Hi,
It is still a compensation network... as such it should be measured in order to know what you're compensating for and by how much or how little. I think that point stands. Otherwise you end up with the kind of results where some people try whatever values and experience whatever results, as we often see in this impedance correction case. This is truly incorrect and serves little puporse to further the science.
Snubber is also a very general term leading to some confusion perhaps, I think however it is realized that it serves many purposes.
If you read what mrfeedback had to say on the matter as per its use in this instance, you'll understand that you correct for the impedance curve by using a multitude of caps of various values to tune the impedance for flattest/widest response(and types in order to tune the sound properly), the parasitics of this network are going to cause oscillations among them which the RC portion or lossy electrolytic can help snub (ooops, I meant damp), all things above should in fact best be measured or you're just working blindly and throwing money at it for nothing without really knowing if it's doing any good or worse.
Maybe Eva understands more than she's given credit for by certain people here... they're loss.
It is still a compensation network... as such it should be measured in order to know what you're compensating for and by how much or how little. I think that point stands. Otherwise you end up with the kind of results where some people try whatever values and experience whatever results, as we often see in this impedance correction case. This is truly incorrect and serves little puporse to further the science.
Snubber is also a very general term leading to some confusion perhaps, I think however it is realized that it serves many purposes.
If you read what mrfeedback had to say on the matter as per its use in this instance, you'll understand that you correct for the impedance curve by using a multitude of caps of various values to tune the impedance for flattest/widest response(and types in order to tune the sound properly), the parasitics of this network are going to cause oscillations among them which the RC portion or lossy electrolytic can help snub (ooops, I meant damp), all things above should in fact best be measured or you're just working blindly and throwing money at it for nothing without really knowing if it's doing any good or worse.
Maybe Eva understands more than she's given credit for by certain people here... they're loss.
They think that I'm frustrated, and they are in their right to do so. But then again, I'm the one who knows how to find out optimum component values for RC networks in a few minutes. As they obviously doesn't, they are forced to rely on imagination and popular wisdom without having a clue of what actually happens inside their circuits (I would feel frustrated if I had to do that).
-Why are you placing 100nF capacitors across your diodes?
-I don't know, people told me to do so.
-Are you sure that it works?
-I don't know, people told me that it improves sound.
(and so...)
-Why are you placing 100nF capacitors across your diodes?
-I don't know, people told me to do so.
-Are you sure that it works?
-I don't know, people told me that it improves sound.
(and so...)
Eva said:
By 'they' you are surely not refering to me.
I would be curious to know what values you would recommend for the output of an LM338 regulator.
You can find my schematics around here, with recommended values that were calculated for a purpose, so you can take your time and prepare an answer.
What I don't agree Eva, is your spanking words on every post of yours, and calling lunatics to everyone.
You can't live in community.
You don't post like a woman, you post more like a caveman.
Maybe it's Evaristo, after all...
Every RC network has a pole in the origin and a zero somewhere (ecactly at 1/(2*pi*R*C). Their use always implies compensating one or more poles or zeros from your circuit with the zero from the RC. It's always a matter of frequency compensation in order to get the desired response (usually damped).
A RC network with the wrong component values is like running while wearing the wrong shoe size.
A RC network with the wrong component values is like running while wearing the wrong shoe size.
classd4sure said:Carlos I feel that last paragraph of yours only serves an inflammatory purpose and wasn't otherwise justified.
Depends on the way you see it.
And depends the way you see things like this on almost every Eva's posts:
Eva said:
It's getting quite irritating, and she spreads this through all the forums around here.
Impossible to discuss this way.
Tchau.
I don't know, that statement didn't seem all that far off to me.
Why take it personally it doesn't seem intended that way.
You as well calculate your values, therefore you must be measuring?
Though from what I've seen on this topic of snubbers in the past you've never told anyone how you calculate them exactly, and have often recommended they simply try your values, leading to mixed and useless results.
Her statement stands up well in that respect I think, and maybe it's a good message to spread. All the same we can disagree and keep things civil/non personal.
Why take it personally it doesn't seem intended that way.
You as well calculate your values, therefore you must be measuring?
Though from what I've seen on this topic of snubbers in the past you've never told anyone how you calculate them exactly, and have often recommended they simply try your values, leading to mixed and useless results.
Her statement stands up well in that respect I think, and maybe it's a good message to spread. All the same we can disagree and keep things civil/non personal.
What is so wrong with my statement?
Aren't simple linear audio circuits the *most* forgiving ones when it comes to throw random component values on them? Consider RF electronics for example, here inductior and capacitor values are so critical that they have to be trimmed in an unit per unit basis.
Isn't far-from-optimum audio gear being sold taking advantage of that wonderful circuit forgiveness?
Aren't the advertisements of that audio gear filled with esoteric claims?
Did my post contain any personal reference?
Aren't simple linear audio circuits the *most* forgiving ones when it comes to throw random component values on them? Consider RF electronics for example, here inductior and capacitor values are so critical that they have to be trimmed in an unit per unit basis.
Isn't far-from-optimum audio gear being sold taking advantage of that wonderful circuit forgiveness?
Aren't the advertisements of that audio gear filled with esoteric claims?
Did my post contain any personal reference?
classd4sure said:
I don't take anything personally.
That post, as usual, calls imaginaries to those who, besides designing audio gear, sometimes sit down and listen.
What happened to Charles Hansen?
He deserves respect (I think?!), but look at what he gained by sharing his experiences.
Is it bad to get out of the bench sometimes, and go listen to some music?
I guarantee you: sometimes, whatever the measurements, by listening you find out that there's something yet to improve.
classd4sure said:
Oh yes I did, I gave very obvious clues, and a couple of members understood.
I don't want to give you everything, go on and make your homework.
Probably it was all written for decades, probably it's an old story after all, and then again, probably I'm doing things slightly different.
You go on and discuss as you like, but I'm out.
Tchau
PS: if you don't like 'snubber' (?!!!), then call it a zobel.
Hi Eva,
There is nothing wrong with your statement. I fully agree with you here.
To illustrate your point further. In the normal course of audio service, we've had audiophiles bring amplifiers in to "improve" with the latest capacitor they can hear the difference in. (power cord, whatever) Many times their equipment have had operational defects that they were unaware of and couldn't hear! Repairing the problem has restored normal performance (that they could hear) and ended many component "swap jobs".
You can guess were my beliefs lie. There are certian changes that make a difference, and some that do not.
-Chris
There is nothing wrong with your statement. I fully agree with you here.
To illustrate your point further. In the normal course of audio service, we've had audiophiles bring amplifiers in to "improve" with the latest capacitor they can hear the difference in. (power cord, whatever) Many times their equipment have had operational defects that they were unaware of and couldn't hear! Repairing the problem has restored normal performance (that they could hear) and ended many component "swap jobs".
You can guess were my beliefs lie. There are certian changes that make a difference, and some that do not.
-Chris
carlosfm said:
..I guarantee you: sometimes, whatever the measurements, by listening you find out that there's something yet to improve.
Oh yes I did, I gave very obvious clues, and a couple of members understood.
I don't want to give you everything, go on and make your homework.
Probably it was all written for decades, probably it's an old story after all, and then again, probably I'm doing things slightly different.
You go on and discuss as you like, but I'm out.
Tchau
PS: if you don't like 'snubber' (?!!!), then call it a zobel.
I don't feel snubbers are such a mystical area where that need apply, if it improves sonically surely there's something to be measured to go along with it.
"Clues" doth not make for method nor equation, at least by not "giving it all away" no one is able to question your method.
However you can't advocate that you calculate, as being the proper method, without first having measured, and then go on to recommend people try any given values and expect them to see the same results you have, it makes little sense?
I do my homework thank you, what I have to learn is never ending.
When things got too hot for my sister, she'd run off to her room and slam the door too.
Come on, we can discuss this in a way that will further the science of it for once? BTW my homework led to the fact that it's not a zobel but in fact a snubber, and zobel is your hint, but that being a compensation network requires measurement ... etc. One size doesn't fit all.
"I don't take anything personally."
Deffinition of a erroneous statement anyone?
"That post, as usual, calls imaginaries to those who, besides designing audio gear, sometimes sit down and listen."
yes, Eva sees you as being in error. me to. i belive people that chase the latest greatest in interconnects, caps, speaker terminals and such are terribly, terribly wrong, and undermine the objective truth and the logical functions that make up the art of circut design.
"What happened to Charles Hansen?"
He posted his findings, and a discussion arised conserning their validity. WTF is the problem? is this not what forums are for? discussion? should we all hail charles for snubbing his amps and telling us about it? yes, perhaps if that's you flavour, i'd rather give the thread some counterwheight.
"He deserves respect (I think?!), but look at what he gained by sharing his experiences."
he found someone who disagree with him.
and yes, he does deserv respect for giving back to the comunity. regardless wether i belive him in error.
"Is it bad to get out of the bench sometimes, and go listen to some music?"
And i see you have been sneaking around my house for the last two years and can so tell i havent been listening to my creations?
for crying out loud, your just being unserious now.
"I guarantee you: sometimes, whatever the measurements, by listening you find out that there's something yet to improve."
yes, the fancy frontplate and other things that play on the subconcious.
"I don't want to give you everything, go on and make your homework."
"You go on and discuss as you like, but I'm out. Tchau"
"PS: if you don't like 'snubber' (?!!!), then call it a zobel."
It's not the name itself if you havent figured it out yet..
BTW: imagine how boring the world would be if all properly designed and buildt amps turned out to sound the same..
-Marius
Deffinition of a erroneous statement anyone?
"That post, as usual, calls imaginaries to those who, besides designing audio gear, sometimes sit down and listen."
yes, Eva sees you as being in error. me to. i belive people that chase the latest greatest in interconnects, caps, speaker terminals and such are terribly, terribly wrong, and undermine the objective truth and the logical functions that make up the art of circut design.
"What happened to Charles Hansen?"
He posted his findings, and a discussion arised conserning their validity. WTF is the problem? is this not what forums are for? discussion? should we all hail charles for snubbing his amps and telling us about it? yes, perhaps if that's you flavour, i'd rather give the thread some counterwheight.
"He deserves respect (I think?!), but look at what he gained by sharing his experiences."
he found someone who disagree with him.
and yes, he does deserv respect for giving back to the comunity. regardless wether i belive him in error.
"Is it bad to get out of the bench sometimes, and go listen to some music?"
And i see you have been sneaking around my house for the last two years and can so tell i havent been listening to my creations?
for crying out loud, your just being unserious now.
"I guarantee you: sometimes, whatever the measurements, by listening you find out that there's something yet to improve."
yes, the fancy frontplate and other things that play on the subconcious.
"I don't want to give you everything, go on and make your homework."
"You go on and discuss as you like, but I'm out. Tchau"
"PS: if you don't like 'snubber' (?!!!), then call it a zobel."
It's not the name itself if you havent figured it out yet..
BTW: imagine how boring the world would be if all properly designed and buildt amps turned out to sound the same..
-Marius
Interesting.demogorgon said:
However, if I had to summarize what all the "you will not hear any difference when doing this or that……it's all in your imagination"-people are spreading over this forum and in this thread, it would be
"all properly designed and built amps turn out to sound the same"
Because
"if it is properly designed, it will have "0.0…% distortion, > 100 DF, SR>50, blah blah, …….., and if two amps measure the same, they can't sound different. If you hear any differences, it's your imagination."
Pah
zinsula said:
thats my suspicion. it't cant be confirmed though, as i'l never get around to listen to all under equal circumstances.
you make it sound like we'r mad, evil nazi propaganda mongers.
interesting how the sparks fly when we post something that differs from the fashion fad infested popular opinion. anything else would greatly suprise me though.
off to my work out then.
-Marius
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.