| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Where did I go wrong?
Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which
was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board. None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself. The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a rattling sound. Result of listening test. The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments, Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more apparent. Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement. Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them. The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) . All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so and then remove the damping to revaluate again. Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?. Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping affects the sound negatively? Awaitng for your esteemed comments. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
TChelvam wrote:
Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board. None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself. The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a rattling sound. Result of listening test. The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments, Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more apparent. Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement. Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them. The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) . All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so and then remove the damping to revaluate again. Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?. Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping affects the sound negatively? Awaitng for your esteemed comments. =============================================== Maybe you didn't go wrong. Don't judge on the basis of only a short listen. As you say, "listen for a month or so and then remove the damping to revaluate again." -GP |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
TChelvam wrote:
Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board. None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself. The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a rattling sound. Result of listening test. The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments, Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more apparent. Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement. Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them. The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) . All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so and then remove the damping to revaluate again. Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?. Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping affects the sound negatively? Awaitng for your esteemed comments. Well, I'm sorry, but this sounds like one of the descriptions of expensive cable manufacturers. And there is the same probability of sound differences. It is also somehow significant of how the human mind will make up an evaluation. We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And digital is a go/no-go affair. We know this from old CD-players. They don't gradually degrade, but suddenly they refuse to play or start jumping or muting the sound. We try to clean the lens, but it won't make a difference, and we buy a new player. When Scarpitti was describing the benefits of the green pen, he used the same vocabulary(I first thought it was a parody). As if reflections or vibrations directly influence the analog output, but there are only digital words passing, with no correlation to the final analog output. So everything you describe is 100% a product of your imagination, the second convincing argument would be : "Even the wife heard it from the kitchen". So with your tweaks you might even damage your electronics, apart from throwing away the guarantee. These little plastic parts are wimpy and break easily. And there might come up unexpected problems due to the additional thermic isulation, which can rise the temperature of your electronics and degrade reliability. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"TChelvam" wrote in message
... Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and transport in my player. snip For what it's worth, I tried damping the tray on my Denon CD player (which is quite solid anyway) with pieces of bitumen damping pad and it definitely sounded worse. Stephen |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"Ban" wrote in message ...
Well, I'm sorry, but this sounds like one of the descriptions of expensive cable manufacturers. And there is the same probability of sound differences. It is also somehow significant of how the human mind will make up an evaluation. We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And digital is a go/no-go affair................... I would like to say that I agree with you. It happened to me when I bi-wire my speakers wrongly but I was convinced for a long time that I heard improvement. But having said that I am not going to deny all expensive players do not make a difference. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"TChelvam" wrote in message
... Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and transport in my player. snip mag rag prose The only way to dampen cd player mechanics is to use horse feathers. Sprinkle liberly over cd & transport. A tube (valve(uk)) could also be stuck, using super glue, on the output of left & right sockets, to give that WW2 feeling. Seriously (lol) though you are trolling. The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly the electronics free from vibration effects. Cushions should be placed for best effect on the listener |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"Bromo" wrote in message
news:0L3uc.9311$IB.4903@attbi_s04... I have found it productive instead of declaring that something is in his imagination - it might be good to figure out what *could* cause improvement in sound by disassembling and reassembling the player in the manner described. No - He added something. What you say is true in that disconnecting things and reconnecting can repair inherent build defects. He is not saying that. He says that what he added changed the sound. Different arguement, different ball game. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"Rab Smith" wrote in message
... The only way to dampen cd player mechanics is to use horse feathers. Sprinkle liberly over cd & transport. A tube (valve(uk)) could also be stuck, using super glue, on the output of left & right sockets, to give that WW2 feeling. Seriously (lol) though you are trolling. The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly the electronics free from vibration effects. Cushions should be placed for best effect on the listener The last time I wrote something like these it was politely rejected by our moderator. Nevermind that. So you are telling damping, a solid chassis or better casing and all the other extra compartments got nothing to do with sound? I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly the electronics free from vibration effects As Stephen pointed out damping the tray did not improve the sound. Actualy I think it shouldn't even have any effect. Once the CD is inside it is held suspended by clamping. Maybe that's why some transport boast that their using ruby bearing or something like that for their transport to reduce vibration from the spinning motor. I have tried many tweaks just for the fun of it. Mostly i believe the so called effects are imaginary. But some actually works and latest tweak is one which I am trying to tell the diff btw real and imaginary. Cheers. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt
damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? Ya think? The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly the electronics free from vibration effects As Stephen pointed out damping the tray did not improve the sound. Actualy I think it shouldn't even have any effect. Once the CD is inside it is held suspended by clamping. Maybe that's why some transport boast that their using ruby bearing or something like that for their transport to reduce vibration from the spinning motor. I have been lurking this ng for about two weeks, it is a refreshing look at real world audio reproduction. You people seem to separate the wheat from the chaff, and I really enjoy reading. Scrape, scrape, (that's the soap box being positioned) grin You know, if we had multi-terabyte RAM packs that the music was stored in, nothing moved, rotated, flexed, swayed or vibrated, there would be some unscrupulous SOBs out there trying to tell us the special foam pad he conjured up would make our RAMPAC 7000 Music Storage Device sound sooooo much better, and improve the "air" around the instruments as well. I hate to say it, but if you have the money and the lack of sense to **** it away, go for it. Personally, the day I spend more than 5 or 10 bucks for an interconnect cable, or more than 30 cents a foot for speaker cable, that will be the day they take me drooling to the nursing home. One thing that WILL make a difference in your system, take the whole interconnet system apart about every six months, and clean all the plugs and jacks, speaker cable ends and connectors. Put it all back together, I'll bet you'll hear better sound -AND- it won't cost anything but a little of your time. just .03 worth, kicked it up a penny, Tom |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Chelvam wrote:
"Rab Smith" wrote in message ... The only way to dampen cd player mechanics is to use horse feathers. Sprinkle liberly over cd & transport. A tube (valve(uk)) could also be stuck, using super glue, on the output of left & right sockets, to give that WW2 feeling. Seriously (lol) though you are trolling. The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly the electronics free from vibration effects. Cushions should be placed for best effect on the listener The last time I wrote something like these it was politely rejected by our moderator. Nevermind that. So you are telling damping, a solid chassis or better casing and all the other extra compartments got nothing to do with sound? A better designed chassis can result in lower operating temp, as well as better grounding. But better does not necessarily mean more weight, or higher cost. I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up? The way cd's work make the transport & indirectly the electronics free from vibration effects As Stephen pointed out damping the tray did not improve the sound. Actualy I think it shouldn't even have any effect. Once the CD is inside it is held suspended by clamping. Maybe that's why some transport boast that their using ruby bearing or something like that for their transport to reduce vibration from the spinning motor. I have tried many tweaks just for the fun of it. Mostly i believe the so called effects are imaginary. But some actually works and latest tweak is one which I am trying to tell the diff btw real and imaginary. Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back? Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level, from the same discs. Cheers. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 29 May 2004 13:18:00 GMT, "Ban" wrote:
We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And digital is a go/no-go affair. Actually it is not. The moment the signal leaves the DAC, it becomes analog. Also the rest of the cd player is analog: the transport, the controller of the lense, the transformer, the circuit board, you name it. And all those analog elements influence the sound. Ernesto. "You don't have to learn science if you don't feel like it. So you can forget the whole business if it is too much mental strain, which it usually is." Richard Feynman |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"chung" wrote in message
also to what Tom wrote.... I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up? Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part. The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute science. Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us. Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along period of time. On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference between a $10 and $200 interconnect. However, my friend who bought and the guy who sold the cable claim they can tell the diff btw $200 and $2000 cable. I would like to believe them only if they could take the blind test but they are pretty busy for such childish game. I hope you get my drift. Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back? Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level, from the same discs. That's the fun part. it is my friend's job to remove all the damping in a month or so without my knowledge. Hopefully, he didn't pull a fast one by removing that by now because as of yesterday, I was still hearing the so called 'improvement'. Otherwise, I have to pay for the foolishness by donating a free CD/SACD and one week free flow at Cheers equivalent on me. cheers |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 29 May 2004 15:13:41 GMT, "Stephen McLuckie"
wrote: For what it's worth, I tried damping the tray on my Denon CD player (which is quite solid anyway) with pieces of bitumen damping pad and it definitely sounded worse. Stephen For me the same. Ernesto "You don't have to learn science if you don't feel like it. So you can forget the whole business if it is too much mental strain, which it usually is." Richard Feynman |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Chelvam wrote:
"chung" wrote in message also to what Tom wrote.... I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up? Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part. I am not surprised at all to see many testimonials on its website. Since they don't provide any technical reasons or measurements, testimonials would be their strongest marketing tool. The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute science. Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us. Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along period of time. Yeah, but would you trust a tweak if the guy making the tweak can't quantify what he has changed? Do you believe the amazing, day and night differences claimed in those testimonials do not show up in measurements? On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. So there you go. I'm sure there are many, many testimonials from people able to hear those differences. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote: "chung" wrote in message also to what Tom wrote.... I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up? Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part. That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same thing at all! The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute science. You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far............... Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us. Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along period of time. Actually, it developed over a very short period of time, and we don't need any new scientific discoveries to take two otherwise identical amps, one orifginal and one 'tweaked', and see if anyone can tell the difference under level-matched double-blind conditions. Now, if these mods really worked, that would be the best possible evidence that the designer could use to promote the product. Now, do you see one single solitary example of this being done? No? Ever wonder why? On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference between a $10 and $200 interconnect. I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you don't *know* which one is connected. However, my friend who bought and the guy who sold the cable claim they can tell the diff btw $200 and $2000 cable. I would like to believe them only if they could take the blind test but they are pretty busy for such childish game. I hope you get my drift. Childish game? The only positive way to know if there really is a difference - you call a childish game? I think we know who is playing games here................... Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back? Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level, from the same discs. That's the fun part. it is my friend's job to remove all the damping in a month or so without my knowledge. Hopefully, he didn't pull a fast one by removing that by now because as of yesterday, I was still hearing the so called 'improvement'. Otherwise, I have to pay for the foolishness by donating a free CD/SACD and one week free flow at Cheers equivalent on me. It's lot simpler than that - just get another, untreated, amplifier and compare the two. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"TChelvam" wrote in message
... Over the weekend I added some damping material called Vibrastop which was mostly used in aviation industry to damp the circuit board and transport in my player. Most of damping done by remounting the circuit board by inserting some material between the chassis and the board. None of the materials were closer than 1 cm to the circuits itself. The board's edge itself was surrounded by the material giving a solid "thud" sound when knocked. Previously a light knock would give out a rattling sound. Result of listening test. The sound became more scaterred ( read separated) between instruments, Sound lacking bite ( read smooth), But i love the bass. Sharp, deep and sometimes longer, or maybe I am mixing with deep and longer but I think the timing is more precise. One thing is obvious, various instruments heard more clearly and telling several voices became more apparent. Now the only problem is I do not know whether it is an improvement. Fatigue factor almost nil but I would also find that the sound was like re-recorded with remixing done at increasing the level of all instrument to be even. BUT, it is different, and I do not like them. The vocal is much lower and the harshness is no longer there. The voice used to sound with a slight breaks or brittle previously but now it is more distanced and smooth (read flat) . All these simply because a little damping? Or is it because I am used to an inferior sound for it has been almost two years since any major change to my equipment? Or am I so confused that I do not know what is good sound ? To be fair to myself I have not made any comparison with other high end product to compare. I want to listen for a month or so and then remove the damping to revaluate again. Right now, I am just listening to my equipment and comparing it before and after damping. After all, damping should improve the sound right?. Or did the manufacturer already had taken in consideration of the microphonic of the circuit board in the design and any extra damping affects the sound negatively? Awaitng for your esteemed comments. In the message I am replying to, I did not see the CD transport brand identified, but the effects of resonance on components is mystifying but real. When added to other [endless] variables and tweaks in hi-end audio, it can become maddening. For some reported issues, there may be as many (endless) honest solutions offered, but most will be based on the hard-earned experience of the originator, based on a fixed set of circumstances. Will they also apply to your circumstance (environment, equipment, taste)? For your specific instance, experimentation and self determination may be the only logical solution. It is possible that the manufacturer of your component designed it to perform to a set level just the way it came out of the box. This means that any changes you make will affect the sound, improving certain aspects while diminishing others. But what is accurate? Probably neither. Any tweaking will be more effective to fine-tune something you are already pretty satisfied with, but will not fix bad performance. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:i42vc.27224$pt3.9084@attbi_s03...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part. That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same thing at all! The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute science. You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far............... Physics absolute science? Or do they call it perfect science? I am no engineer but as a lay man I am cautious to all scientific study and measurements. If scientific measurements is the gospel truth than ever wonder why Formula 1 companies queuing to hire those acoustic experts (I forgot the exact name but he one with headphones and constantly listening in the Sub looking for movements) who work in US submarines. They are hired to hear and tell if something is different in the engine sound. It is a gift and a lot of training to hear what others don't. Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us. Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along period of time. Actually, it developed over a very short period of time, and we don't need any new scientific discoveries to take two otherwise identical amps, one orifginal and one 'tweaked', and see if anyone can tell the difference under level-matched double-blind conditions. Now, if these mods really worked, that would be the best possible evidence that the designer could use to promote the product. Now, do you see one single solitary example of this being done? No? Ever wonder why? On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference between a $10 and $200 interconnect. I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Why is it we assume that tweaks should work for all equipments? I dare to say tweaks only work for budget equipments. Some tweaks probably work for certain type of music. Maybe the one with extreme highs and lows. And it takes a few hours before deciding which one sounds better. So it is no wonder many fail in the double blind test. I can't tell the diff btw my cabletalk ($20) interconnect and the expensive Monstercable immediately but after a few days of listening my preference would be the MonsterCable. Tried all tricks yet I have correctly preferred the more expensive one (reluctantly using the word expensive perhaps better designed would be more appropriate). But if you were to ask me to tell immediately which cable is being played I would fail miserably. However, I am still unable to tell my preference when compared with Monster cable and XLO. They are both identical though the price difference was about 50%. So how do you explain that? Is your $10000 bet under the abovementioned terms? The way I pay attention to music is probably different form the way you listen. Some listen for various instruments or whether they can hear the back singers rather that the main voice. My transport which was considered very High End many years ago, came with its own built-in spike ( one pointed screw at the rear centre) which supposedly affect the sound. If they got a reason for putting it there, then Diamond racing cone's claim is believable. Many tweaks do not work on High End products simply because there is no room for improvement. None worked for my Amp not even the with power conditioner if you want to call that tweaking too. But may negatively. One the other hand, the reason why I do not hear any diff btwn a $200 and $2000 powercord simply because my cheap equipment is not efficient enough for it or it is already High End enough that have a proper power supply built in. Maybe for a $200,000 speakers a $10000 speaker cable would make a difference. I used MAYBE, because I know this is a forbidden territory for me. I have never heard one and probably will never own one. There are four types of music lover. One those love music for music and contend with their mini compo. The way they judge music is different from others. They don't care how high end is the sound output but as long they can reasonably hear what is being played they are contend. The second group is the one likes music and fancy loud and deep bass. They will be contended with that and would not spend an extra penny for the so called High End equipment. And the third, who own expensive equipments just to satisfy their status ego. And fourth, the type who believe in the art of setting up the equipment is to hear difference form one cable and another or a speaker etc etc.. Their main objective is not to hear music but to hear the difference. And in this category some will pretend/imagine hearing the difference and others genuinely do hear. Mr Pinkerton, with due respect , the fifth category is guys in audio engineering believe everything is equal under measurement. However, my friend who bought and the guy who sold the cable claim they can tell the diff btw $200 and $2000 cable. I would like to believe them only if they could take the blind test but they are pretty busy for such childish game. I hope you get my drift. Childish game? The only positive way to know if there really is a difference - you call a childish game? I think we know who is playing games here................... Not me. Can't you remove the damping material and see if the sound changes back? Make sure you are listening at the same position, at the same level, from the same discs. That's the fun part. it is my friend's job to remove all the damping in a month or so without my knowledge. Hopefully, he didn't pull a fast one by removing that by now because as of yesterday, I was still hearing the so called 'improvement'. Otherwise, I have to pay for the foolishness by donating a free CD/SACD and one week free flow at Cheers equivalent on me. It's lot simpler than that - just get another, untreated, amplifier Ĝ and compare the two. My earlier answer applies to this as well. You can't tell the diff immediately unless it is as obvious as black and white or day and night. However, I am not claiming damping a miracle tweak. It sounded differently and was seeking views from others. It maybe my eagearness and expectation after spending one day to damp to hear something different. Probably none. But this time I would say yes. The same way I discovered that isolating your equipment from the speakers sound affects the performance. Maybe that too is a myth. Cheers. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:i42vc.27224$pt3.9084@attbi_s03...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: "chung" wrote in message also to what Tom wrote.... I wonder whether one High End designer who is selling cotton or wool felt damper for the circuit board for his amplifer misleading us? I can't think of any reason why damping a circuit board in an amp can possibly change the sound of the amp. What kind of improvements is he claiming, and does he have any measurements to back those up? Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part. That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same thing at all! The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute science. You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far............... Perhaps, there is some element that is yet to be discovered by us. Isn't it only recently scientists discovered the is another force besides gravity. So maybe, there's is something else that exist but cannot be proven simply because we do not know the existence of that element. I think the measurement of inductance, resistance, capacitance developed over along period of time. Actually, it developed over a very short period of time, and we don't need any new scientific discoveries to take two otherwise identical amps, one orifginal and one 'tweaked', and see if anyone can tell the difference under level-matched double-blind conditions. Now, if these mods really worked, that would be the best possible evidence that the designer could use to promote the product. Now, do you see one single solitary example of this being done? No? Ever wonder why? It may depend on the program material. Not all music exercises all the possibilities. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 6/1/04 12:26 PM, in article H62vc.30683$js4.27069@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On 31 May 2004 15:53:51 GMT, (Ernst Raedecker) wrote: On 29 May 2004 13:18:00 GMT, "Ban" wrote: We believe in the analog world, but the signal of the player is digital. And digital is a go/no-go affair. Actually it is not. The moment the signal leaves the DAC, it becomes analog. Also the rest of the cd player is analog: the transport, the controller of the lense, the transformer, the circuit board, you name it. And all those analog elements influence the sound. No Ernst, they do not necessarily affect the sound. Above a certain standard, which seems to have been reached by many CD/DVD players costing only a few hundred dollars, they do in fact all sound the same - aside from some of the 'high end' ones which are so utterly *incompetent* that they really do sound different! Remember, this is now a very mature technology, the bugs were worked out more than a decade ago. Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's. The point I think you *should* be making is that while there has been tremendous progress, the main benefit is that yesterday's high end technology (now in more modest CD players) is in many cases "good enough" to give truly excellent sound, and many modest ($800) CD players are right at the limit of most recordings' fidelity. If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will find the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM (24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD. For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal. And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that most of the brands talked about here aren't those. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo wrote:
Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's. Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always* exceeded the performance of ADCs. The point I think you *should* be making is that while there has been tremendous progress, the main benefit is that yesterday's high end technology (now in more modest CD players) is in many cases "good enough" to give truly excellent sound, and many modest ($800) CD players are right at the limit of most recordings' fidelity. The reality is that the demands of 16/44 encoding were exceeded at least ten years ago. Anything further is a mere 'numbers game' beloved of marketing departments. If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will find the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM (24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD. DSD is in most respects inferior to 24/96, and 24/192 is the basic standard of 2-channel DVD-A, which is already with us. For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal. There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900 are excellent exemplars of this technology. And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that most of the brands talked about here aren't those. Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 2 Jun 2004 23:24:43 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:i42vc.27224$pt3.9084@attbi_s03... On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:19:35 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: Oh yes! You would be surprised to know how many actually could hear the improvement. See www.altavistaaudio.com and go to the testimonial part. That would be people who *claim* to hear a difference - not the same thing at all! The other part on "measurements" , I would say physics is not an absolute science. You'll injure yourself, sidestepping that far............... Physics absolute science? Or do they call it perfect science? I am no engineer but as a lay man I am cautious to all scientific study and measurements. If scientific measurements is the gospel truth You seem to be missing the point, which is that we're not talking about measurements, we're talking about *listening* tests, where not one single person has *ever* demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound' despite much vocality and handwaving on this and other audio newsgroups. than ever wonder why Formula 1 companies queuing to hire those acoustic experts (I forgot the exact name but he one with headphones and constantly listening in the Sub looking for movements) who work in US submarines. They are hired to hear and tell if something is different in the engine sound. It is a gift and a lot of training to hear what others don't. You mean the sonar/hydrophone operator. And your point is? BTW, in modern submarines, the identification of other submarines at long range is done by machines, which are much more sensitive than even the most gifted human operator. There is nothing mysterious or unknown about acoustics and electronics here, and no 'magic' cables are used in hydrophone circuits, even though they are at least 1,000 times more sensitive than the human ear. On many occassions ( actaully on all occassions), I can't tell the difference btw a $200 and $2000 power cord. But I can tell the difference between a $10 and $200 interconnect. I bet you $10,000 that you can *not* tell the difference, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Why is it we assume that tweaks should work for all equipments? I dare to say tweaks only work for budget equipments. Some tweaks probably work for certain type of music. Maybe the one with extreme highs and lows. And it takes a few hours before deciding which one sounds better. So it is no wonder many fail in the double blind test. Actually, *all* fail in a DBT. I can't tell the diff btw my cabletalk ($20) interconnect and the expensive Monstercable immediately but after a few days of listening my preference would be the MonsterCable. Tried all tricks yet I have correctly preferred the more expensive one (reluctantly using the word expensive perhaps better designed would be more appropriate). But if you were to ask me to tell immediately which cable is being played I would fail miserably. However, I am still unable to tell my preference when compared with Monster cable and XLO. They are both identical though the price difference was about 50%. So how do you explain that? Is your $10000 bet under the abovementioned terms? It is under the usual level-matched double-blind conditions, the standard being more than fifteen correct out of twenty attempts. There is no set time limit. The way I pay attention to music is probably different form the way you listen. Some listen for various instruments or whether they can hear the back singers rather that the main voice. My transport which was considered very High End many years ago, came with its own built-in spike ( one pointed screw at the rear centre) which supposedly affect the sound. If they got a reason for putting it there, then Diamond racing cone's claim is believable. Sure they have a reason - they are hoping that customers think it's a 'high end' tweak. That rubbish was started by YBA, and became fashionable - like bi-wiring. Heck, I even have a set of Michell cones myself - although they're just a table decoration now! And fourth, the type who believe in the art of setting up the equipment is to hear difference form one cable and another or a speaker etc etc.. Their main objective is not to hear music but to hear the difference. And in this category some will pretend/imagine hearing the difference and others genuinely do hear. Nope, not one single person in the last five years, despite many highly vocal *claims*, has been able to demonstrate any such ability to hear 'cable sound'. Mr Pinkerton, with due respect , the fifth category is guys in audio engineering believe everything is equal under measurement. Why do you mention my name in this context? When have I stated any such thing? I am the sixth kind of audiophile, who really *does* trust his ears, and does not need his eyes.................. OTOH, it's true that in every case where there is a *real* audible difference, the reason for it is easily measurable. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
"If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will
find the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM (24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD. For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal." Many here think the red book cd 44/16 is all that is needed for the same goal, as the contrary has yet to be shown. Studioes like higher rates because of the headroom it gives them to play around in mastering. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 6/3/04 6:51 PM, in article pXNvc.2394$Sw.1505@attbi_s51, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo wrote: Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's. Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always* exceeded the performance of ADCs. 'real' engineers? Is that a subjective judgement there, hmmmmmm? ;-) ADC's are much more difficult to do properly, yes, but understanding and improving the science has happened mostly in the last 10 years - the previous 10 was just trying to get the technology and physical hardware to work properly. The point I think you *should* be making is that while there has been tremendous progress, the main benefit is that yesterday's high end technology (now in more modest CD players) is in many cases "good enough" to give truly excellent sound, and many modest ($800) CD players are right at the limit of most recordings' fidelity. The reality is that the demands of 16/44 encoding were exceeded at least ten years ago. Anything further is a mere 'numbers game' beloved of marketing departments. I would agree that the technical achievement had been reached aound 1995-96 time frame - the real achievement has been that the good chips have been made affordable - and the coding and decoding have improved as well - so that more and more is done digitally. I wouldn't ay it is so much a 'numbers game' as that for very little money, you can have a great deal of margin to the specs. If you have the benefit of access to good recording studios, you will find the limits of their technology is high sample rate high bit rate PCM (24bit/96kHz is where most mastering takes place and the A/D and D/A converters are rather pricey at that level. I expect to see 192kHz as a PCM standard before too long as well) - and some have DSD. DSD is in most respects inferior to 24/96, and 24/192 is the basic standard of 2-channel DVD-A, which is already with us. To each their own - 24 bit / 96kHz is the current standard for mastering - the hardware is much more affordable and easier to use. More software is available, too. For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal. There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900 are excellent exemplars of this technology. Agreed. And it also takes a careful design to make use of all 24 bits, even today. Fortunately, most companies can afford to hire engineers capable of using them! And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that most of the brands talked about here aren't those. Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA.......... Wow - you *do* like to fling mud around! |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Bromo wrote:
This reminds me of a friend of mine that is a vinyl-head (doesn't own a CD player - even. But with 500+ LP's why would you?) To also have recordings that are only to be had on CD? And vice versa. Hence, the fultility of eschewing one type of media over the other. (unless ones goal is the elevation of hardware over that of recorded music) |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:a_Nvc.14148$sI.1598@attbi_s52...
On 2 Jun 2004 23:24:43 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: Ok let's start again. I damped a low priced player and heard differences that is not to my liking. You are telling that is not possible. Despite the fact that all electrical component do resonate. Anymore debate on this is going to be a repetition of what has been previously discussed in this group under various headings. Cheers. p.s. Opps.., I mixed up BT Openspace with another engineering organisations. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 4 Jun 2004 00:54:05 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 6/3/04 6:51 PM, in article pXNvc.2394$Sw.1505@attbi_s51, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:11:06 GMT, Bromo wrote: Actually, the process of A to D and D to A has been developing rather rapidly over the last 10 years especially. The chips are better, the understanding of distortion in signals - in the process and in the recording (or A to D ing) have all improved greatly - and has allowed the development of some truly excellent D/A converters whose ability to convert CD's are nearly as good as the D/D converters that made the CD's. Actually, real engineers are well aware that DACs have *always* exceeded the performance of ADCs. 'real' engineers? Is that a subjective judgement there, hmmmmmm? ;-) Nope - a simple statement of fact, at least if we take it that we're discussing electronics engineers rather than civils! :-) ADC's are much more difficult to do properly, yes, but understanding and improving the science has happened mostly in the last 10 years - the previous 10 was just trying to get the technology and physical hardware to work properly. Hooey - I was building ADCs and DACs in the early '70s, and even then, Burr-Brown had a pretty good handle on the technology - although you wouldn't want to be paying the price of a pair of *those* DACs in your CD player (about the price of a VW Golf)! Nowadays there are at least half a dozen companies, from giants like AD to 'back-street' outfits like Wolfson, making excellent 24/192 DACs which *vastly* exceed the requirements of CD replay. The science has not changed in the last ten years, and there haven't even been any significant changes in the engieering, with the possible exception of hybrid 'low-bit' solutions such as the dCS RingDAC. There are literally *dozens* of 24/192 DACs on the market, and the new breed of 'universal' players such as the Pioneer 868/59 and Denon 2900 are excellent exemplars of this technology. Agreed. And it also takes a careful design to make use of all 24 bits, even today. Fortunately, most companies can afford to hire engineers capable of using them! Actually, those engineers are well aware that it's *impossible* to make use of more than about 21 bits in even the best available DACs, when the full-scale output is the standard 2 volts rms. And, of course, there are some really nasty designs, though I suspect that most of the brands talked about here aren't those. Indeed not, that sort of incompetence tends to be restricted to the so-called 'high end' brands such as Audio Note and YBA.......... Wow - you *do* like to fling mud around! Indeed - and it *needs* to be flung at such overpriced dross. At the other end of the scale, the absolute pinnacle of D/A technology is undoubtedly the remarkable Benchmark DAC-1, which sells for less than a tenth of the price of say the Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC, yet massively outperforms it. Heck, it costs less than some people spend on *cables*! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 6/4/04 12:33 PM, in article Lv1wc.50499$Ly.48333@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal." Agreed - I only recently became aware of this remarkable device, which does indeed appear to represent the bleeding edge of D/A technology, and can safely be recommended for any system, however exotic. Finally, one can use one of those gorgeous 'high end' transports without worrying that the sound will not be as good as a $500 Sony DVD player! Heck - use the DVD player as your source - use the TOSLINK to go to the Benchmark and that to the preamp or receiver's "CD" input. But you had better like your CD's recordings - good ones sound pristine, the bad ones will be revealed in all their glory to be bad. And, it is *not* the bleeding edge. You have to go to EMM labs (another pro gear house) for that. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Lv1wc.50499$Ly.48333@attbi_s01...
Quite so, on both counts. Since there exist *no* master tapes with a dynamic range higher than 80dB, there is certainly no need for more than 16 bits (93dB) in the *distribution* medium, although 24 in the *recording* medium are certainly useful for avoiding mic overloads and allowing plenty of EQ. Agreed. The extra bits of headroom effectively allow you to move dynamic processing (such as compressors and limiters) from the analog realm into the digital realm. Software is cheaper than hardware, and software has a neat feature called "Undo." Now, is 24 really necessary? That seems a moot point since ADC's and storage bytes are both getting cheaper and cheaper. I know that on my lowly MiniDisc recorder, I have to give up at least the upper 12 dB (2 bits) of dynamic range to provide sufficient headroom for peaks. This is in a situation where I can't pay close attention to the recording levels because I am busy making the music. I worried about this until I discovered that my microphone doesn't really have a 96 dB dynamic range -- probably more like 80 under normal playing conditions. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 4 Jun 2004 23:15:30 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 6/4/04 12:33 PM, in article Lv1wc.50499$Ly.48333@attbi_s01, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: For the home studio - there is a very good D/A converter that is probably as good as you will ever get for CD conversion and does an excellent job in listening to the masters (24bit/96kHz) as well. Costs about $900 - the Benchmark DAC1 - and will probably be all you would ever need for an audiophile setup if ultimate transparency is your goal." Agreed - I only recently became aware of this remarkable device, which does indeed appear to represent the bleeding edge of D/A technology, and can safely be recommended for any system, however exotic. Finally, one can use one of those gorgeous 'high end' transports without worrying that the sound will not be as good as a $500 Sony DVD player! Heck - use the DVD player as your source - use the TOSLINK to go to the Benchmark and that to the preamp or receiver's "CD" input. No, the point is that one can have the pride of ownership of a beatifully crafted mechanism without having to worry about the sound being inferior. Kinda like having a Patek Philippe Tourbillon watch - even though in that case you *know* that a $10 Casio keeps better time! But you had better like your CD's recordings - good ones sound pristine, the bad ones will be revealed in all their glory to be bad. Well, that's the whole point of high fidelity, now isn't it? :-) And, it is *not* the bleeding edge. You have to go to EMM labs (another pro gear house) for that. Hmmmm. *Very* arguable, IMNVHO, as the technology in the Benchmark unit exceeds anything I've seen touted by EMM (aside from number of channels, of course!). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where did I go wrong?
On 6/5/04 12:10 PM, in article Nfmwc.48861$eY2.47832@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: Heck - use the DVD player as your source - use the TOSLINK to go to the Benchmark and that to the preamp or receiver's "CD" input. No, the point is that one can have the pride of ownership of a beatifully crafted mechanism without having to worry about the sound being inferior. Kinda like having a Patek Philippe Tourbillon watch - even though in that case you *know* that a $10 Casio keeps better time! We both could go into the business of producing really imposing blocks of machined 6061 Aluminum, with the fashionable clear alodyne pwople like these days (we could, for an extra $750 offer black or grey hammertone) - and put in something akin to the Benchmark.... |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Arny Kreuger Claims He Can't Fly, But He Is Wrong About That Too! | Audio Opinions | |||
| What's wrong with cleaning LPs using tap water | High End Audio | |||
| Fixing Marriage at the Wrong End | Audio Opinions | |||
| Why does my turntable spin the wrong way? | High End Audio | |||
| Sony XPLOD XM-754SX: Over current .. What's wrong? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
