistical analysis to be admitted as evidence under strict scientific scrutiny.
At this junction we have a large body of "folklore" that ascribes changes in sound with changes in passive components, cables and such items and NO acceptable refutation of said position, so the case remains open. Personally, empirically, in blind auditions using the bypass methode, I have observed with better than fair (staistical) reliability differences in sound between passive components. This of course does not make my observations capable of being generalised.
There are large numbers of hypothesis's as to the cause of the differences, some of which happen to be fitting the observed facts better than others. However, at this stage I believe non explains sufficiently the whole body of observations, so there is currently no complete explanation.
This is a state of affiars quite common in Science. We observe a certain condition, behaviour and we may even be able to formulate a mathematical model that predicts the behaviour of said observed item, but we still do not have something that is acceptable as explanations. Gravity is an excellent example, we cannot really explain how it works, but we all seriously relying on it working.
One would assume. In such tests if I perform them I make sure levels are matched to < 0.1db difference.
Good for you. I assume by "build" you actually mean "assembled". Or have you designed and build several 1000 DIFFERENT Amplifiers with different components and so on and found them all to sound identical?
That is an interesting statement. The scientific mode of thinking consists first of observation and sencondly of a hypothesising what may cause such observation. Would you care to share the nature of your observations and what conclusions you have drawn?
Or is your "scientific thinking" in fact religious thinking, which is based on the position that a certain authority issued an ex cathedra statement as to how things are (without significant proof) and you simply accept such as fact?
Observing your position in this (and other) discussion(s) I am tempted towards considering the second point the correct one.
Your "question" was sneering derrision, if you ask me. Maybe it is the way you write english, but:
strikes me as a rather rude and accusing mode of expression in english, implying "how dare you claim such things."
I have addressed your points in the interest of injecting some sense, substance and scientific views into the discussion, choosing to ignore your rudeness. Other amy be less tollerant.
Now we are getting to the bottom of this. A simple observation is made: 'I have observed that if I do "A" I get result "B".'
You immediatly convert a SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION into a CLAIM which runs counter to your view of how reality should behave, and thus the SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION becomes "claimed thing, which bring superstitions".
This strikes me as a most unscientific view and as highly alogical, counterfactual and unscientific thinking, more aking to the usual religious mode of thought which declares anything it finds disagreeable, regardless of accuracy or veracity, to be heresy.
In the old Hareems of the Turkish Sultans the Eunchs would be able to observe rather closely and intimatly many women and would hence know "all about construction of this one", yet I suspect the actual point was rather lost on them.
Hmm, note, the ONLY person that can MAKE YOU AN IDIOT is yourself, by behaving like one. Alogical thinking, counterfactial argumentation and illustrating the adherence to a pseudoscietific faithbased system of thought are certainly good attempts to appear in such a way, regardless of what the facts are.
Sayonara
Upupa Epops said:
Yes, this appears to be the case, based on a wide range of observations by a large number of people. It appears that under a range of conditions passive devices such as capacitors, resistors and not the potentiomenters cause MEASURABLE levels of distortion. If such such levels are audible, there rages a large argument. I would suggest the correct position is that as of now no-one has provided proof that there are NO audible differences and the vast majority of experiements that have been aimed at providing proof that non exist are by far to flawed in their methodology and statistical analysis to be admitted as evidence under strict scientific scrutiny.
At this junction we have a large body of "folklore" that ascribes changes in sound with changes in passive components, cables and such items and NO acceptable refutation of said position, so the case remains open. Personally, empirically, in blind auditions using the bypass methode, I have observed with better than fair (staistical) reliability differences in sound between passive components. This of course does not make my observations capable of being generalised.
Upupa Epops said:
There are large numbers of hypothesis's as to the cause of the differences, some of which happen to be fitting the observed facts better than others. However, at this stage I believe non explains sufficiently the whole body of observations, so there is currently no complete explanation.
This is a state of affiars quite common in Science. We observe a certain condition, behaviour and we may even be able to formulate a mathematical model that predicts the behaviour of said observed item, but we still do not have something that is acceptable as explanations. Gravity is an excellent example, we cannot really explain how it works, but we all seriously relying on it working.
Upupa Epops said:
One would assume. In such tests if I perform them I make sure levels are matched to < 0.1db difference.
Upupa Epops said:
Good for you. I assume by "build" you actually mean "assembled". Or have you designed and build several 1000 DIFFERENT Amplifiers with different components and so on and found them all to sound identical?
Upupa Epops said:
That is an interesting statement. The scientific mode of thinking consists first of observation and sencondly of a hypothesising what may cause such observation. Would you care to share the nature of your observations and what conclusions you have drawn?
Or is your "scientific thinking" in fact religious thinking, which is based on the position that a certain authority issued an ex cathedra statement as to how things are (without significant proof) and you simply accept such as fact?
Observing your position in this (and other) discussion(s) I am tempted towards considering the second point the correct one.
Upupa Epops said:
Your "question" was sneering derrision, if you ask me. Maybe it is the way you write english, but:
Upupa Epops said:
strikes me as a rather rude and accusing mode of expression in english, implying "how dare you claim such things."
I have addressed your points in the interest of injecting some sense, substance and scientific views into the discussion, choosing to ignore your rudeness. Other amy be less tollerant.
Upupa Epops said:Here is claimed thing, which bring superstitions and I don't like it
Now we are getting to the bottom of this. A simple observation is made: 'I have observed that if I do "A" I get result "B".'
You immediatly convert a SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION into a CLAIM which runs counter to your view of how reality should behave, and thus the SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION becomes "claimed thing, which bring superstitions".
This strikes me as a most unscientific view and as highly alogical, counterfactual and unscientific thinking, more aking to the usual religious mode of thought which declares anything it finds disagreeable, regardless of accuracy or veracity, to be heresy.
Upupa Epops said:
In the old Hareems of the Turkish Sultans the Eunchs would be able to observe rather closely and intimatly many women and would hence know "all about construction of this one", yet I suspect the actual point was rather lost on them.
Upupa Epops said:
Hmm, note, the ONLY person that can MAKE YOU AN IDIOT is yourself, by behaving like one. Alogical thinking, counterfactial argumentation and illustrating the adherence to a pseudoscietific faithbased system of thought are certainly good attempts to appear in such a way, regardless of what the facts are.
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.