• WARNING: Tube/Valve amplifiers use potentially LETHAL HIGH VOLTAGES.
    Building, troubleshooting and testing of these amplifiers should only be
    performed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with
    the safety precautions around high voltages.

The sound of parts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#82
LINGUISTIC STUFF

Hi John,

Taken the lousy wheather into account I couldn't resist 😉 a "jeneverke".

It is actually much the same as the British gin only it is locally distilled close to where I reside.

Am I to assume that whisky is Irish?
A Jameson perhaps or something fancier than that?:angel:

Apologies to all the serious folk around here...this is just a John and Frank thing.
We'll get serious again after a drink or two.

Cheers,😉
 
#87
BON DIEU!

Hi SY,

My goodness!

Non seulement du bon vin mais aussi de la bonne musique?

"Rip, Rig, and Panic"
Click to expand...

I do remember that band and the record.Must have had it on vinyl at one point in time...
A British band if I'm not mistaken.

Didn'it have a cover with a bit blurry drawing,rather dark, where you saw a wild pig run away into the wilderness?

Stunning you bring that up!

Thanks for the drinks on me SY....

Sante,😉
 
#88
I'm about to ruin my cred ;-) It's definitely not British!

Roland Kirk, Jaki Byard, Richard Davis (from whom I was privileged to take a History of Jazz course), Elvin Jones. Mercury. 1963.

Malheureusement, je parle la langue sacreé comme une vache californienne.
 
#89
OINK.

Hi SY,

1963.
Click to expand...

Ah,ah....Die Ah,ah Erlebnis.

I think I found the culpritt.
You're refering to a jazz record recorded when I was only at the tender age of seven where I refer to a pop record from the early eighties.

I need to do some research on that.



Malheureusement, je parle la langue sacreé comme une vache californienne.
Click to expand...

Mais pas du tout!Vous vous debrouillez pas mal en "Frog".

Cheers,😉
 
#90
Testing Methodology ?.....

Bruce, Frank etc, bursted IMD (two or multiple tones) and spectrum analyser I expect is the way to go in finding differenced in dynamic behaviour of 'passive' components.
Perhaps bursted other waveforms (sawtooth, triangle etc) would be revealing also.
One part of this question is to ascertain dynamic (and thermal) related modulations within the component.
Perhaps simply measuring the thermal noise spectral characteristic of passives is appropriate too.

Eric.
 
#93
I've thought alot about this last night, and about the comments somebody (dorkus?) made regarding 'objectivists' even getting invloved in this fight - basically I agree with him.
I think this "test", no matter how well you set it up, no matter how many or few parts you use - will always be discounted by one side or the other.

It's simply not going to work. The reason for that is not your choice of methodology, or procedures - but because you will always have human beings participating in the test, and evaluating the "results". That is exactly why we use machines to gauge things - because human observation is flawed, slow, anticipatory, skewed, etc. I don't evaluate the shape of sine waves with my ear - I use a scope, which is much better suited to 'seeing' things at the millisecond level. Well, if we don't accept the results as given by an impartial machine, why would we accept the results given by people? And what will you use to set up the test amps? The very test gear you disqualify as insufficient to evaluate audio equipment.

Movies flash pictures at you 24 times a second. If I flash a second picture in there, for a few frames, you MAY be aware (vaguely) that something was there. If I flash a third picture at you, every 100th frame, you will never know it was there.
 
#95
Joel, no offense intended, but you've got a lot to learn about sensory research. It's done all the time, with great repeatability and verifiability.

Now as to whether someone whose mind is made up in advance will accept the results of an experiment... well, that's tougher. But if you get everyone to agree *in advance* that a test is valid and to the scope of the test's validity, the shucking and jiving afterwards is evident to any observer who just wants the facts and is not bound up in a religious view. Intelligent people with open minds are aware that you can prove a positive but you can't prove a negative. They're also aware that, although you can't prove a negative, you can reduce the uncertainty to an arbitrarily small level.
 
#98
Joel said:
I've thought alot about this last night, and about the comments somebody (dorkus?) made regarding 'objectivists' even getting invloved in this fight - basically I agree with him.
I think this "test", no matter how well you set it up, no matter how many or few parts you use - will always be discounted by one side or the other.
Click to expand...

There are extremists on both sides and you are probably right
that any test will be rejected by the most fanatic ones in one
camp or the other. However, I think the extremists on both
sides taken together are a minority and most of us would end
up somewhere in the intermediate region. To us, it is interesting
to get more knowledge about these matters, but not to prove a
particular point no matter what.


It's simply not going to work. The reason for that is not your choice of methodology, or procedures - but because you will always have human beings participating in the test, and evaluating the "results". That is exactly why we use machines to gauge things - because human observation is flawed, slow, anticipatory, skewed, etc.
Click to expand...

It is always problematic when something has to be evaluated
by humans rather than by instruments or other methods. If
you feel ill, I am sure you don't want you doctor to say that
there is nothing wrong with you because he cannot find
anything with his diagnostic methods. in particular, psychiatry
and psychology must rely almost entirely on human evaluation.
Scientifically, evaluation by humans is necessary in many areas
and good results have been achieved in many cases. The major
problem is to set up the tests, I think.



I don't evaluate the shape of sine waves with my ear - I use a scope, which is much better suited to 'seeing' things at the millisecond level. Well, if we don't accept the results as given by an impartial machine, why would we accept the results given by people? And what will you use to set up the test amps? The very test gear you disqualify as insufficient to evaluate audio equipment.
Click to expand...

I don't listen to sine waves, I listen to music. My scope, however,
is not very interested in music, and doesn't have much of an
opinion there. My " flawed, slow, anticipatory, skewed, etc."
human hearingis what counts, after all. 🙂
 
#100
dorkus said:
if human perception is so "flawed, slow, anticipatory, skewed, etc" then why do you seem to be into single-ended tube gear, which tends to have terrible measured performance?
Click to expand...

I said quite clearly in another thread that I hear a big difference between my SET, and other topologies. And where did I say that gear that measures "terribly" is not worth listening to? You, and others, seem to be trying to catch me up somehow - but I've been consistant from the beginning, on this whole issue.

It isn't hypocritical to say I like single ended amps, but do not hear a difference between paper-oil caps and polyester.

And SY, I was trying to be diploamtic (for once). To spite your condescending comment I agree with you, your position, and the hundreds of listening tests that have proven that all of this is bullsh**.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom