You're referring to parallel redundant operation which would drastically increase headroom essentially mimicing the performance of a bigger transformer. Not very practical unless you have no other means or in my case want to tweak my Boothroyd Stuart Meridian 105 mono's' bottom end oomph. Their 150va trannys leave just a bit to be desired and I happen to have a pair of extra psu which by design are in separate chassis. In my case very convenient.
Well, just for sharts and giggles I tried that last night with a HP 6205B and a 6205C I had on the bench at the time. No difference in noise or voltage, either pre regulation or final output. Equipment used: HP3400A + 40dB LNA, Siglent SSA3032X, Keithley DMM7510. Course, those are very high quality transformers that HP used so YMMV with others.
Hal
Thanks for measuring! Now could you please try the extra transformer on a transformer in your sound system and let us know if you hear a difference? Thanks.
I hear more space around the instruments, everything is clearer. The soundstage is larger and more open. The dynamics are greater. Veils have been lifted, it is easier to hear low level detail.
My theory is that the extra transformer's core absorbs some to the energy that the power transformer releases when it goes thru zero crossing.
Yes but didn't you bring it up? Why would you foist the responsibility of verification on those you're presenting your reference to? Your supporter seems to have the same issue. 😊
Are-you-joking?It was done on post #29 of this already too long nonsense thread.
Read it again (and it was clarified in later posts): experiment WAS performed as asked, measurements were made, values were found, not posted here since there was NO CHANGE.
Only difference with that, I would have posted them here anyway .... even if results seem silly.
Such as:
Without ----- With
3% distortion- 3% distortion
and so on and on and on.
There is ONE parameter I humbly admit would have changed though:
Iron+ copper Weight:
Without ----- with
4 kg -------- 8 kg
Maybe there is some revolutionary discovery lurking there?
Fake statement: energy is not created nor lost: it is converted in othe form of energy. Conservation of the energy principle from Thermodynamics.
Sorry, Forum allowed edit time passed, so:
You sit with your back to the amp under test (you can look at the speakers if you wish), experiment helper uses 3 transformers:
* the original one powering the amp
* a second one, also chassis mounted so it "mechanically" is the same as the original
* the "added" one, which is free to move.
There is a clock involved, which ticks or beeps every, say, 30 seconds or 1 minute, also an audio mute switch.
The added transformer may sit either on the "used" PT or on the unused one, and is moved by helper, who does not speak, just moves them as indicated by clock and also activates or not the Mute switch.
He sits behind a black curtain so you can not "catch" his movements even by reflection or peripheral vision.
On every tick he mutes music, lifts the testing transformer and places it again, at random (he might have a list with randomly generated values so it does not depend on any "pattern" he might be following for whatever reason), EITHER on the used one OR the dummy, and on next tick he unmutes sound so you enjoy 30 seconds or 1 minute of Music and can form your own opinion on the parameters you mention, rinse and repeat 30-50-100 times.
Do you get tired-bored?
GOOD!, that is also part of the experiment. .
YOU write your impressions on a piece of paper.
If you hit/miss 50/50 or thereabouts, you are just guessing, there is no audible difference. At least to you.
If you significantly and consistently deviate from that, then you have something to show here ... but not before.
Notice here we are measuring soundstage, openness, microdetail, whatever, as related to presence/absence of having an extra transformer on top of the actually used one, without using instruments, (not needed here) because we are measuring YOU, and for that Statistics are excellent.
Ok, perform the experiment and prove it.
In this case we are talking electrical/physical parametetrs , hence measurable with instruments.
Completely unrelated to soundstage, openness, microdetail and such which were covered in the other part of the experiment.
+ 1000 and my point since day 1
You repeat and use the full catalog of undefinable subjective audiophoolery dictionary, but even that can be tested, go figure.
You sit with your back to the amp under test (you can look at the speakers if you wish), experiment helper uses 3 transformers:
* the original one powering the amp
* a second one, also chassis mounted so it "mechanically" is the same as the original
* the "added" one, which is free to move.
There is a clock involved, which ticks or beeps every, say, 30 seconds or 1 minute, also an audio mute switch.
The added transformer may sit either on the "used" PT or on the unused one, and is moved by helper, who does not speak, just moves them as indicated by clock and also activates or not the Mute switch.
He sits behind a black curtain so you can not "catch" his movements even by reflection or peripheral vision.
On every tick he mutes music, lifts the testing transformer and places it again, at random (he might have a list with randomly generated values so it does not depend on any "pattern" he might be following for whatever reason), EITHER on the used one OR the dummy, and on next tick he unmutes sound so you enjoy 30 seconds or 1 minute of Music and can form your own opinion on the parameters you mention, rinse and repeat 30-50-100 times.
Do you get tired-bored?
GOOD!, that is also part of the experiment. .
YOU write your impressions on a piece of paper.
If you hit/miss 50/50 or thereabouts, you are just guessing, there is no audible difference. At least to you.
If you significantly and consistently deviate from that, then you have something to show here ... but not before.
Notice here we are measuring soundstage, openness, microdetail, whatever, as related to presence/absence of having an extra transformer on top of the actually used one, without using instruments, (not needed here) because we are measuring YOU, and for that Statistics are excellent.
Your theory?
Ok, perform the experiment and prove it.
In this case we are talking electrical/physical parametetrs , hence measurable with instruments.
Completely unrelated to soundstage, openness, microdetail and such which were covered in the other part of the experiment.
Rather than letting the helper or even an Earth-bound random number generator choose the pattern, why not eliminate any chance of human intervention and let the Universe decide?
I recently saw an interesting TV documentary which followed a research team as they attempted to carry out a quantum entanglement experiment.
In it, the experimenters endeavoured to ensure they did not personally affect the outcome of the experiment by instead allowing the light from two distant quasars to operate the equipment.
One quasar emitted its light 7.8 billion years ago and the other 12.2 billion years ago, thus ensuring there could have been no communication between them.
Last edited:
I am suggesting a very easy very doable experiment, for which Rick Miller must provide answers.
After all, that´s exactly what he claims.
I trust random number generators, but if you want it even more random, or skmply non software writer dependent, just get two "natural" noise generators (such as Zeners) and compare their outputs, measure/detect resultant value and print it, or use it to move a motorized robot arm to put added transformer one side or the other.
No need to involve stars, galaxies, etc.
No need to help Rick Miller evade the trap he voluntarily created for himself.
Will he be able to detect changes as he claims?
After all, that´s exactly what he claims.
I trust random number generators, but if you want it even more random, or skmply non software writer dependent, just get two "natural" noise generators (such as Zeners) and compare their outputs, measure/detect resultant value and print it, or use it to move a motorized robot arm to put added transformer one side or the other.
No need to involve stars, galaxies, etc.
No need to help Rick Miller evade the trap he voluntarily created for himself.
Will he be able to detect changes as he claims?
So what do you find particularly useful in this vid as pertains to the topic here? Actually, it is a bit contradictive in that during the entire presentation no where does he claim 'unmeasurable' parameters and at the end confirms this but then produces axioms to the contrary. He also directs the audience not to raise their hands when they "think they hear" distortion but rather when it becomes "objectionable". That's actually when the entire presentation becomes meaningless. He never suggests the marketplace itself becomes the yardstick in determining the merit of the manufacturers' brochures. It's competition that drives the market, not philosophy.
Propable not, but uncertainy is the only thing certain. If he claims he is able to detect changes, so be it for him, it is HIS reality. Just accept that everyones reality differs ( like so often in nature, propably according to a "bell" curve of some form).
Please do not try to drive him into a corner with a test, or demand any prove. Much more serious claims are unproven, and as long as he is not trying to make a religion out of it, sing along with the the beatles...
let it be... let it be
Last edited:
Then it should have been kept personal.
Why shove it down out throats?
Once he posts it in a PUBLIC FORUM, it´s up for discussion.
If wild, contradictory, then HE must prove it.
In case you do not have a clear idea of what Forum means, here it is:
Contradicting that means contradicting the very essence of this Forum.
Obviously you are not a user of FW SIT1.
That is salesman talk. You claimed to be "Electronic technican in the RF world for 41 years. Now working for a audio amplifer company." It is fine if you claim not knowing what to measure. However showing no effort to do any measurement after people tell you how and keep shoving your unsupported view is simply unacceptable. We are not here to support you seed a remake of magic brick.
Last edited:
I wonder, what happened to guy below.
If that is correct ... 😱