Brett said:
I noticed that too.
Actually, -60db could easily be involved. See picture:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is the equalization requirements of an ear.
So let's not doubt that -60db at 3k could be "easily audible."
Most modern equipment is designed with a machine-flat response, which has nothing to do with pleasing an ear.
Next, the power cord could have been defective via a cold solder or a questionable press-fit. The power supply could have had a defect that "may" have benefitted by more or less inductance. In any case, if normal power cord won't do, then there's a power supply problem.
Defective equipment could cause listening fatigue.
So can engineers. . .
My pet peeve is recently graduated greenhorns armed with measuring equipment and computer simulations (representing the majority of modern audio equipment). Usually, that sounds awful. See chart above for reference.
Its important to remember that audio equipment will be audible and that does involve an ear before the circuit is complete.
Second worst is making differences for their own sake (botique sales) rather than having a goal.
A documented goal for a non-flat response is that chart above, demonstrating that people who desire a non-peakish midrange are quite justified.
Other goals relate to sales purposes--that doesn't relate to sound, but is necessary. So, botique power cords relate to sales, not sound.
An example:
Botique capacitors are most certainly related to sound; however, they fare no better, no worse, chances to make an improvement, than really cheap capacitors.
It works like this:
You have a capacitance specification.
Next, you acquire a collection of capacitors on-spec, yet with different brands, etc. . . Price <> Sound; however, variety is helpful.
Lastly, you interview these and choose the one where the most pleasant response is observed--and then measure to find out why.
Unlike the capacitors subject, there are no documented frequency responses for power cords.
It is my opinion that there are many sub-optimal power cords available and that a replacement with decent sufficiency could make a benefit. However, if a "known good" power cord is insufficient, then the equipment should be inspected for a power supply defect.
I recently heard from a friend who questioned that different power supplies sounded differently (made variety) in audio components.
Well, obviously input+power=output, so, of course!
He checked with a "professional" who said that this was impossible. Certainly whatever audio power supplies are made by the referenced professional, could all be considered potentially defective.
In the case of the two CD players, that really creates a question about which one was working as intended, doesn't it? 😀 😀 😀
Please no more with the power cord. That is the least likely spot for audible variety.
danielwritesbac said:
Really Daniel, go back and read some of your early posts. They show your level of understanding quite well.
My theory
My theory on listening fatigue goes like this....
People naturally accept distorted sound as music, and they still enjoy it. It doesnt seem to fatigue them in my opinion. They subject themselves to it daily in their car, from their tv, perhaps at work, at a rock concert, bar, club, and movie theatres.
However when it comes to sitting down and just listening you must either.
A. Really like the music
B. Be a speaker builder/tinkerer and be listening to try and figure out what would make your speaker better, and also find what is already good about it
C. Be a musician trying to learn or study the music.
Otherwise you're probably going to get bored easily. It's just that simple....
As far as your ears truly becoming fatigued... You'd have to listen to some very loud sounds for extended periods of time. Something most people subject themselves to at rock concerts and enjoy it, and also at levels few have the capability to reproduce in their homes.
My theory on listening fatigue goes like this....
People naturally accept distorted sound as music, and they still enjoy it. It doesnt seem to fatigue them in my opinion. They subject themselves to it daily in their car, from their tv, perhaps at work, at a rock concert, bar, club, and movie theatres.
However when it comes to sitting down and just listening you must either.
A. Really like the music
B. Be a speaker builder/tinkerer and be listening to try and figure out what would make your speaker better, and also find what is already good about it
C. Be a musician trying to learn or study the music.
Otherwise you're probably going to get bored easily. It's just that simple....
As far as your ears truly becoming fatigued... You'd have to listen to some very loud sounds for extended periods of time. Something most people subject themselves to at rock concerts and enjoy it, and also at levels few have the capability to reproduce in their homes.
Earlier there was some discussion about a cable box and tv with hum bars... Check the ground connection for the cable drop at the side of the house. Cable should be bonded to power's ground rod for grounding. 12awg wire should be used to connect from power's ground(either the rod itself, the wire leading to the rod, the meter box, or steel pipe connected to the meter box) to the cable's grounding block(typically inside a box outside the house)
Usually improper grounding will cause hum bars with set top boxes(especially HD boxes).
Usually improper grounding will cause hum bars with set top boxes(especially HD boxes).
danielwritesbac said:
Sorry but you have totally misunderstood the Fletcher-Munson Curves. Those are not about any equalization requirements at all.
/Peter
Re: My theory
There's an unexplored difference at rock concerts. According to the Fletcher Munson chart above, the response of your ear becomes nearly straight, only at loud enough volume to damage it. Of course, this isn't advisable. But, its practically the only time an ear has a flat response.
Notice that the response of the ear varies by volume. Some of the early radios had a 4 prong potentiometer and the extra contact varied the frequency response according volume level, in an attempt to match the ear.
Unfortunately many equalization methods contain an RC against the audio signal, which, instead of a bass boost, just turns the treble or the midrange into low volume muck instead. There must be some method of ear-appropriate equalizations that doesn't involve either destroying detail or using super loud volumes.
Ah, yes, my knowledge is spotty, but I'm getting clues, hard won, a little at a time.
Transparency--I think its the solution to listening fatigue; however, I would define transparency as "clarity without distraction," and so transparency, in my definition, would also require ear-appropriate equalizations (without distraction).
Help?
BassAwdyO said:
There's an unexplored difference at rock concerts. According to the Fletcher Munson chart above, the response of your ear becomes nearly straight, only at loud enough volume to damage it. Of course, this isn't advisable. But, its practically the only time an ear has a flat response.
Notice that the response of the ear varies by volume. Some of the early radios had a 4 prong potentiometer and the extra contact varied the frequency response according volume level, in an attempt to match the ear.
Unfortunately many equalization methods contain an RC against the audio signal, which, instead of a bass boost, just turns the treble or the midrange into low volume muck instead. There must be some method of ear-appropriate equalizations that doesn't involve either destroying detail or using super loud volumes.
Ah, yes, my knowledge is spotty, but I'm getting clues, hard won, a little at a time.
Transparency--I think its the solution to listening fatigue; however, I would define transparency as "clarity without distraction," and so transparency, in my definition, would also require ear-appropriate equalizations (without distraction).
Help?
Why do all these nasties cause listening fatigue?
A few million years of evolution (or an intelligent designer rooting for our survival, if you prefer) may have something to do with it.
I believe that "listening fatigue" as a label is dead on. At one time, awareness of our environment was the difference between being the diner and being dinner. Though we are seldom aware of it, we are constantly 1) localizing sounds in space 2) monitoring for unexpected changes in our environment, which by definition means that we are putting energy into forecasting what we will hear (see, feel, smell) next and comparing it to our next sample. When forecast and actual diverge, we are put on notice that we need to attend to our surroundings, and probably not in a good way.
Fatigue arises when we have to burn those extra cycles rationalizing spacial queues that are all messed up and into rationalizing unexpected discontinuities in what we hear. Crap gear literally makes us work harder.
This also explains why so many report that listening fatigue increases as you age. It is probably hard work for your brain to try to distill the same survival queues from less information... and besides now that you don't run as fast you'd better be paying attention!
Cheers...TG (just old enough to make fun of aging but no older)
A few million years of evolution (or an intelligent designer rooting for our survival, if you prefer) may have something to do with it.
I believe that "listening fatigue" as a label is dead on. At one time, awareness of our environment was the difference between being the diner and being dinner. Though we are seldom aware of it, we are constantly 1) localizing sounds in space 2) monitoring for unexpected changes in our environment, which by definition means that we are putting energy into forecasting what we will hear (see, feel, smell) next and comparing it to our next sample. When forecast and actual diverge, we are put on notice that we need to attend to our surroundings, and probably not in a good way.
Fatigue arises when we have to burn those extra cycles rationalizing spacial queues that are all messed up and into rationalizing unexpected discontinuities in what we hear. Crap gear literally makes us work harder.
This also explains why so many report that listening fatigue increases as you age. It is probably hard work for your brain to try to distill the same survival queues from less information... and besides now that you don't run as fast you'd better be paying attention!
Cheers...TG (just old enough to make fun of aging but no older)
power cord difference
Hi Brett
Some months ago I had a hum through out my system and it was very irritating. Some friends had recommended that I should start looking after the AC end of my equipment and hence a sonic improvement may follow. I'm a pretty hard fella to sell to and did not want to pay the rediculous prices that Brand cables are asking these days, so I made my own.
I tested and heard each cable one at a time starting from the CD player to the pre-amp.The sonic improvement was not subtle. I found that the soundstade had more depth, the top end a little more "spicy" and more macro information seemed present. Bass I found changed more when I added another cable from the wall to the speakers ( active speakers) and the improvement was very good indeed. But it makes sense to me now that plugging a $2 power cord into an $8K CD player obviously had a large bottle neck in performance. Hum is now inaudible, and a very impressive result keeping everything the same throughout the system.
here are some home made pics, each cable took about 2 hours, but out performed frineds cables costing $1000k ea.
Good luck
http://www.theaudiophileworkshop.com.au/diypowercable.html
Hi Brett
Some months ago I had a hum through out my system and it was very irritating. Some friends had recommended that I should start looking after the AC end of my equipment and hence a sonic improvement may follow. I'm a pretty hard fella to sell to and did not want to pay the rediculous prices that Brand cables are asking these days, so I made my own.
I tested and heard each cable one at a time starting from the CD player to the pre-amp.The sonic improvement was not subtle. I found that the soundstade had more depth, the top end a little more "spicy" and more macro information seemed present. Bass I found changed more when I added another cable from the wall to the speakers ( active speakers) and the improvement was very good indeed. But it makes sense to me now that plugging a $2 power cord into an $8K CD player obviously had a large bottle neck in performance. Hum is now inaudible, and a very impressive result keeping everything the same throughout the system.
here are some home made pics, each cable took about 2 hours, but out performed frineds cables costing $1000k ea.
Good luck
http://www.theaudiophileworkshop.com.au/diypowercable.html
In-Fidelity,
I never believe a power cord would make any difference whatsoever unless it is badly made. I simply don't understand the logic behind it. Unless you are talking about very thin cord running very long distance therefore having a large resistance, and multiple equipments are earthed to different earth potentials which may cause hum...
But yet, I am open minded. I recall that I listened to a power cord once as a friend bought one for $300 and took it to my house. We compared it to the normal $2 power cords from the computers and found the sound of the $300 power cord a lot worse! That was the only time that I really heard a difference between power cords.
If you live in Sydney, I am happy to pay you "very good" $ for your power cords if you can show me the "very good" difference the power cords make to the sound to the better, on my equipments.
Kind regards,
Bill
I never believe a power cord would make any difference whatsoever unless it is badly made. I simply don't understand the logic behind it. Unless you are talking about very thin cord running very long distance therefore having a large resistance, and multiple equipments are earthed to different earth potentials which may cause hum...
But yet, I am open minded. I recall that I listened to a power cord once as a friend bought one for $300 and took it to my house. We compared it to the normal $2 power cords from the computers and found the sound of the $300 power cord a lot worse! That was the only time that I really heard a difference between power cords.
If you live in Sydney, I am happy to pay you "very good" $ for your power cords if you can show me the "very good" difference the power cords make to the sound to the better, on my equipments.
Kind regards,
Bill
Good thread. I especially agree with Nikolas, Cloth Ears, and Lynn Olson, (sp?) and there were several other good answers as well.
One item not mentioned (if I didn't miss it) is that some speakers deliberately emphasize the treble, to make an immediate showroom impression; it seems only reasonable that the speaker that you "hear more" with is the better speaker. The more dramatic, usually the harder to live with...
In addition, there are (to overgeneralize, but what the heck) two types of listeners; gestalt, who hear spectral balance and coloration, and detail, who listen for "the silence between the notes", or the french horn player using the spit valves. Such listeners often gravitate towards a lot of treble information, and of course there are designers who agree, and who cater to that market. (I think it was J Gordon Holt who came up with the gestalt vs. detail observation.)
Inexpensive drivers nowadays have levels of definition attainable only at high cost years ago; and then, such systems had matching, low distortion equipment. So today's speakers, even relatively inexpensive ones can put quite a burden on the rest of system by exposing and perhaps emphasizing system problems. And not many people will spend thousands on equipment driving inexpensive speakers.
Digression alert: The AR-3 not only had a falling response, but by today's standards, terrible transient response. Things like crossover distortion from early transistor amplifiers simply didn't get through the fog. (And I loved my AR-3.)
As a final note, I'd suggest not caring about the techniques a designer uses; knowing and avoiding the pitfalls of a given approach, having a good ear, taking the time to polish and voice for a musical sound... These are all more important to you than the number of poles in the xo. Trust your ears above all; give them a chance to evaluate a potential acquisition with an extended listen in your environment, with your equipment, not forgetting breakin.
One item not mentioned (if I didn't miss it) is that some speakers deliberately emphasize the treble, to make an immediate showroom impression; it seems only reasonable that the speaker that you "hear more" with is the better speaker. The more dramatic, usually the harder to live with...
In addition, there are (to overgeneralize, but what the heck) two types of listeners; gestalt, who hear spectral balance and coloration, and detail, who listen for "the silence between the notes", or the french horn player using the spit valves. Such listeners often gravitate towards a lot of treble information, and of course there are designers who agree, and who cater to that market. (I think it was J Gordon Holt who came up with the gestalt vs. detail observation.)
Inexpensive drivers nowadays have levels of definition attainable only at high cost years ago; and then, such systems had matching, low distortion equipment. So today's speakers, even relatively inexpensive ones can put quite a burden on the rest of system by exposing and perhaps emphasizing system problems. And not many people will spend thousands on equipment driving inexpensive speakers.
Digression alert: The AR-3 not only had a falling response, but by today's standards, terrible transient response. Things like crossover distortion from early transistor amplifiers simply didn't get through the fog. (And I loved my AR-3.)
As a final note, I'd suggest not caring about the techniques a designer uses; knowing and avoiding the pitfalls of a given approach, having a good ear, taking the time to polish and voice for a musical sound... These are all more important to you than the number of poles in the xo. Trust your ears above all; give them a chance to evaluate a potential acquisition with an extended listen in your environment, with your equipment, not forgetting breakin.
Curmudgeon said:
OMG! I've been mentioned in the same sentence as Lynn (without the word 'unlike' between)! I'll never wash these typing fingers again...
"Again?", you ask...🙂
Those dips (between 1.5 and 6kHz) in the FM curves that someone's posted recently are where the problem occurs. On another forum I mentioned listening to some B&W DM602's a number of years ago (OK, mid-90's). At low volumes they were quite sweet, but a bit louder that started to sound quite harsh. Tweeter problems was my immediate diagnosis, but I was wrong. The crossover for these is around 3.5-4kHz, and what I was hearing were artifacts from the kevlar cone (it might have been some other yellow woven stuff) breaking up. That sort of distortion definitely causes fatigue.
I remember once, in about the same time period, my then girlfriend mentioning that she used to like listening to Barbra Streisand, but that now she had no time for her. I checked what she was listening to and it was an incredibly bad 'best of' version CD (the antithesis of Perfect Sound Forever). Simply finding a couple of better CDs meant that she renewed her love of BS - naturally we split soon after (for other reasons 🙂).
Bill,
everyone's ears are different and experiences can be bad or good or indifferent. If you are unable to hear the difference between a kettle cord and a good ( say $300) power cord then stick with the kettle cord and spend the difference on more rewarding things like music.
Personally I am very aware of the placeebo effect , there's always a lot of money when it comes to human phsyc behaviour which is why my listening tests are done blind folded with the help of a friend to change everything around.
everyone's ears are different and experiences can be bad or good or indifferent. If you are unable to hear the difference between a kettle cord and a good ( say $300) power cord then stick with the kettle cord and spend the difference on more rewarding things like music.
Personally I am very aware of the placeebo effect , there's always a lot of money when it comes to human phsyc behaviour which is why my listening tests are done blind folded with the help of a friend to change everything around.
Re: power cord difference
You clearly do not understand the F/M curves.
I finished Uni over 20 years ago and have worked as an EE much of that time.danielwritesbac said:
You clearly do not understand the F/M curves.
Not that I've seen.danielwritesbac said:
Hum is a defective cable or earth loop. It is a fault that must be removed before SQ can be determined at all. I asked for a mechanism where a CDP's powercord (or any other electronic device) could make an audible difference to SQ in any decently designed componenet. Flowery words and listening impressions constitute nothing.In-Fidelity said:
Variac said:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Most indubitably.
I'm sorry Al. Want a hug?pinkmouse said:
Re: Re: power cord difference
Its good. The particular comment above wasn't directed at you.
I had meant to establish a comparison between too little voicing of audio electronics (as in assuming simulations accomodate ears) and too much (as in addressing issues with the most expensive parts, ineffectively applied at distance from the needy circuit).
The purpose of the comparison was to establish parameters of too little and too much, thus leaving the middle ground for discussion of more likely solutions.
That didn't work out. It went badly. I apologise.
Brett said:
Its good. The particular comment above wasn't directed at you.
I had meant to establish a comparison between too little voicing of audio electronics (as in assuming simulations accomodate ears) and too much (as in addressing issues with the most expensive parts, ineffectively applied at distance from the needy circuit).
The purpose of the comparison was to establish parameters of too little and too much, thus leaving the middle ground for discussion of more likely solutions.
That didn't work out. It went badly. I apologise.
tgorham3 said:
I quote it entirely...
I guess you are absolutely right. IMHO this is THE right ANSWER (and the right way to look at any question related to acoustic perception in human beings!). 
BTW, I just want to add that not only age, but also other listening defects / impairments will affect listening fatigue also in younger people. I know it by heart... 🙁
Hi all,
I seem to have caused alot of controversy with my comment about mains leads.
To clarify my experience.
Both the CD players were of very high build quility - Meridian 506 players. (I was working for Meridian at the time). They were not faulty in any way and were both new off the production line so should have been as close as possible the same.
Both mains leads were of standard build quality there was no obvious "expensive one".
Neither of the leads were obviously faulty, nor was the mains supply faulty.
The sound difference was obvious enough that trained listeners could pick it out 100% of the time.
We did not have time to do a long investiagtion into the differences however our supposition was that the difference was cause by a different EMC radiation. The leads were not the same length or the same impedance, so it not unreasonable to think they would radiate HF energy differently.
I did this work in 1994 so I can't remeber the exact details of the leads.
If you want to see if the HF radiation from a mains lead can affect sound quality I recomend purchasing a ferrite clamp. You can get them from most electrical stores for reducing EMC problems (normally with PCs). Listen to your product then clamp this round the mains lead near the product- they are easly removed so you can easly try it both ways round. I usually find a significant diffence in the sound when doing this. Although the measured audio chaarcteristics do not change - In band Noise, THD+N, frequency response, IMD, crosstalk, jitter are all within the measurement error. Obviously the out of band noise tends to change in the several MHz region.
This doesn't always sound better although it often does, however it is a good indication the the HF characteristics of the noise do interact with the in band sound characteristic. So it is not unreasonable to think that changing the mains lead could change the sound quality as this could change the radiation characteristics of the lead - again it may get better it may get worse. One lead may work well with one product in one installation and not in another as it may resonate at a a paticular frequency in one instalation and not in another. I belive this is dependant on the length of the mains lead till it meets the plug at which point there will be a HF impedance change. (especially in the UK as it meets as ring main) However I do not have proof of this.
I don't know by what mechanism the HF noise characteristic of a product interacts with the sound quality. However; I am, after many years of working on audio products, convince that it does. Clealry at the extreems it interacts, as very high levels of HF noise cause audible artifacts - clock noise causes jitter, very high levels of HF energy can cause audible effects - moble phones for example. However at lower levels it is not clear what the effect is and why we can hear it but not measure it. It may be due to the way were hear which seems to work like a short term auto-correllation picking out the sounds we are expecting and comparing them to an existing memory of sounds then analysisng the differences. (This in itself is a somewhat controversial theory.)
Anyway I hope this has given some insight into what I think was going on. I wish I had a clearer explination as it would enable me to optomise products much more easly.
Regards,
Andrew.
I seem to have caused alot of controversy with my comment about mains leads.
To clarify my experience.
Both the CD players were of very high build quility - Meridian 506 players. (I was working for Meridian at the time). They were not faulty in any way and were both new off the production line so should have been as close as possible the same.
Both mains leads were of standard build quality there was no obvious "expensive one".
Neither of the leads were obviously faulty, nor was the mains supply faulty.
The sound difference was obvious enough that trained listeners could pick it out 100% of the time.
We did not have time to do a long investiagtion into the differences however our supposition was that the difference was cause by a different EMC radiation. The leads were not the same length or the same impedance, so it not unreasonable to think they would radiate HF energy differently.
I did this work in 1994 so I can't remeber the exact details of the leads.
If you want to see if the HF radiation from a mains lead can affect sound quality I recomend purchasing a ferrite clamp. You can get them from most electrical stores for reducing EMC problems (normally with PCs). Listen to your product then clamp this round the mains lead near the product- they are easly removed so you can easly try it both ways round. I usually find a significant diffence in the sound when doing this. Although the measured audio chaarcteristics do not change - In band Noise, THD+N, frequency response, IMD, crosstalk, jitter are all within the measurement error. Obviously the out of band noise tends to change in the several MHz region.
This doesn't always sound better although it often does, however it is a good indication the the HF characteristics of the noise do interact with the in band sound characteristic. So it is not unreasonable to think that changing the mains lead could change the sound quality as this could change the radiation characteristics of the lead - again it may get better it may get worse. One lead may work well with one product in one installation and not in another as it may resonate at a a paticular frequency in one instalation and not in another. I belive this is dependant on the length of the mains lead till it meets the plug at which point there will be a HF impedance change. (especially in the UK as it meets as ring main) However I do not have proof of this.
I don't know by what mechanism the HF noise characteristic of a product interacts with the sound quality. However; I am, after many years of working on audio products, convince that it does. Clealry at the extreems it interacts, as very high levels of HF noise cause audible artifacts - clock noise causes jitter, very high levels of HF energy can cause audible effects - moble phones for example. However at lower levels it is not clear what the effect is and why we can hear it but not measure it. It may be due to the way were hear which seems to work like a short term auto-correllation picking out the sounds we are expecting and comparing them to an existing memory of sounds then analysisng the differences. (This in itself is a somewhat controversial theory.)
Anyway I hope this has given some insight into what I think was going on. I wish I had a clearer explination as it would enable me to optomise products much more easly.
Regards,
Andrew.
No insight at all. I find it interesting that a company such as Meridian, with at least the outward appearance of engineering rigour, would fail to investigate why a powercord could make such a large difference (in your words). After all, if it did do as you suggested, then it would make engineering and commercial sense to incorporate it in their products, if for no other reason to give a sonic and commercial edge to their products. Surely they would be able to get any such wonder mains cable made at modest rates in bulk - their products are hardly cheap as it is.gfiandy said:
As I have never been involved in, nor have I ever read a signal cable test that anyone was ever able to reliably ID a cable 100% of the time, I find this claim to be 100% dubious.gfiandy said: