I see intoxication plays important role in your listening experience MRehorst.😉
I just want my system to sound the best way in my perception so if it is psychoacoustic experience, let it be, it still works for me. Too bad you have to try intoxication to achieve similar effects.😀
Sorry I couldn't resist a joke.😉
I just want my system to sound the best way in my perception so if it is psychoacoustic experience, let it be, it still works for me. Too bad you have to try intoxication to achieve similar effects.😀
Sorry I couldn't resist a joke.😉
A little of topic, are we?
Back to the original question...
Maybe these?
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=32823&category=1,250,43243
or
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=32825&category=1,250,43243&ccurrency=1&SID=
Back to the original question...
Maybe these?
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=32823&category=1,250,43243
or
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=32825&category=1,250,43243&ccurrency=1&SID=
Chris what is your problem man ?.
Regarding your comment of threshold, rigorously any microphonic effect at all, is absoloute.
So Chris how much experience do you really have with pcb level electronics?.
I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?.
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?.
Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?.
Please understand and apply the additional points of politeness.
The likes of Peter, Brett, Jocko, Harry, observe polite ettiquette - please follow the examples given.
Chris, I mean this sincerely, that this forum will only further degrade if the above is not followed, especially by a moderator.
Come on man, lift your game.
Eric.
Regarding your comment of threshold, rigorously any microphonic effect at all, is absoloute.
So Chris how much experience do you really have with pcb level electronics?.
I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?.
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?.
Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?.
Please understand and apply the additional points of politeness.
The likes of Peter, Brett, Jocko, Harry, observe polite ettiquette - please follow the examples given.
Chris, I mean this sincerely, that this forum will only further degrade if the above is not followed, especially by a moderator.
Come on man, lift your game.
Eric.
"Chris what is your problem man ?."
I have no problem. The problem is with posing unsupportable claims as fact. As has been demonstrated time and time again, the most popular/frequent method that this is done is for some one to find real, relevant paramaters to a particular devices operation/performance, and then use this as argument that their must be an audible effect because these effects are real. But consideration of the actual threshold of effect, relative to hearing ability is always ignored by the claimant. In cases excepting very extreme circustances that would never been seen in normal, or even heavy home use....no effects has been to this date, proven to yeild an audible difference in solid state amplification/preamplification/digital playback equipment by using isolation devices from the surface it is sitting on. If their has been a recent test, a controlled group DBT even performed at one of the regional audio club chapters, that confiremed this, I would be glad to consider this as at least some small piece of evidence. Sighted, non controlled testing is of no use to verify small differences, in any way that applies to anyone else than the test subject, as his biases are the primary factor in the test, not the actual differences.
But dont' get me wrong. I do fully support anyone telling about different sounds of this part and this piece, etc...just not when they present in a way that they claim the audible differences are absolute, fact.
Example: Say someone posts a question 'Do coil brands make a difference?"
If someone answered saying that they think CFAC foil inductors soiund best, especially compared to madiosund house brand air cores, even though they have almost identical dcr...I would ignore this..it's just the person's opinon and they present it in that manner as well. Lets say someone else responded and stated that foil inductors sounded better because of minimized skin effect, and plainly stated that normal round core wire coils are clearly inferior because of this, I would probably reply to that thread and simply state that such discernable differences have not been proven in controlled tests, and their is no reason to believe that an audible difference exists for skin effect, even though skin effect indeed is a real paramter.
We(as in everybody) tend to hear what we want to hear, and especially when it supports are own opinions. That is why subjective testing is worthless for anyone EXCEPT the poerson who participated in the test.
"Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?."
In formal logic, it is the burden of the the person making the claims, to prove their are positive differences. No one else/company has proven objectively that your claims have any audible advantage...good luck.
"Please understand and apply the additional points of politeness.
The likes of Peter, Brett, Jocko, Harry, observe polite ettiquette - please follow the examples given."
Politeness? I have made no attacks on one's person. ONly quesioned their beliefs. I am my own person , I have no reason to fall into the footprints of anyone else.
"Chris, I mean this sincerely, that this forum will only further degrade if the above is not followed, especially by a moderator.
Come on man, lift your game."
I have made an error here. I allowed(and participated) in off topic discussion of the thread. But it would be dull to regulate all threads tightly to their topic, now wouldn't it?
Sincerely, I have no desire to continually argue. It wastes everyone's time. But I usually can't stand to see biased opinion stated as fact.
-Chris
I have no problem. The problem is with posing unsupportable claims as fact. As has been demonstrated time and time again, the most popular/frequent method that this is done is for some one to find real, relevant paramaters to a particular devices operation/performance, and then use this as argument that their must be an audible effect because these effects are real. But consideration of the actual threshold of effect, relative to hearing ability is always ignored by the claimant. In cases excepting very extreme circustances that would never been seen in normal, or even heavy home use....no effects has been to this date, proven to yeild an audible difference in solid state amplification/preamplification/digital playback equipment by using isolation devices from the surface it is sitting on. If their has been a recent test, a controlled group DBT even performed at one of the regional audio club chapters, that confiremed this, I would be glad to consider this as at least some small piece of evidence. Sighted, non controlled testing is of no use to verify small differences, in any way that applies to anyone else than the test subject, as his biases are the primary factor in the test, not the actual differences.
But dont' get me wrong. I do fully support anyone telling about different sounds of this part and this piece, etc...just not when they present in a way that they claim the audible differences are absolute, fact.
Example: Say someone posts a question 'Do coil brands make a difference?"
If someone answered saying that they think CFAC foil inductors soiund best, especially compared to madiosund house brand air cores, even though they have almost identical dcr...I would ignore this..it's just the person's opinon and they present it in that manner as well. Lets say someone else responded and stated that foil inductors sounded better because of minimized skin effect, and plainly stated that normal round core wire coils are clearly inferior because of this, I would probably reply to that thread and simply state that such discernable differences have not been proven in controlled tests, and their is no reason to believe that an audible difference exists for skin effect, even though skin effect indeed is a real paramter.
We(as in everybody) tend to hear what we want to hear, and especially when it supports are own opinions. That is why subjective testing is worthless for anyone EXCEPT the poerson who participated in the test.
"Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?."
In formal logic, it is the burden of the the person making the claims, to prove their are positive differences. No one else/company has proven objectively that your claims have any audible advantage...good luck.
"Please understand and apply the additional points of politeness.
The likes of Peter, Brett, Jocko, Harry, observe polite ettiquette - please follow the examples given."
Politeness? I have made no attacks on one's person. ONly quesioned their beliefs. I am my own person , I have no reason to fall into the footprints of anyone else.
"Chris, I mean this sincerely, that this forum will only further degrade if the above is not followed, especially by a moderator.
Come on man, lift your game."
I have made an error here. I allowed(and participated) in off topic discussion of the thread. But it would be dull to regulate all threads tightly to their topic, now wouldn't it?
Sincerely, I have no desire to continually argue. It wastes everyone's time. But I usually can't stand to see biased opinion stated as fact.
-Chris
OK, how about an emperical, repeatable experiment that many of us can try?
Take a stringed instument, an unplugged electric guitar works best, and strum a chord. ANY chord.
Now firmly press a single point of the headstock(where the tuners are) against a wall or even a door n your house and strum the same chord. What happens?
The vibrations of the instrument are transmitted to the wall via the presure point and the instrument vibrations now vibrate a portion of the wall surface and are "passively" amplified by the increased radiating surface.
I've you've never tried this the effect will be startling particularly on drywall and stud construction. For those of you with brick or mansonry walls try a door.
Personally I don't want my speakers transmitting vibrations to ANY other surface. So a hard, direct contact point is counter-intuitive. I use spikes to pierce the carpet for stability but I also absolutely isolate the speaker from the stand as best I can.
How about some "back on track" comments?
Take a stringed instument, an unplugged electric guitar works best, and strum a chord. ANY chord.
Now firmly press a single point of the headstock(where the tuners are) against a wall or even a door n your house and strum the same chord. What happens?
The vibrations of the instrument are transmitted to the wall via the presure point and the instrument vibrations now vibrate a portion of the wall surface and are "passively" amplified by the increased radiating surface.
I've you've never tried this the effect will be startling particularly on drywall and stud construction. For those of you with brick or mansonry walls try a door.
Personally I don't want my speakers transmitting vibrations to ANY other surface. So a hard, direct contact point is counter-intuitive. I use spikes to pierce the carpet for stability but I also absolutely isolate the speaker from the stand as best I can.
How about some "back on track" comments?
"the instrument vibrations now vibrate a portion of the wall surface and are "passively" amplified by the increased radiating surface."
Indeed, correct. My first posts to this thread were 'for' isolating speakers from resonant(most) floors, as this does certainly make a difference that is audible in most cases. These last posts were not even concerning spikes or speakers, sorry. I apolagize for going so far off topic.
-Chris
Indeed, correct. My first posts to this thread were 'for' isolating speakers from resonant(most) floors, as this does certainly make a difference that is audible in most cases. These last posts were not even concerning spikes or speakers, sorry. I apolagize for going so far off topic.
-Chris
Hi Chris,
This is becoming extremely tedious.
First off all of the points that I raised are solid fact, and I did add that tubes are the most sensitive, however I did not give an indication of the magnitude or characteristic of the effect, except to say that if there is any microphonic effect at all in an electronic component or audio equipment, then by deffinition there is an effect.
" But I usually can't stand to see biased opinion stated as fact. "
Chris, when you have done enough comparisons of audio equipment, you learn how to filter and discriminate very finely, and without self bias.
Most of my comparisons are on other peoples gear, after I have had a good look under the hood, and then repaired them, and then audition them to be sure that they are working as the manufacturer intended.
Because I have no attachment to these items, I really don't care much about how they sound, only that they are working to spec.
This way you build an unbiased library of equipment sounds, and through this repeated practising of comparing, your discrimination can become very fine indeed.
You also find things like components and populated pcbs to microphonically sensitive, and repeatably.
Looking at the bigger picture, if a piece of equipment is at all microphonic, then you have a loop feedback system.
Changes in coupling, resonances and damping will effect the nature of the feedback induced effects, and to a discriminating ear these will be audible, given reproducing equipment of sufficient resoloution.
There are at least several other very experienced audio people around here, so when they say that they can hear an effect, I take note.
When obviously inexperienced fellows here, go into auto-naysaying mode, I feel that this ought to be addressed also.
An old saying is " Don't criticise what you don't understand "
The following is not intended as derogatory, but to glean some facts -
"I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?"
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?."
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?."
So over to you and please answer my questions.
Regards, Eric.
This is becoming extremely tedious.
First off all of the points that I raised are solid fact, and I did add that tubes are the most sensitive, however I did not give an indication of the magnitude or characteristic of the effect, except to say that if there is any microphonic effect at all in an electronic component or audio equipment, then by deffinition there is an effect.
" But I usually can't stand to see biased opinion stated as fact. "
Chris, when you have done enough comparisons of audio equipment, you learn how to filter and discriminate very finely, and without self bias.
Most of my comparisons are on other peoples gear, after I have had a good look under the hood, and then repaired them, and then audition them to be sure that they are working as the manufacturer intended.
Because I have no attachment to these items, I really don't care much about how they sound, only that they are working to spec.
This way you build an unbiased library of equipment sounds, and through this repeated practising of comparing, your discrimination can become very fine indeed.
You also find things like components and populated pcbs to microphonically sensitive, and repeatably.
Looking at the bigger picture, if a piece of equipment is at all microphonic, then you have a loop feedback system.
Changes in coupling, resonances and damping will effect the nature of the feedback induced effects, and to a discriminating ear these will be audible, given reproducing equipment of sufficient resoloution.
There are at least several other very experienced audio people around here, so when they say that they can hear an effect, I take note.
When obviously inexperienced fellows here, go into auto-naysaying mode, I feel that this ought to be addressed also.
An old saying is " Don't criticise what you don't understand "
The following is not intended as derogatory, but to glean some facts -
"I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?"
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?."
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?."
So over to you and please answer my questions.
Regards, Eric.
mrfeedback:
From your reply I must assume you have not yet understood the point, or even what bias is and what causes it, and it's effect. I have no reason to believe you will at any point in the near future either. To further this specific discussion with you, in particular, is pointless.
-Chris
P.S. - I really enjoyed the line:
"when you have done enough comparisons of audio equipment, you learn how to filter and discriminate very finely, and without self bias"
I needed a good laugh.
From your reply I must assume you have not yet understood the point, or even what bias is and what causes it, and it's effect. I have no reason to believe you will at any point in the near future either. To further this specific discussion with you, in particular, is pointless.
-Chris
P.S. - I really enjoyed the line:
"when you have done enough comparisons of audio equipment, you learn how to filter and discriminate very finely, and without self bias"
I needed a good laugh.
i didn't know whether to post this or not because it isn't exactly on topic but to back up mrfeedback's claims, wires can be microphonic and it is really easy to see for yourself. In my first ever electronic circuits lab when they were teaching us to use the scopes we learned to use the 'trigger' feature by connecting the probes to the scope and lightly tapping them against the desk. There it was right on the screen. You could see the inital peak of the strike and then a bit of ringing. I wish i could remember the levels and approximate frequencies of the resulting signal though...
I am not sure I believe that it is an audible effect yet, but i'm not gonna deny its existance and call somebody a liar who says that they can.
jt
I am not sure I believe that it is an audible effect yet, but i'm not gonna deny its existance and call somebody a liar who says that they can.
jt
"I am not sure I believe that it is an audible effect yet, but i'm not gonna deny its existance and call somebody a liar who says that they can."
When did I EVER deny the existance of the paramaters in question in SS/digital gear above? Please point this out. Relevant, is the magnitude; can they cause AUDIBLE effects, discernable in a DBT? Blindly stating these miniscule effects are audible as if this is fact, is the issue.
-Chris
When did I EVER deny the existance of the paramaters in question in SS/digital gear above? Please point this out. Relevant, is the magnitude; can they cause AUDIBLE effects, discernable in a DBT? Blindly stating these miniscule effects are audible as if this is fact, is the issue.
-Chris
Initial bias is caused by expectation - simple.
This can easily be eliminated if you have done enough comparing.
Long term bias is caused by long term listening - IOW if after long term listening you decide that you like a particular item, then you are inclined (biased) whether you own it or not.
Maturity and experience allow you to remove the " it is new, or it is different, so it must be better expectation bias factor ".
Regards, Eric.
This can easily be eliminated if you have done enough comparing.
Long term bias is caused by long term listening - IOW if after long term listening you decide that you like a particular item, then you are inclined (biased) whether you own it or not.
Maturity and experience allow you to remove the " it is new, or it is different, so it must be better expectation bias factor ".
mrfeedback said:
Regards, Eric.
"Initial bias is caused by expectation - simple."
There in lies your error. Bias is not that simple, nor can you 'shut it off'. Impossible. Your assumption, and it's a big one too.
"Maturity and experience allow you to remove the " it is new, or it is different, so it must be better expectation bias factor ".
Interesting, phsychology research has not come to this conclusion. Interesting that you have.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mrfeedback
Chris,
I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?.
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?.
Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?.
Eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I should present my resume, as well? I have little hope for you. 🙁
-Chris
There in lies your error. Bias is not that simple, nor can you 'shut it off'. Impossible. Your assumption, and it's a big one too.
"Maturity and experience allow you to remove the " it is new, or it is different, so it must be better expectation bias factor ".
Interesting, phsychology research has not come to this conclusion. Interesting that you have.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mrfeedback
Chris,
I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?.
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?.
Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?.
Eric.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I should present my resume, as well? I have little hope for you. 🙁
-Chris
Conceitedness ? - Me Thinks So
Thanks Peter.
A1 - Hide their light underneath a bushell.
Q2 - But are there any lights on underneath that bushell ?.
Regards, Eric,
Thanks Peter.
A1 - Hide their light underneath a bushell.
Q2 - But are there any lights on underneath that bushell ?.
Regards, Eric,
Peter Daniel:
"Chris, what exactly Moderator do on this Forum?"
1st, I am a member. 2nd, I am a moderator. Should it be the other way around? Maybe.
If I had not been involved in this thread, I would have locked it. However I can not, I would be accused of doing this in my own interests.
-Chris
"Chris, what exactly Moderator do on this Forum?"
1st, I am a member. 2nd, I am a moderator. Should it be the other way around? Maybe.
If I had not been involved in this thread, I would have locked it. However I can not, I would be accused of doing this in my own interests.
-Chris
This thread won't probably bring any constructive results anyway, so let me digress a little. I present here a pic of my CD Transport. It's Technics Z 1000, which in its time was quite respectful as well as pricy (CAD$8,000).
You might notice that the right wooden panel is removed. Why? because I found out that it sounds better without it. I couldn't remove the left one because it's stuck. The sheet of damping material you see on top makes the sound better too, but only in that location. When I move it to the right side it's not as good. I can only put up to 3 CDs on top of the unit, if I put more the sound changes. I tried to loosen the screws on top cover, but with the screws tightened it's better. The bottom platform is filled with sand and top panel is MDF which floats on the sand not touching the sides. I was trying to put composite material platform instead of MDF, but it didnt sound good, the same with granite. Having done all those tweaks I can say that I enjoy the sound of that particuar player. If I remove the tweaks, the sound is average and not involving. I just used one word "involving", but it describes some other more complex acoustic effects that are part of music. If I would go away and my wife would change the whole setup, and I would come back after 6 months, I would hear the difference. Something would be just not right and the sound instead of pleasing me would rather bother me. I don't do blind A/B testing because I don't need to. I just feel when it's right and when it's not.
But this is my personal image in my mind of how the music supposed to sound to me. This is how I voice every piece of equipment I built. Someone else might like something totally different. So this is how I know if certain tweak works or not ( of course for me).
Some of you may laugh, but all those little things I described at the biginning made a difference. Note that I'm not using spikes, because I didn't really bother yet to try them on a transport😉. Some of those tweaks came up by coincidence and some by hard work.😉
You might notice that the right wooden panel is removed. Why? because I found out that it sounds better without it. I couldn't remove the left one because it's stuck. The sheet of damping material you see on top makes the sound better too, but only in that location. When I move it to the right side it's not as good. I can only put up to 3 CDs on top of the unit, if I put more the sound changes. I tried to loosen the screws on top cover, but with the screws tightened it's better. The bottom platform is filled with sand and top panel is MDF which floats on the sand not touching the sides. I was trying to put composite material platform instead of MDF, but it didnt sound good, the same with granite. Having done all those tweaks I can say that I enjoy the sound of that particuar player. If I remove the tweaks, the sound is average and not involving. I just used one word "involving", but it describes some other more complex acoustic effects that are part of music. If I would go away and my wife would change the whole setup, and I would come back after 6 months, I would hear the difference. Something would be just not right and the sound instead of pleasing me would rather bother me. I don't do blind A/B testing because I don't need to. I just feel when it's right and when it's not.
But this is my personal image in my mind of how the music supposed to sound to me. This is how I voice every piece of equipment I built. Someone else might like something totally different. So this is how I know if certain tweak works or not ( of course for me).
Some of you may laugh, but all those little things I described at the biginning made a difference. Note that I'm not using spikes, because I didn't really bother yet to try them on a transport😉. Some of those tweaks came up by coincidence and some by hard work.😉
Attachments
well i wanted to quantize a bit of what i was talking about earlier. The vertical sensitivity for the HP 54602B digital oscilliscope is 1mV/divsion. The peak definitely covered one divison, maybe 2 or 3, but that makes it at most about 60dB down referenced to a one volt source. I dont think a speaker from say 1 meter is going to induce the same levels as me wacking a bnc connector against a metal object, but under the right conditions could be easily audible i think. phono circuits for one....
given the knowledge that these things can make a difference(however small or "inaudible") to completely disregard them in your hifi designs makes for bad engineering, imo.
jt
given the knowledge that these things can make a difference(however small or "inaudible") to completely disregard them in your hifi designs makes for bad engineering, imo.
jt
Still Asking, Still Waiting
Chris, so as not to show you as a hypocrite or non learned, let's share some of your real experience and learning.
Show us your cards.
Regards, Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Chris, so as not to show you as a hypocrite or non learned, let's share some of your real experience and learning.
Show us your cards.
Regards, Eric.
<b>happyben3</b>, <font size="-1">if you are still around,</font>
Brass spikes maybe to soft, I like threaded concrete studs, but they don't look the best.
<center><a href="http://doityourself.com/store/6288716.htm"><img src="http://images.orgill.com/200x200/6288716.jpg" ></a>
3/4 inch Threaded Stud For Cncrete
US$10.15/100 <font size="-1">see picture link</font></center>
They are made to be driven into concrete with a powder charge so they should stay sharp, I use one as a punch.
The thing near the tip is a plastic cover.
Now to think of a way to pretty them up.
Regards
James
Brass spikes maybe to soft, I like threaded concrete studs, but they don't look the best.
<center><a href="http://doityourself.com/store/6288716.htm"><img src="http://images.orgill.com/200x200/6288716.jpg" ></a>
3/4 inch Threaded Stud For Cncrete
US$10.15/100 <font size="-1">see picture link</font></center>
They are made to be driven into concrete with a powder charge so they should stay sharp, I use one as a punch.
The thing near the tip is a plastic cover.
Now to think of a way to pretty them up.
Regards
James
mrfeedback:
I am disappointed in you. You have shown little ability to abstract relevant basis of any subject discussed in this thread so far:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mrfeedback
I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?.
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?.
Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, you still don't get it. I really thought you did by now.
Let me spell it out for you Eric: Irrelevant.
-Chris
P.S. - I'm stilll waiting for an inkling of objective data to support your claims.
I am disappointed in you. You have shown little ability to abstract relevant basis of any subject discussed in this thread so far:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mrfeedback
I see from your website that that you write software, but what is your level of formal training in electronics ?
How many electronic items have you repaired and then auditioned on known reference playback equipment ?.
How many items have you had a really close look under the hood of ?.
Of the points that I raised, how many have you verified by experiment, or study ?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, you still don't get it. I really thought you did by now.
Let me spell it out for you Eric: Irrelevant.
-Chris
P.S. - I'm stilll waiting for an inkling of objective data to support your claims.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.