If audio is engineering, then cooking is chemistry.
Chemistry of Cooking - Table of Contents;
Essential Ideas Introduction
Phases and Classification of Matter
Physical and Chemical Properties
Measurements
Measurement Uncertainty, Accuracy, and Precision
Mathematical Treatment of Measurement Results
Energy Basics
Calorimetry
Atoms, Molecules, and Ions
The Periodic Table
Atoms, Molecules, and Ions
Atomic Structure and Symbolism
Chemical Formulas
Molecular and Ionic Compounds
...
Cooking can be every bit as much science as audio engineering. In that realm, you can bet that people exist who, via their taste sense, will claim that they can taste what cannot be measured. I'm sure chefs exist that can knock you right out of current space-time with a spoon dropping ingredient combination (as depicted in the movie "Ratatouille").
Likewise, I wouldnt doubt the capability of someone to - via a unique combination of ingredients - to pull off the equivalent in audio reproduction. I would also expect that, short of being an expert in the field, most consumers would have no idea of what's actually going on in "the dish". Instead, they have to rely on what their senses are telling them.
My top example would be my senses tell me a full range speaker sounds better. This is corroborated by many others, and, many others think that's total BS - what about this, that and the other thing regarding that approach?
I like that one member's signature; the measure of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There is no other measure. That one seems to be valid across food, audio, automobiles, good clothes and shoes, art, video screens and projectors, airplanes, sailboats, bicycles, skateboards and on and on.
The ingredients and the "levels" of each to meet the multiple levels of where an individual's satisfaction may lie are myriad. There's probably no limit to the granularity thereof. Did I not read once upon a time they built a receiver using normal solder and they built another using a different solder chemistry - and listeners claimed they could hear a difference? Personally, I wouldnt doubt it, even if both units measured flat, 30 - 15kHz through their FM receiver sections.
Now if someone did a Taguci Factorial on 2 or 3 levels of all the common ingredients comprising a "HiFi" system - and then ranked them in effectiveness according to the most experience listeners we have - that would be interesting. That might tell us laymen something useful. Simply arguing whether a particular factor has any effect, measurable or only perceptually claimed, is not.
Chemistry of Cooking - Table of Contents;
Essential Ideas Introduction
Phases and Classification of Matter
Physical and Chemical Properties
Measurements
Measurement Uncertainty, Accuracy, and Precision
Mathematical Treatment of Measurement Results
Energy Basics
Calorimetry
Atoms, Molecules, and Ions
The Periodic Table
Atoms, Molecules, and Ions
Atomic Structure and Symbolism
Chemical Formulas
Molecular and Ionic Compounds
...
Cooking can be every bit as much science as audio engineering. In that realm, you can bet that people exist who, via their taste sense, will claim that they can taste what cannot be measured. I'm sure chefs exist that can knock you right out of current space-time with a spoon dropping ingredient combination (as depicted in the movie "Ratatouille").
Likewise, I wouldnt doubt the capability of someone to - via a unique combination of ingredients - to pull off the equivalent in audio reproduction. I would also expect that, short of being an expert in the field, most consumers would have no idea of what's actually going on in "the dish". Instead, they have to rely on what their senses are telling them.
My top example would be my senses tell me a full range speaker sounds better. This is corroborated by many others, and, many others think that's total BS - what about this, that and the other thing regarding that approach?
I like that one member's signature; the measure of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There is no other measure. That one seems to be valid across food, audio, automobiles, good clothes and shoes, art, video screens and projectors, airplanes, sailboats, bicycles, skateboards and on and on.
The ingredients and the "levels" of each to meet the multiple levels of where an individual's satisfaction may lie are myriad. There's probably no limit to the granularity thereof. Did I not read once upon a time they built a receiver using normal solder and they built another using a different solder chemistry - and listeners claimed they could hear a difference? Personally, I wouldnt doubt it, even if both units measured flat, 30 - 15kHz through their FM receiver sections.
Now if someone did a Taguci Factorial on 2 or 3 levels of all the common ingredients comprising a "HiFi" system - and then ranked them in effectiveness according to the most experience listeners we have - that would be interesting. That might tell us laymen something useful. Simply arguing whether a particular factor has any effect, measurable or only perceptually claimed, is not.
There is nothing new in that organic materials paper cardboard wood wax silk cotton linseed oil and more. Has a good audio signature, these materials have been used for more than 100 years in connection with audio devices.
However, you must use it correctly and in the right places and not least know the limitations of the materials.
It does not seem that one is aware of these conditions in the thread.
The purpose of the thread was probably not to find new revolutionary ways to improve hi-fi reproduction either
Rather an attempt to ridicule the 'cable believers' you see the same in Danish in forums. Have often asked myself what are their goals, what do they want. Must say Ethan Winer's zero test is a lot more qualified
Last edited:
In audio cables?
When the cable believers keep touting the claims of cable sound without evidence, what do you think will happen?
I am an electronics technician and have among others works with measuring instruments at Brüel & Kjær and RE (Radiometer) here is everything predictable, everything can be simulated,measured and explained.
I have practiced DIY for more than 20 years with countless measurements on all hi-fi devices.
I have not found the measurement or formula for hi-fi and the reason why a component can make a big perceived difference in output without it being measurable.
But I have lots of listening experience which allows me to make good sound and fairly predictable hi-hi.
Measurements are used to ensure precision and everything works as intended
Perception is something that goes on in one's head. Obviously, it can't be measured with sound wave or electric audio signal measuring device. You will need brain scanner for that.
Then let me ask you this. Have you measured parasitics inherent in all devices? What are the values of parallel capacitance and series inductance in a 1 k of the you frequently use? How about capacitors and transistors? No possible progress in understanding when parasitics and thermal influences are ignored.
Start measuring effects of parts make on distortion spectrum, note the phase shift vs frequency and observe the residual of the acoustic output. Then you will begin to see some correlation.
Last edited:
I am no pro but have played around modding for 30 years (electrical engineering education) and right now I am putting together 2 amps, both are balanced 200w with one using local feedback and the other more traditional global feedback.
One measure a lot better than the other, 10-15db difference on all REW multitone and single tone signal tests (still 80-95db down) at around 100w but the "bad" amp sounds cleaner and better on everything above 60hz.
It is tricky though as each individual amp sound really good (as you will not leave your seat for a few hours) and it's not until I switch them I notice something is different. I've had to switch them around 5 times spending plus 2 hours on each switch with maybe 20 songs to be able to clearly articulate and recognize the differences.
I am quite confident I would be able to pick each amp in an blind test on the 20 tracks and otherwise same equipment I have been using to test.
I very much agree with thor2 and use "sound signature" tricks (silver, copper, solidcore, gold tune, silmic, multicaps, MKT vs MKP etc) to sonically balance my systems.
That said I don't think these tweaks are finite improvements and might very well not be "perceived" as better in another system but IMHO it makes a difference.
I remember getting a Denon full of ELNA silmics and other exotic stuff but found it dull and boring just an example.
Generally I think the complexity of music signals are beyond what we use to measure performance, even std IMD measurements are 2 tones but still differ quite a bit from a single tone in terms of measured distortion so maybe there would be more measured differences if you could measure 10 or 50 multi tones at the same time.
One measure a lot better than the other, 10-15db difference on all REW multitone and single tone signal tests (still 80-95db down) at around 100w but the "bad" amp sounds cleaner and better on everything above 60hz.
It is tricky though as each individual amp sound really good (as you will not leave your seat for a few hours) and it's not until I switch them I notice something is different. I've had to switch them around 5 times spending plus 2 hours on each switch with maybe 20 songs to be able to clearly articulate and recognize the differences.
I am quite confident I would be able to pick each amp in an blind test on the 20 tracks and otherwise same equipment I have been using to test.
I very much agree with thor2 and use "sound signature" tricks (silver, copper, solidcore, gold tune, silmic, multicaps, MKT vs MKP etc) to sonically balance my systems.
That said I don't think these tweaks are finite improvements and might very well not be "perceived" as better in another system but IMHO it makes a difference.
I remember getting a Denon full of ELNA silmics and other exotic stuff but found it dull and boring just an example.
Generally I think the complexity of music signals are beyond what we use to measure performance, even std IMD measurements are 2 tones but still differ quite a bit from a single tone in terms of measured distortion so maybe there would be more measured differences if you could measure 10 or 50 multi tones at the same time.
@thor2
As I said earlier, those insensitive to the resulting acoustic difference will not be able to analyze which contributing factors are significant.
As an example of parasitics, you can see AVX Equivalent circuit of a 100nF capacitor Mark Johnson recently show on the Black Hole thread.
As I said earlier, those insensitive to the resulting acoustic difference will not be able to analyze which contributing factors are significant.
Last edited:
I've managed to advance the Null Tester concept to a level of precision and resolution like probably never before, making even the smallest distortions and other error readily audible with any kind of signal, notably a real music signal.
While I could immediately expose the vanishingly low distortion and general error of the RME ADI-2 Pro FSR audio interface operating in analog loop-back mode, so far I have failed to find even the slightest hint of "intrinsic cable sound signature", digging down to residual null levels of -130dB(!!!) and below. Way below the actual noise floor, which is SOTA with the RME.
Cables may affect sound in various ways (bad shielding etc) from electrical principles fully understood, but "intrinsic cable sound" (like copper vs. silver, solidcore vs. stranded etc) does not exist and has never been proved in any rigorous blind listening test (working on that, too, over at ASR).
At any rate the load must be linear (non-distorting current vs voltage). Speakers need not apply. Whenever your amp has any output impedance other than real zero your measuring also the distorted current of the speaker (as the speaker current is always distorted) indirectly, in form of the voltage drop on the output resistance. Even with a theoretical distortion-free amplifier. With a real amp you cannot tell the real amp distortion from the speaker's own distortion.
Complex passive loads are OK but the best and simplest and infinitely variable load is an active load, comprising of a second amplifier connect to the first's output with a resistor. By this any I to V relationship can be dialed in, by using correlated but different signal for the second amplifier.
@Indra1 My English is unfortunately not good enough to discuss these complicated topics, but ok I'll try anyway and hope you understand. You can also try reading posts 10.
I do not see the electrical faults that parasitics cause as particularly significant in the audio field, but I do see they may have an audio signature that matters.
I see a pattern between sound signature and materials, 'The Measuring Mafia' can claim that a paper in oil capacitor has a certain measuring pattern.
True, but no one can know how the capacitors sounds from measurements. Only with the ear and brain can it be decided.
If you use measurement as a selection parameter, you can choose the capacitor that measures best and conclude that it also sounds best, I can guarantee it is rarely like that.
Or you may have the attitude that there is no significant sound difference on capacitors.
If you choose based on data, or price, or that there is no significant sound difference for capacitors, it is nice straightforward, you do not have to worry about whether there can actually be quite a big sound difference on capacitors cables, etc. because you will never detect it.
.
I mean there is a connection between sound and the materials of the component. Which is universal for all components and materials used in audio. One possibility is that the explanation lies in the physics theory or it is actually the very small differences that can be measured on everything, it just does not relate to what is heard which can be quite convincing. And it won't fit with Ethan Winer's null test.
Let me give a few examples.
You extend your 3m speaker cable by 20cm of the same cable, you earn a million if you can hear it.
You extend 20cm with another cable with other materials. The electrical values of the overall parasitics will change insignificantly and the parasitics of the new piece will form an insignificant part of the overall parasitics of the cable, but they will be different, it is another elongated capacitor that is set parallel to the original cable. Somewhat similar to improving a coupling capacitor with a small parallel capacitor of high quality for better sound, the sound signature is not dependent on the electrical size of the component, so even a parasitics component can have a decisive effect on the sound but not immediately for the measured signal
Ps. I will not give you a million in this case if you can hear a sound difference.
Another ekesembel, I have here stripped an audionote tantal resistor for magnetic end caps and paint, replaced the paint with a special lacquer and end capes with fine silver, yes it sounds different from the original, but it also sounds different if fine silver is replaced with copper enough to fine tune a hi-fi system, to the sound of 'one sound'
I do not see the electrical faults that parasitics cause as particularly significant in the audio field, but I do see they may have an audio signature that matters.
I see a pattern between sound signature and materials, 'The Measuring Mafia' can claim that a paper in oil capacitor has a certain measuring pattern.
True, but no one can know how the capacitors sounds from measurements. Only with the ear and brain can it be decided.
If you use measurement as a selection parameter, you can choose the capacitor that measures best and conclude that it also sounds best, I can guarantee it is rarely like that.
Or you may have the attitude that there is no significant sound difference on capacitors.
If you choose based on data, or price, or that there is no significant sound difference for capacitors, it is nice straightforward, you do not have to worry about whether there can actually be quite a big sound difference on capacitors cables, etc. because you will never detect it.
.
I mean there is a connection between sound and the materials of the component. Which is universal for all components and materials used in audio. One possibility is that the explanation lies in the physics theory or it is actually the very small differences that can be measured on everything, it just does not relate to what is heard which can be quite convincing. And it won't fit with Ethan Winer's null test.
Let me give a few examples.
You extend your 3m speaker cable by 20cm of the same cable, you earn a million if you can hear it.
You extend 20cm with another cable with other materials. The electrical values of the overall parasitics will change insignificantly and the parasitics of the new piece will form an insignificant part of the overall parasitics of the cable, but they will be different, it is another elongated capacitor that is set parallel to the original cable. Somewhat similar to improving a coupling capacitor with a small parallel capacitor of high quality for better sound, the sound signature is not dependent on the electrical size of the component, so even a parasitics component can have a decisive effect on the sound but not immediately for the measured signal
Ps. I will not give you a million in this case if you can hear a sound difference.
Another ekesembel, I have here stripped an audionote tantal resistor for magnetic end caps and paint, replaced the paint with a special lacquer and end capes with fine silver, yes it sounds different from the original, but it also sounds different if fine silver is replaced with copper enough to fine tune a hi-fi system, to the sound of 'one sound'
Last edited:
Thinking back I sort of remember my conclusion that different cables/caps/resistors/inductors/made a difference started with modding speakers
Considering the null tester approach and measuring different cable/capacitor/resistor/inductor etc in a more complex load scenario might show more differences than what can be found with a linear load hence explaining why a lot of people believe cables etc make a difference.
Considering the null tester approach and measuring different cable/capacitor/resistor/inductor etc in a more complex load scenario might show more differences than what can be found with a linear load hence explaining why a lot of people believe cables etc make a difference.
It's right there at the "entrance". How does this happen?
I'm sure audio cables would not be the culprit.
You are so missing the point.
You are just repeating the same argument which has been explained at the beginning of this thread.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.