Ferrite Sonic Signature....
I have tried fitting these standard ferrite filters to AC power cables, audio signal cables, and speaker cables.
In my experience these ferrite filters cause a subjective degradation in the reproduced sound....ie hard tizzy highs, wrong mids, hard and reduced lows.
Moreover this same sound 'signature' is evident wherever they are placed.
Those sonic characters and signature don't seem like just removing CM noise ingress.....I think.
Anybody know what's going on ?.
Dan.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I have tried fitting these standard ferrite filters to AC power cables, audio signal cables, and speaker cables.
In my experience these ferrite filters cause a subjective degradation in the reproduced sound....ie hard tizzy highs, wrong mids, hard and reduced lows.
Moreover this same sound 'signature' is evident wherever they are placed.
Those sonic characters and signature don't seem like just removing CM noise ingress.....I think.
Anybody know what's going on ?.
Dan.
Last edited:
Attacking ideas is fine. And in this case, it's worth attacking- not only did this fellow write a total nonsequitur, he apparently didn't understand the original paper.
As much as Meyer and Moran have gotten slagged by the fashion audio set, not one scintilla of contradictory data has been offered.
since I found the article above interesting, I googled to see if there's some serious discussion on it (sorry, the quotes in my post above do not apply).
not very surprised to see that some hard data comes from the "worst objectivist hive on Earth":
Human hearing beats FFT - Hydrogenaudio Forums
adn we find that a 1990 article (http://www.collinsaudio.com/Prosound_Workshop/Gerzon_Why_do_equalisers_sound_different.pdf) comments on a 1946 discovery, saying that:
Actually, as noted by Dennis Gabor (best known for his invention of holography, but who also worked in audio) back in 1946, the ears actually analyse the frequency content of sounds in time faster than suggested by the uncertainty principle by a factor of about 7. The seeming logical contradiction with the fundamental theoretical limit of time/frequency resolution is avoided by the ear’s use of a-priori or previously assumed knowledge of the nature of typical sounds but at the expense of getting the analysis ‘wrong’ when sounds not of the assumed form occur.
oh well...
not very surprised to see that some hard data comes from the "worst objectivist hive on Earth":
Human hearing beats FFT - Hydrogenaudio Forums
adn we find that a 1990 article (http://www.collinsaudio.com/Prosound_Workshop/Gerzon_Why_do_equalisers_sound_different.pdf) comments on a 1946 discovery, saying that:
Actually, as noted by Dennis Gabor (best known for his invention of holography, but who also worked in audio) back in 1946, the ears actually analyse the frequency content of sounds in time faster than suggested by the uncertainty principle by a factor of about 7. The seeming logical contradiction with the fundamental theoretical limit of time/frequency resolution is avoided by the ear’s use of a-priori or previously assumed knowledge of the nature of typical sounds but at the expense of getting the analysis ‘wrong’ when sounds not of the assumed form occur.
oh well...
In this thread,
You would have to accept that passing a signal through something makes a difference..It seems that without megga testing this is not going to be accepted..
I know it does..But thats just my opinion..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Subjective Subject...
I was careful to use terms like 'subjective'.....hopefully others understand this also.
Dan.
Thanks Gregg.In this thread,
You would have to accept that passing a signal through something makes a difference..It seems that without megga testing this is not going to be accepted..
I know it does..But thats just my opinion..
Regards
M. Gregg
I was careful to use terms like 'subjective'.....hopefully others understand this also.
Dan.
You can have the same effect,
With cable type without losing the sound..
Again this is opinion..
On a driven cable a twisted pair can be better than a screened...it also helps to have the feed and return within the same screened cable..
Plated mains is better than straight conductors..there is a more complex version but its going to get snake oil comments..
Mains filters are a real pain some seem to work others don't...The earth is a source of noise..<<but you must still earth components
The trick is to remove as much mains/earth and RF type noise out of the system..the trick is to do it without negative sonic impact<<snake oil..
This follows inside the equipment<<its no good doing this on just the outside...any equipment connected to another will transfer the problem..that includes Earthing and interconnects..
Here is some more snake oil..
The general take on it seems to be one piece of kit can modulate another..Its just opinion..RF can have an effect as well..The incomming supply acts like an aerial..and it,s very long...
The Earth is not clean..there are X and Y filter types and computers can be a pain..
From what I can tell its seems that some filters don't remove all the problems..But as I said its only opinion..
The problem with this is companies are making a mint on using these ideas..you can do it for less and with DIY <<but its got to be safe..thats where people make the mistake.
People say what a load..etc how can a bit of cable on a mains lead make any difference with all the mains after it to the fuse board and beyond
The answer is the cable is a filter..its not a cable. The longer the cable the better it seems to work..now people will say well what can a cable do that a filter can't..
Its biased to twisted supply and plated cables<<all done in a special way<<thats a crock its just a way of doing it. Its interesting that the way the earth is run in these cables has an effect<<opinion
So the Earth and run in the cable has an effect..opinion again..
Regards
M. Gregg
With cable type without losing the sound..
Again this is opinion..
On a driven cable a twisted pair can be better than a screened...it also helps to have the feed and return within the same screened cable..
Plated mains is better than straight conductors..there is a more complex version but its going to get snake oil comments..
Mains filters are a real pain some seem to work others don't...The earth is a source of noise..<<but you must still earth components
The trick is to remove as much mains/earth and RF type noise out of the system..the trick is to do it without negative sonic impact<<snake oil..
This follows inside the equipment<<its no good doing this on just the outside...any equipment connected to another will transfer the problem..that includes Earthing and interconnects..
Here is some more snake oil..
The general take on it seems to be one piece of kit can modulate another..Its just opinion..RF can have an effect as well..The incomming supply acts like an aerial..and it,s very long...
The Earth is not clean..there are X and Y filter types and computers can be a pain..
From what I can tell its seems that some filters don't remove all the problems..But as I said its only opinion..
The problem with this is companies are making a mint on using these ideas..you can do it for less and with DIY <<but its got to be safe..thats where people make the mistake.
People say what a load..etc how can a bit of cable on a mains lead make any difference with all the mains after it to the fuse board and beyond
The answer is the cable is a filter..its not a cable. The longer the cable the better it seems to work..now people will say well what can a cable do that a filter can't..
Its biased to twisted supply and plated cables<<all done in a special way<<thats a crock its just a way of doing it. Its interesting that the way the earth is run in these cables has an effect<<opinion
So the Earth and run in the cable has an effect..opinion again..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Have never tried those specific types of devices, but just as a thought off the top of my head, when in place would these be resting loosely in place on the cable, able to easily slide around; or, effectively clamp tightly onto the insulation covering, be firmly physically coupled to the cable? If loose, try different ways of making them lock onto, grip the cable securely - experiment to see if any type of behaviour pattern in sound quality occurs.
Sounds Like ....
Jaycar have them for a few dollars each....try 'em for yourself.
Dan.
Yup Frank, I have tried every combination including two or more turns for smaller diameter cables including cables within equipment......same signature.
Jaycar have them for a few dollars each....try 'em for yourself.
Dan.
it looks to me like the original article itself contains some misleading data.
like the sound sample containing what seems to be phase manipulated sound.
SY, go read the HA thread
previews:It's amazing what people conclude, given that the experiment will have been carried out with digital audio signals (not analogue signal generators, and certainly not vinyl!), and the extreme "10x better than FFT" test clips will happily survive mp3 encoding."
or:
Here's what the audiophilosphere reliably takes away from articles like this, regardless of the actual content:
-- see, sighted claims of difference are valid, and blind testing is unnatural and misleading
-- see, we do need higher sample rates and wordlengths
-- see, analog is better. Especially vinyl.
I get deja-vu.
but this reply has a point:
FFTs, MDCTs, QMFs and other filter banks are all fundamentally bound by the uncertainty principle: the product of the frequency resolution and time resolution cannot be smaller than 1. This is the case for any non-parametric model/transform, i.e. when you don't make any particular assumptions about your signal. There are however parametric models one can use. The best example is a model where you directly fit sinusoids of arbitrary frequencies (as opposed to Fourier, which uses sinusoids of predetermined frequencies). With such a model, the resolution is only limited by practical concerns like noise, other sinusoids, and modulation effects. As a trivial example, if you give me three samples and promise that they represent only a single sinusoid (no noise or modulation), then I can calculate the exact frequency of that sinusoid. So in theory, sinudoidal modeling solves all the time-freq issues of the FFT. The only problem is that it's damn hard to use, especially when it comes to having a good enough analysis. And that's why we don't don't have any high-quality sinusoidal-based audio codecs.
there was a study I read about wavelet suitability for audio signal analysis.
I too believe that as far as psychoacoustic processing/analysis goes, having a more precise idea on how the signal originated is useful.
PS: I get the impression that the anti cables parallel discussion seems more interesting
Last edited:
Hmmm ... this is where it gets hairy, there's all sorts of subtle factors that could be at play here. I've never used the hinged units, only the solid cylinders; this makes trying things "harder" of course ... but, as a general rule I would want anything that's used as a tweak to have structural integrity, a unity to its construction: this can often be critical to not having other factors "messing up" what you're trying to do ...
Just Do It....
The point of using the hinged items is that rapid A/B, or on the fly A/B comparisons are readily doable....eg A/B listening to the highs, ditto mids, ditto lows etc...then A/B whole sound.
With digital sound sources/music player software it is perfectly easy to play exactly the same sound/music passage repeatedly....very useful for differentiating subtle changes accurately.
Dan.
The mating surfaces of the ferrites are surface ground flat, so consistent repeatability.
The point of using the hinged items is that rapid A/B, or on the fly A/B comparisons are readily doable....eg A/B listening to the highs, ditto mids, ditto lows etc...then A/B whole sound.
With digital sound sources/music player software it is perfectly easy to play exactly the same sound/music passage repeatedly....very useful for differentiating subtle changes accurately.
Dan.
Last edited:
not necessary, if twisted pair 6,3~ coiled dozen times precisely (important ! counterclockwise) around output tubes
makes "full-lush-sensational-harmonic-warm.." sound
not need to risk potential failure, we <company name here> sell special knitted sleeves, which has this winding already inside.
as a bonus it will keep your tubes & getters warm
<insert audio-zine name here>
cha-ching $$$$$$$It's the old story of "tube vs solid state." Tubes subjectively (to some people) make a more "musical" distortion, or so it's claimed; even though objectively tube circuits make more distortion than solid state circuits. Subtle distortion may not be overtly audible but produce fatigue for some listeners.
My personal experience- I have been using a cheap DVD player as a CD player for a while now. While according to some consumers CDs make "perfect " sound every time, we know that's not true. So anyway, some CDs sounded great and some not so great. Long term listening subjectively caused listener fatigue for me personally. Recently, I got an older Sony CD player out of the dumpster that just needed the cobwebs blown out and some silicon lube on the moving parts. The difference in sound quality is immediately apparent to my ears, especially on the tracks that caused fatigue to my ears. Most notceable to me, surprisingly, is that the dynamics are much better with the Sony. Also, it sounds like the music comes from a quieter background, even though I could not overtly identify any background noise or artefacts from the cheapie DVD player. This is the nature of psychoacoustics. Could the difference be objectively measured? In this instance, it probably could. The dynamic range of the program material was obviously improved. The first thing I thought when I hooked it up was "now I need a more powerful amp and/or more efficient speakers." I actually had to turn it down to avoid clipping.
Yes I could, at least to my own satisfaction.
I used my best analog sources, Vendetta phono stage, passive 10 turn volume pot, and my STAX Lambda tube driven headphones that I still use for professional evaluation of equipment. The last being the OPPO 105 analog circuits.
More than 15 years ago, I did this test with adding the Quantum devices (already terminated by AC connectors) and removing them from the power line, nearest to the power supply of the STAX headphone box.
I did NOT know Jack Bybee at the time, and he did not, even then, come well recommended, but my employer asked me to evaluate these devices sonically, and by measurement, if possible, and so I did.
First, I attempted measurement. I used harmonic distortion, waveform analysis, resistance measurement, etc, with a Wavetek 50MH function generator, ST distortion analyzer, cap test meter, HP 3580 wave analyzer, etc. I could not find anything but a pure resistance of about .3 ohms or so.
Therefore I was disposed to think that this 'item' was a fake.
THEN I LISTENED with the device installed.
Then I listened with the device removed.
etc.
It really did something useful to make the best musical sources that I had, to come 'more alive'.
I was curious what was going on, so I made an effort to independently contact Jack Bybee, and find out more. That is what I did, and he and I are still good friends, today.
What Jack Bybee taught me was that there was a lot more going on, at the quantum level, that was useful to audio, than I had previously had known about.
In fact, I actually tried to continue my education in physics (I already have a BA in physics) further, by buying a number of advanced textbooks on quantum physics, virtually anything that I could find, or what was recommended, and began re-reading the works of Feynman and Asimov that I already had.
However, I have never completely understood the mechanism behind the quantum purifiers, and a number of other interesting products.
Still, I personally trust my ears, and my associates (including Jack Bybee) and I try to understand what we hear, either conceptually or by measurement, of any new device that comes on the market. Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't. In any case, nobody here would believe our findings, they are too 'exotic'. '-)
I used my best analog sources, Vendetta phono stage, passive 10 turn volume pot, and my STAX Lambda tube driven headphones that I still use for professional evaluation of equipment. The last being the OPPO 105 analog circuits.
More than 15 years ago, I did this test with adding the Quantum devices (already terminated by AC connectors) and removing them from the power line, nearest to the power supply of the STAX headphone box.
I did NOT know Jack Bybee at the time, and he did not, even then, come well recommended, but my employer asked me to evaluate these devices sonically, and by measurement, if possible, and so I did.
First, I attempted measurement. I used harmonic distortion, waveform analysis, resistance measurement, etc, with a Wavetek 50MH function generator, ST distortion analyzer, cap test meter, HP 3580 wave analyzer, etc. I could not find anything but a pure resistance of about .3 ohms or so.
Therefore I was disposed to think that this 'item' was a fake.
THEN I LISTENED with the device installed.
Then I listened with the device removed.
etc.
It really did something useful to make the best musical sources that I had, to come 'more alive'.
I was curious what was going on, so I made an effort to independently contact Jack Bybee, and find out more. That is what I did, and he and I are still good friends, today.
What Jack Bybee taught me was that there was a lot more going on, at the quantum level, that was useful to audio, than I had previously had known about.
In fact, I actually tried to continue my education in physics (I already have a BA in physics) further, by buying a number of advanced textbooks on quantum physics, virtually anything that I could find, or what was recommended, and began re-reading the works of Feynman and Asimov that I already had.
However, I have never completely understood the mechanism behind the quantum purifiers, and a number of other interesting products.
Still, I personally trust my ears, and my associates (including Jack Bybee) and I try to understand what we hear, either conceptually or by measurement, of any new device that comes on the market. Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't. In any case, nobody here would believe our findings, they are too 'exotic'. '-)
wraparound ferrites are like scatter-gun suppression fire, use X2Y filters, best know what frequencies you are trying to reject or you wont have any luck with any method.
have problems on AC ground? dont use it for anything but shield...
no John, nobody here would believe the findings because concerted efforts were made to find out whether they do anything at all and then after cracking them open found a resistor surrounded by what shall now be known as flooby dust. quantum level flooby dust... lol
have problems on AC ground? dont use it for anything but shield...
no John, nobody here would believe the findings because concerted efforts were made to find out whether they do anything at all and then after cracking them open found a resistor surrounded by what shall now be known as flooby dust. quantum level flooby dust... lol
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.