|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
144.133.197.141
In Reply to: Still researching, but it seems nearly all benefit from modding - but one company spurns clock upgrades! posted by John C. - Aussie on April 7, 2007 at 19:20:08:
*** making the sound "different" but never better ***Actually, this applies to any mod. That's the problem: there's usually no empirical way of knowing just how "effective" a mod is.
Customer testimonials are suspect - unless you know their frame of reference and trust their judgement. Someone who has paid a lot of money to get a machine modded is predisposed to believe their money is well spent - hardly an objective view.
Speaking from experience, often I hear review units that initially sound impressive, but when I get "used" to the sound it doesn't seem so good anymore. So, what sounds "good" may not be so.
And in the case of mods, very few people get to hear the modded and unmodded units side by side over a long period of time. If they do, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they may even prefer the unmodded sound in some cases.
I would recommend that you ask the modder to provide some empirical evidence (from previously modded units) that the mod deliver statistically valid improvements in terms of "before" and "after" measurements - ie. lower noise floor, lower distortion, lower jitter.
If none of the measurements show any significant improvement, I would question whether the mod is effective.
Follow Ups:
Chris, I think you could be correct in that not all mods are great and a placebo effect can come into play. As has frequently been said, "different" does not always mean "better".But have a geek at the article referred to below.
Even if one has owned a player, got used to its sound, and then sent it off to be modded, it is impossiblet to make valid "before" and "after" comparisons as auditory memory is so poor.
But maybe I have been lucky in the people chosen to modify units here (most done by James at Soundlabsgroup in Melbourne, & DAC mods done by Steve Nugent, Empirical Audio). For example, the OPPO 971H, although recognised for its excellent video, was not as well praised for the audio. After James had modded it the sound from CDs (into the modded Benchmark etc) was excellent.
But in line with your comment I would not swear that a mod to the Meridian 800 improved it dramatically. I sensed the bass was improved but CDs sound far better via the modded OPPO or modded Marantz SACD player.
Bottom line to me is that this whole business of getting great sound from digital is a black art. And some of the modder magicians are better than others and maybe some are merely offering an illusion :-(
John
Do not criticise the idiots in this world - we need them as they make the rest of us look so much better :-)
Thanks for posting the link to the review, and keeping an open mind.In my experience, replacing the op amp post DAC, or the coupling capacitors, will almost certainly change the "sound" a player.
But is the difference an "improvement"? Measured results often suggest otherwise. Often they show little or no significant change, and occasionally a change for the worse.
Also, the review provides no indication that the units being compared was burned in equally, or even came from the same manufacturing batch. Often different batches can sound different.
And putting in a substitute clock may or may not be a good idea, as the link in your previous post suggests. Yes, the clock may intrinsically have lower jitter, but what about the EMI/RFI emitted, and potential impact on stability of voltage rails? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the modded unit exhibits HIGHER jitter due to these factors which could be interpreted as euphonic.
Lastly, the review provided no measurement comparison, so it was hard to be certain that the modded unit is objectively improved. Given that our ears tend to interpret some forms of distortion euphonically (indeed, as I mentioned in my reply to Ted, a common technique used in mixing is to ADD DISTORTION to the mix) it is not beyond possibility that any perceived improvement in the sound could be due to a change in the distortion artefacts in the modded unit.
Chris, you raise very valid points. I've often suspected the love many audiophiles have for vinyl and tubes reflects a subjective feeling of improved sound because of introduced distortion which masks other nasties. But I could be wrong so that statement is not meant to offend or challenge anyone.As for jitter, it seems that there is no generally accepted objective measurement of this either so any quote of a number purporting "low" jitter (implying better sound) is not necessarily helpful.
So, we seem to fall back on subjective judgements and that is full of tanktraps too. What person "A" things is good sound might not appeal to person "B".
In this audio maze (which is frequently difficult to emerge from) all I can do, in the absence of personal audition, is to research opinions on the net and/or accept opinions from people (like yourself) who command respect. When many give subjective positive comment on a unit, it is an indication that it could also be subjectively pleasing to me.
I know this is sidestepping your challenge about the validity of modding, but my experience with it has been generally positive. I guess most of us seek a little magic in this audio-video mania :-)
John
Do not criticise the idiots in this world - we need them as they make the rest of us look so much better :-)
*** there is no generally accepted objective measurement of this either ***There are a number of units out there that measures jitter. True, none of them really measure absolute jitter, but they give indications of relative jitter.
I would have thought the least that one can do when replacing the clock is to at least provide before and after measurements. Otherwise, how do we know whether the jitter is actually improved? For all we know the clock may not be the limiting factor - it could be a number of things (voltage rail stability, EMI/RFI, PLL reclocking, ...) Just replacing the clock and thinking that it will improve jitter is naive at best, or wishful thinking.
I'm not against mods, I like doing them myself. For example, the latest mod that I did (over Christmas) was wrapping the audio circuit board in grounded aluminum foil (taking care to avoid short circuits) as an attempt to improve EMI compatibility.
It seems to sound better after I have done the mod, but to be honest the measurements are not statistically significant. So was it really an improvement or not? Who knows, but it makes me feel better. So I will admit I am also susceptible to the voodoo that surrounds this hobby of ours.
LOL. But really it is only an extention of the magic of listening to music!John
Do not criticise the idiots in this world - we need them as they make the rest of us look so much better :-)
HowdyI avoided mods for a while for the reasons you list. But there is no question that the mods that some modders do are quite obvious. Years ago I had a Perp Tech P-3A dac and since the manufacturer stood behind ModWright's mods to it I figured I had nothing to loose. I was frankly incredulous at the difference having it modded, but since it sounded a lot more like SACD I decided it was good :)
At the local audio club we've had modded units next to unmodded units and a few times it was like you describe, just a slight difference but arguable which is better.
On the other hand some mods are like night and day. Here's a report I posted here long ago: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/40299.html
Needless to say I don't recommend some modder's work, but I do other's... (And no, don't ask in public who's work I don't like.)
I'm prepared to accept that some mods make sense, and some modders may indeed know what they are doing. My post wasn't intended to be a universal condemnation of modding :-)However, the issue I have of most comparisons is that they are anecdotal rather than objective. To date, I have not seen any empirical evidence - noise floor lowered by at least 1dB, jitter halved, etc. etc. The only objective measurements I have seen are my own, and they are decidedly inconclusive at best, and in at least one instance the modded unit exhibited far worse measurements so the end result is certainly different, but not better.
For example, even the report you posted was of a comparison that was problematic. Sony players, as we both know, do improve from burning in and comparing a brand new stock unit with a used modded design is unfair, as you pointed out. And since no measurements were taken all we know is that the units sound different, we don't know for sure that the unit that sounded better is *really* better.
For example, if you kept both units for several weeks and listened to both of them over an extended period of time, you may find over time that you prefer the unmodded unit.
It's easy to initially mistake increased distortion artefacts, or even increased jitter, as euphonic. Indeed, a common technique during mixing is to add a "harmonic exciter" to the mix or individual tracks - in other words, adding distortion to the sound. Used judiciously (and I'm not ashamed to admit I use it myself) the sound can indeed liven up. But if you listen to the sound for an extended period of time, you may find that you will grow to dislike the sonic signature.
Also, seemingly trivial and insignificant changes can cause a perception of improved sound. For example, when I took my Sony player to the repair centre to get the laser replaced, it seemed the player sounded much better when it was returned (and I was careful enough to do a comparison between it and my reference player before and after). And yet absolutely no changes were made to the design, and the parts that are swapped in are no better than the original.
And several weeks ago John proved over in diyhifi.org (rather comprehensively I thought) that the Lavry DA10 was resampling no matter what reclocking mode was selected - and in fact the only difference when flicking the switch were slight differences in the power supply noise. And yet many people claim they can hear the difference between CrystalLock and Narrow modes and that CrystalLock sounded substantially better.
Perception bias is very powerful. If we *want* to hear a difference, we *will* hear a difference. Even when we don't expect to hear a difference, sometimes we seem to hear a difference. But is the difference significant, or even better?
HowdyI'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the kind of changes from some mods are obvious to all and there is no question that short or long term listening agree that things are better. In my system when I'm tweaking in general if there isn't a very big difference I usually leave well enough alone for the very reasons you mention.
To me Bybee purifiers, most cable changes, most isolation tweaks, etc. are in the category you are talking about. But more power supply filtering, some judicious use of better quality components, etc. make an almost unambiguous difference.
*** but the kind of changes from some mods are obvious to all and there is no question that short or long term listening agree that things are better ***Don't disagree that changes can be very obvious. For example, simply replacing the op amp used for the reconstruction filter causes a very audible change. And indeed it is possible to form a definite view that one sounds better, even after protacted listening.
But what is not clear is whether the "better" sounding op amp is truly better than the stock op amp. For example, the replacement op amp may have a faster slew rate, which may make the music sound more dynamic, but at the expense of higher distortion artefacts.
For example, I can process all the music I listen to via a set of mastering effects - adding harmonic excitement, doing some EQ, widening the sound image, and adding a bit of reverb.
Again there is no question the result may sound "better", even after protracted listening. But is the sound truly "better", or simply more euphonic? At the end of the day, are we interested in the actual sound that is recorded, or the "colour" added by the electronics?
I would be interested in a mod if the mod makes sense (from a technical perspective), and it yields objectively superior results. But I'm not willing just to trust a listening test, whether it's my ears or someone elses. I've learnt over the years my ears are very untrustworthy.
HowdyI agree about having the mods (or tweaks) make technical sense and I (generally) narrow candidate mods (tweaks) down that way.
But I don't think I agree about listening... There's no way I'm going to delve into each possible unit I might buy to see exactly which opamps, etc. are used and if they have the correct ancillary components around them to sound the best... I'll just use my ears. I feel the same about mods except I can talk to the modder to see why he wants to make certain changes to the circuity.
I would agree that no amount of technical measurements, $$$ parts or clever design will overcome a unit that sounds bad. So the ears are pretty important - and they are indeed useful in narrowing down components.I suppose my comments were applicable only in the context of using the ears alone to judge potential improvements from modding.
Trichord Research and Audiocom have been making their own aftermarket clocks for many years now, and both seem to realise that it is necessary to install a separate dedicated power supply designed specifically for their clocks.I have a Marantz CD7 with the full Trichord compliment of upgrades but unfortunately didn't hear it before the mods. All I can say is that it's a superb player and the guy who owned it before me was a Marantz enthusiast who had no doubt of the improvements brought by the modifications, and he had an unmodified CD7 to make the comparisons with after every stage of the process.
*** the guy who owned it before me was a Marantz enthusiast who had no doubt of the improvements brought by the modifications, and he had an unmodified CD7 to make the comparisons with after every stage of the process. ***Well, dare I suggest that perception bias and the placebo effect is at work here.
After all, since he has already committed to paying for the mod, he's hardly in an objective frame of mind. As a control experiment, I would be willing to bet his reaction would have been similar if all that happened at every "stage of the process" was the player being burned in, and no substantial changes made to it other than soldering a few stray wires to give the illusion that changes have been made (and of course, a few stray wires here and there will change the EMI compatibility which may cause the player to sound different).
And since he was trying to sell the player to you (which you subsequently bought), of course it is in his interest to claim that there were substantial improvements, which increases the perceived value (and selling price) of the player.
Sorry to be so negative, but I'm trying to be a Devil's Advocate here.
"Well, dare I suggest that perception bias and the placebo effect is at work here."Of course you dare suggest it, but don't assume that it's definitely the case; it's a possibility and I've made plenty of posts myself warning of a sideways step when it comes to upgrading which may initially be mistaken for an improvement.
"After all, since he has already committed to paying for the mod, he's hardly in an objective frame of mind."
Well, in this instance he'd already had the clocks upgraded in other Marantz players (including the Marantz CD12 and DA12 combination)) so he had invaluable experience with both modded and unmodded players before committing to have the CD7 re-clocked, and it's logical that he was in a perfect position to determine if previously impressive results of re-clocking proved to be not so impressive after extended listening.
I should add that the mods to the player I bought are far more extensive than re-clocking and Trichord couldn't actually think of any more mods to perform apart from replacing the Marantz HDAMs which would have meant the player was effectively no longer a Marantz CD7.
"And since he was trying to sell the player to you (which you subsequently bought), of course it is in his interest to claim that there were substantial improvements, which increases the perceived value (and selling price) of the player."The price I paid was the going rate for a used, unmodified player so it wasn't really necessary for me to be convinced that the mods were beneficial, but I do have a healthy respect for Graham Fowler's work so was quite confident that improvements would have been made.
"Sorry to be so negative, but I'm trying to be a Devil's Advocate here."No problem, and if you'd made a similar post to mine it's quite likely I'd have been playing Devil's advocate myself, making the same observations you did. :0)
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: