|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.229.248.15
I think that it describes the goings on here more accurately than "Tweakers' Asylum".
Follow Ups:
Steve and John bickering like a pair of old tights.
Nothing new here, and definitely not Newsworthy... been going on for YEARS... (at least since 1990 something when I first joined...)
Owen
It would seem that 'tweaks and mods' are severely constrained by past behavior of people who don't believe in them, or in the opinions of many other people who have attempted to contribute here, including me. I was, in fact, one of those people who went away for awhile, because of the difficulty expressing my audio experiences, without significant Xtalk from SE and several others. I must admit that I returned here for some temporary peace from 'you-know-who' knowing he would not be here for awhile. Here, I could discuss Bybee devices, etc without censorship, at least for a week or so. I found it rather pleasant, back here; you know, instant communication, rather than waiting for some moderator reading and approving what I might say, which even if rejected, was much milder than most here would post, on average.
Now where does this website go from here? If you suppress ALL debate and discussion, the thread gets boring, and slow. Everybody goes away. If you let the nay-sayers run the show, you get another website, basically a self satisfied bunch of critics, attacking the very concept of 'tweaks' as being an imaginary artifact of people's perception. They speak out like an active atheist in any church, telling the churchgoers to save their money in their efforts to find salvation. In this context, what would the church elders do? This is the dilemma.
They speak out like an active atheist in any church, telling the churchgoers to save their money in their efforts to find salvation.
What are you saying, John? That tweaking is a religion?
se
What are you saying, John? That tweaking is a religion?
Steve you know what he was saying.... And the way I read what he said he was not saying tweaking is a religion.
From the outside looking in it appears you want to be banned from posting on tweakers Asylum. You no longer seem to contribute to the topic but rather try to disrupt the flow of conversation.
For the 30 days you were put on vacation I noticed some old familiar names were posting again. Many come to this forum to relax and enjoy what others have to say. What they do not come for is confrontation.
I am sure you mean well,... but the people here are big boys and girls and are capable of deciding for themselves about the merits of a tweak.
Sorry If I rubbed you the wrong way... The way you are going is sure to get you banned from this forum and then what. Tweakers will go on without you.
If arguing is your bag outside is a great place to visit. Argue about pretty much anything you like.
Best regards,
Jim
I think not. Perhaps he's saying that arguing is a religion.
-Rod
Of course, Rod, I was just using a church's location as an example. You can't get people to stop arguing in a barroom, but at a lecture, be it church, a classroom, or even a small meeting between interested individuals, a certain decorum is expected, and is also most productive. It should be the same here and on any other website talking about subjectively held matters.
Whatever he's saying, it's become tiring. So what if Steve occasionally challenges folks who make factual instead of subjective claims? From cables to clocks, this hobby is known for using pseudo science to sell stuff to people who want to believe the latest is the greatest. I have no problem with Steve's posts and actually appreciate the humor.
I think not. Perhaps he's saying that arguing is a religion.
If that's what he's saying, then he's saying that it's his religion, seeing as he paints me as the atheist in his example.
se
N/T
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
Like Cables, should it be a DBT zone?
Would required registration avoid the worst of the trolls?
Any ideas to make mine and Jon's life easier is appreciated.
-Rod
I have copied your own Mission Statement. However, it is the Mission Statement of another section !! Why can't it be used now for the "Tweaks" section ??
[quote] "The point of this ward is to discuss, for lack of a better phrase, "experimental or alternative audio"... approaches that are said to alter the subjectively perceived quality of playback, frequently with an absence of traditional/observable/measurable effects on pressure waves coming from speakers or the normally accepted signal chain.
Those who choose to participate in this on-going dialogue can be open-minded or skeptical, but their contributions (if they are to not vanish) will need to be geared to expanding and exploring the possibilities, not denying them. In short, those who choose to use science as a religion that worships at the altar of that which has already been established should post elsewhere.
The purpose of this forum will be to openly--and with genuine curiosity--consider the "experimental" and explore that which has yet to be (possibly) recognized. On the other hand, knee jerk responses from the other end of the spectrum--overreacting to constructive or exploratory skepticism--is behavior that only contributes to silliness and angst, and is also not acceptable.
To those who ask, "Isn't this being unscientific?":
Some may think so. Experimental audio is simply one approach. It does not say that differences exist with every application, only that there may be differences, some of which can't be addressed with conventional tools or understanding.
Many people feel that the true character of a system--which includes the listener (since you canąt separate the observer from the observed) and those applications/variables which affect the physiology or psychology of the listener ... wine, food, health, emotional state--is only realized after living with the variable in question. These people assert that it takes suspension of habitual/time-honored approaches, beliefs and perspectives; a willingness to experiment; and, sometimes, a good deal of time to fully appreciate and/or understand these certain differences. Understanding and appreciation, however, don't always go hand in hand. Almost all people appreciate love, few understand it. Does that mean we should do without?" [/quote]
Could I recommend this same Mission Statement for "Tweakers Asylum" section ?
Would it do the 'trick' ? We obviously don't know for sure, but it might be worth a try !!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
Could I recommend this same Mission Statement for "Tweakers Asylum" section ?
Why?
That mission statement was written specifically for the Isolation Ward, which is for "ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks." It doesn't, nor should it in my opinion, apply to this forum, which is about more conventional tweaks as well as DIY.
se
In recent months the following topics, among many others, were discussed here on Tweakers Asylum. Gee, it's getting kind of hard to tell the convention tweaks from the unconventional ones.o Treating crystals
o Storing CDs away from electronics (for better sound)
o Hematite (crystal)
o Ultrabit Platinum Plus vs other CD treatments
o Waterfilled speaker cable
o Ionizer
o Crystal types to use
o Crystals inside IC housings
o Fuse directionality
o Treating crystals (no. 2)
o VPI Magic Brick
o Amethyst beads wrapped around speaker cables
o Cryogenic treatment
o Wood preamp knobs
o Herbies Black Hole CD damper (many threads)
o Blue incandescent light tweak
o Lossless Blackbody
o ERS paper (several threads)
o Tiny bowl acoustic resonators
o Herbies Gabon ebony dome
o Cryo'd fuses
Edits: 02/10/11
In recent months the following topics, among many others, were discussed here on Tweakers Asylum. Gee, it's getting kind of hard to tell the convention tweaks from the unconventional ones.
No, it's just that Jon doesn't bother reading the posts here unless someone's complaining.
Guess it just goes to show who has the itchiest trigger fingers when it comes to the Comment button.
se
There's room here for even the most sensitive neophobes.Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Edits: 02/11/11
nt
In order to post at Tweaker's, you must be registered.
Posts are assumed to be personal experience, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Conjecture about what causes a particular sound is assumed to be just that, conjecture. If not specifically stated to be conjecture is is automatically assumed to be. No challenges or confrontation will be allowed over such conjecture.
Demands for proof of any such conjecture will not be allowed.
People can talk all day, every day, about why something might sound the way it does, and there is no need to challenge it, no excuse for being rude, or dogmatic, etc., about such demands for proof.
Folks demanding such proof can (and will be) banned at the Moderator's discretion, even for just one such demand. Zero tolerance policy.
Tell me what you think.
Jon Risch
Hi Jon,How about :-
=======================================================================
The primary aim of the Tweakers Asylum, is for the sharing of 'tweaks' that we personally believe to be of audible benefit, but are most importantly fun to try.This is a group therapy room, you will need be registered to fully participate in the discussions.
All of the opinions expressed here are personal.
Any discussion that contains requests for mathematical, or scientific rigour including DBT will be moved to the propellor head forum - this is not the asylum for such discussions.
Inmates that make requests in a persistant, or offensive manner will be prescibed a dose of meds and may be sent outside to smell the roses.
=======================================================================
Owen
Edits: 02/17/11
I forgot to add:
No DBT discussion, ala Cables.
This is implied, but not spelled out, in my original post.
Jon Risch
I forgot to add:
No DBT discussion, ala Cables.
That's fine as long as it goes along with "No claims of audibility."
se
Others just relate their own experiences - and, if you prefer to call that "claims of audibility", that's fine. However, since this forum is strictly experience-based, requirement of not relating experiences sounds absurd.But you know that - just continue to play your favorite, boring and VERY long in tooth, game.
Edits: 02/11/11
[quote] "In other words, keep the two sorts of discussion separate—have an "experience based forum" and an "evidence based forum". If you post in the first you're saying "I don't want to discuss issues of proof and evidence, I just want to discuss what I experienced". If you post in the second forum you're saying "OK, let's argue the evidence for these claims". In my view those are 2 different but equally legitimate sorts of discussion. Posters should be able to choose which sort of discussion they want to take part in, and be able to do so without the kind of discussion they want to have being taken over by those who want to have the other sort of discussion. Anyone who wants to take part in both can also do so if they wish, and anyone who chooses to discuss their personal experiences in the evidence based forum is saying that they're prepared to deal with demands for proof to back up whatever they say their experience was.
That seems the fairest way of going about things to me." [/quote]
That is a nice idea put forward by David Aiken, coupled with yours - if only !!
[quote] "Conjecture about what causes a particular sound is assumed to be just that, conjecture. If not specifically stated to be conjecture is is automatically assumed to be. No challenges or confrontation will be allowed over such conjecture.
Demands for proof of any such conjecture will not be allowed." [/quote]
I would suggest that conjecture should be able to be challenged but no DEMANDS for PROOF of the conjecture allowed. A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproved. (to quote Karl Popper).
One problem is that in a discussion on an "experience based forum", people are wont to say "I tried it 'the tweak' and heard an improvement - but Why, How ?" Meaning that they would like some sort of understanding of what might be going on !!
Discussion threads CAN be 'ground to a halt' - by people bent on mischief - even by them merely being flippant constantly when others are trying to seriously discuss the subject. And, also WHY ELSE would insistence on proof from DB Trials be actually banned from the Cable Asylum section ??
To quote from the Cable Asylum:-
[quote] " Posting Rules at Asylum DBT Free Zones
*Pro-DBT posts are not allowed.
* Anti-DBT posts are also not allowed.
Why are DBT discussions not allowed?
Quite simply, the reason is that these topics rarely spark a productive exchange. While a vast majority of Asylum inmates are firmly in the middle ground, the topics of DBT and ABX tend to force polarization and quickly degrade into death spiraling flame wars. [/quote]
***************
So, it is obvious to many people that 'threads' CAN BE derailed by certain individuals. !!!!!!
THEN, what happens is that WHOLE chunks of a discussion can be deleted - the proverbial baby let out with the bathwater !!!!
I am glad to see that caspian@peak.org has come back into the discussion again because I would like to use one of 'caspian's' recent replies as an example.
'Caspian's' reply to one of John C's postings was a good reply. Quite a bit of thought and energy had obviously gone into 'caspian's' response. I replied to 'caspian' (just before going to bed that night) saying as much and (I think) tried to emphasise that designing and manufacturing Hi Fi equipment is not straightforward by any means !!
The following morning, on checking what were the latest comments, I found that 'caspian's' response (referred to earlier) was missing and therefore, obviously any responses which came after it. !!! So, someone must have posted a disruptive response so that a whole chunk was deleted, including 'caspian's' well thought out response !!
I have just a small section of that particular response by 'caspian' - and you will see (as an example of what I mean) how a good, well thought out response just 'went out with the bathwater'. Completely unnecessarily.
Original quote from 'caspian' :-
[quote] "BUT you have then established that a particular modification DOES work. You have probably also, in the process, established that a number of other modifications do NOT work. So, you have assembled a body of empirical data as to what does and does not work.
This is not "yet" engineering, but it certainly qualifies as research, upon which hypotheses may be founded as to WHY certain things do, or do not work. Next stage in the scientific method is the testing of these hypotheses for replicability. Only then, when you can predictably replicate particular aspects of performance with particular parts complements, board layouts, or whatever, does it become engineering.
Most of the history of science is the history of negative results. Edison tried something like 90 different filament materials for his incandescent bulb, before arriving at tungsten which worked the best. He said something like: "I did not have 90 failures. I learned about 90 materials that did not work in this application." [/quote]
The problem with having completely separate sections is that so much of audio and what can affect 'sound' ARE 'linked' by both subjective experiences and also, some of the time, by conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
However, I will give two examples of other (what I would call disruptive) responses.
Within one of Unclestu's 'tweak' suggestions one of the responders (SE) said:-
[quote] "Today, "tweaking" has more and more become what I feel is a symptom of an underlying mental illness, as people do battle with all manner of invisible demons," [/quote]
Now, Jon R and Rod M, either you regard such a response as coming under the umbrella of "freedom of speech" or you see it as 'disruptive' within the thread. It even ceases to be merely "challenging someone's conventional explanations" !!!
In my opinion, it is also an insult to the people who have enjoyed improvements in their sound from applying various 'tweaks' over the past 30 years - including the many people who are ALSO competent engineers, fully conversant with conventional electronic and acoustic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but yet can hear similar improvements from similar 'tweaks'. Just because someone else who has not even tried the techniques mentioned yet challenges others experiences does not mean that the techniques do NOT work as described. Yet they chose to 'diss' others observations by referring to their 'tweaks' and experiences as "a symptom of an underlying mental illness" !!!!!!!
THAT is why the comments quoted are disruptive !!
The comment I have quoted was not just to ONE thread or to ONE single participant. The same response occurred elsewhere concerning a different subject.
Jason Victor Serinus was covering the January Hi Fi show in 2011 for Stereophile and reported on (for example) the Stein Music Harmonizers.
The following comment on Stereophile was :-
[quote] "Nah. It's just another dalliance brought forth by the mentally ill for the mentally ill and which does nothing more than saddle this industry with yet further embarrassment.
That Stereophile of all publications should brand it as "intriguing" in their show report is truly sad." [/quote]
Are such comments disruptive or not ???
[quote] "Folks demanding such proof can (and will be) banned at the Moderator's discretion, even for just one such demand. Zero tolerance policy." [/quote]
The quotes re "a symptom of an underlying mental illness" I have given as examples of disruptive responses would not come under the umbrella of "demanding proof", so would such comments trigger banning ??? Would they trigger a Zero Tolerance policy ??
Surely those comments point to a serious and ingrained aversion to 'tweaks' - whereas, as many will testify, various 'tweaks' have given them many improvements in the sound and therefore in their pleasure in listening to music. SURELY that is what it is all about ??
Surely this is what "Tweakers Asylum" is all about and why people wish to participate ?
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
Either if they are trying to sell their products, or has been the case here, trying to cast aspersion on hobbyists experience which can have the appearance of trying to discredit ideas which might impinge on their livelihoods or even their "beer money" ventures, if that is the case?
When people selling tweaks seem to take pleasure in making fun of amateur's tweaks and not in a substantive way, just sniping fro reasons that have escaped most of us, there seems to be something that is usually against the rules of the FORUMS, but seems to escape the letter of the rule on the TWEAKS forum.
Who is to say that someone who sells tweaky stuff who makes fun of an hobbyist's tweak is not trying to promote their product which is not allowed in other forums? Could this be a form of self-promotion? When someone makes a verbal spectacle of themselves it does verge if not cross into actual self-promotion, in my opinion.
After what I have read I wonder if it might be best to ask manufacturers, and especially manufacturers of tweak stuff to recuse themselves from the TWEAKS forum for all but answering questions members have about their specific products.
Of course, they can always find surrogates to post for them but that would be easier to ignore.
What exactly are you going on about?
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts
(nt)
"
-In order to post at Tweaker's, you must be registered.
-Posts are assumed to be personal experience, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
-Conjecture about what causes a particular sound is assumed to be just that, conjecture.
"
Good Jon. And I think that would be a good place to stop as we're likely not at the point of benefiting from draconian rules.
Regards, Rick
John's suggestion makes sense to me. Some additions about the purposes of this forum might be helpful.
My perception/expectation is that this forum is about sharing individual ideas and experimentation with audio equipment, software and room acoustics that might add to one's enjoyment of their audio hobby.
It does not matter whether discussed tweaks produce any objective, demonstrable, or quantifiable effect, or whether just the process of trying them might add to one's enjoyment. This forum is simply about individual experimentation for fun and enjoyment, so long as they are done with due consideration of life safety. It is assumed many tweaks will be technical dead ends. Wonderful if some can also advance scientific knowledge, but that isn't a primary purpose here.
Since no one has to prove the reality or basis for any tweaks, that may lead to situations like "putting 3-inch purple smiley face stickers on the bottoms of my speakers dramatically tightened up the bass, but yellow stickers made the highs harsh" but so what? This is not a forum of scientific inquiry. If a tweaks seems riduculous to you, don't feel compelled to try them or respond to the post. If the moderators feel an individual habitually posts loony (in the moderators view) ideas that won't advance the purposes of the forum, ban them.
The same goes for posts that question the reality or basis for a tweak. If those types of posts don't add to enjoyment of the hobby, don't respond. If the moderators think an individual habitually makes the posts and they aren't adding to the purposes here, ban them.
I essentially agree with everything you've said.
However as I've said in another post, I don't agree with Jon's putting conjecture off limits.
You say:
Since no one has to prove the reality or basis for any tweaks, that may lead to situations like "putting 3-inch purple smiley face stickers on the bottoms of my speakers dramatically tightened up the bass, but yellow stickers made the highs harsh" but so what? This is not a forum of scientific inquiry.
Yes. But...
Let's say they continue beyond that and say that it has to do with the wavelength of purple light versus the wavelength of yellow light.
Would you not agree that that aspect should be open for discussion?
se
Steve, I read Jon's post as stating everything should be viewed as conjecture, so any discussion of it shouldn't insist on a proof. That means it's fine to discuss the value of ideas in a constructive way, but that doesn't include demanding proof.
Spirited debate is beneficial unless done in a way that consistently takes it into the weeds. That's a matter of communication style. One can challenge or disagree in a way that isn't caustic, repetitive or insulting, but is respectful, helpful and moves the conversation forward. When one of my staff would consistently do the former, I would direct them to change style to the latter, be quiet, or leave the meeting.
Likewise, sometimes folks are overly sensitive to any question. They quickly get defensive and say others don't play fair or are picking on them. That reaction can also take things into the weeds by altering the tone of the conversation. It shifts attention from the debate of ideas to the individuals and their personalities. Not much hope of useful outcome at that point. When my staff did that we would try to depersonalize the discussion. If they still couldn't accept any non-personal criticism, it was time for more training! Some are just too thin-skinned to participate in debate.
It's incumbent on all particpants to embrace the spirit and purpose of the forum. We all make mistakes in communication, and they are magnified by the Internet where we are not face to face in the same room. Trivial slights quickly blown out of proportion.
Participants can minimize that by always assuming best intentions on the part of others. That means ignoring perceived slights and continuing with discussion at a high level.Just because you think someone is rude or hypercritical doesn't mean you have to respond in-kind or at all. If you think slights are ongoing, those folks should discuss that OFF-LINE, but never on the forum.
If that doesn't work, and it seems someone is always picking on another, that should be brought to the attention of the moderators OFF-LINE. If the moderators won't enforce order, then it's time to find a new forum. Life is tough enough without dragging personality clashes into a hobby forum.
...on Prop-Head, not here.
Isn't that the purpose of that forum?
...on Prop-Head, not here.
Ok. If that's to be the case, then those aspects shouldn't be allowed to be stated here in the first place.
Agreed?
se
Or one could just say "thanks for sharing those ideas; let's discuss them in a more appropriate forum."
But I'm just an interested lurker. Up to the regular participants and moderators to sort it out.
Or one could just say "thanks for sharing those ideas; let's discuss them in a more appropriate forum."
I suppose.
But it makes absolutely no sense to me to be allowed to speak of something in one forum, but it can only be discussed in another.
If it's something that can be discussed at all, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be discussed in the forum it was originally spoken of.
If not, then it shouldn't be spoken of in that forum to begin with.
se
"But it makes absolutely no sense to me to be allowed to speak of something in one forum, but it can only be discussed in another.
If it's something that can be discussed at all, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be discussed in the forum it was originally spoken of.
If not, then it shouldn't be spoken of in that forum to begin with."
Steve, things can never be perfectly fair to everyone all of the time. I certainly think it's okay to discuss all points of view, as long as it's done in respectfully, in the spirit of the forum and doesn't continually rehash points previously made. That's just poor signal to noise.
Bob
Steve, things can never be perfectly fair to everyone all of the time.
I'm not looking for perfectly fair. I just think it should at least make some sense.
se
Sense, is a subjective term. Your 'sense' does not seem to match our 'sense'. That is why we go round, and round, and round. Heck, I recently found debates between you and me, back in 2003, from this website, that could be cut and pasted here, today, without much trouble.
Edits: 02/10/11 02/10/11
1993, you were hassling me even then? I have to check out my records.
1993, you were hassling me even then?
Oh, before that even.
Here's an exchange between you and me back in '91. On the Tweaks & Mods forum even.
Msg#:29875 *Tweaks & Mods*
05/21/91 02:06:53
From: JOHN CURL
To: MYLES B. ASTOR (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 29783 (THIS IS SCIENCE?)
MYLES, in a way I have to agree with Ken on how far an audio enthusiast
reaches for a new experience. Sometimes, high end audio seems to go in
circles. I have to equally beware of some zealot shoving some new connector
down my throat, or insisting on "zap wire" or a generic equivalent. There is
an audio marketplace out there and like the stock market, people like to keep
it it stirred. It's important that we make progress, not go in circles.
Don't worry, I'm not conceding to the professors, it just that we have to give
more than enthusiasm to making the audio experience the best possible. A
little skepticism can be helpful in getting our path clear of diversions.
It's not only power supplies that makes vacuum tubes different than solid
state designs. IN SHORT FORM, here goes:
Tubes are linear devices with 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion. (easy listening)
Tube circuits have a fair amount of distortion, especially at the frequency
extremes. Solid state devices have 2,3,5, and sometimes 7,9,11th harmonic
distortion. (can be harsh) Solid state circuits can have very low measured
distortion, because of high negative feedback. Tube circuits have to be
capacitor coupled between stages. (Lots of linear distortion, easy to modify)
Tubes are almost always Class A in preamp stages and AB1 for power output
stages. (inherently low distortion) Solid state circuits usually try for class
B operation for preamp output and power output stages. (usually high
crossover distortion) Tubes can be very noisy, microphonic and hum prone.
(easy to improve by amateurs, and source of endless discussion on TAN) Bipolar
circuits are complementary in nature, which gives far more permutations and
combinations in topology than tubes. FET's are at least twice as linear as
bipolar transistors, and can be as quiet as bipolars for all practical
purposes. Power supplies are important in both tube and bipolar circuits. I
take power supply design seriously in both bipolar and vacuum tube designs.
I could go on forever, but the bottom line is that both tubes and solid state
devices are useful and with serious design, good sounding. They will not
sound exactly the same, nonetheless. Only you can pick your poison.
Msg#:29969 *Tweaks & Mods*
05/22/91 14:14:31
From: STEVE EDDY
To: JOHN CURL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 29875 (THIS IS SCIENCE?)
"Solid state circuits usually try for class B operation for preamp output
and power output stages."
Huh? Are you talking about high end audio here or the bargain basement at
Circuit City? Virtually every solid state preamp I've come across that didn't
use ICs has had class A biasing throughout. Same goes for most amplifier
driver stages. Most power amps are biased somewhere in the AB range with only
the Naim gear being true class B. Class B is virtually extinct these days so I
don't think the above statement is adequate for your comparison.
se
Msg#:30005 *Tweaks & Mods*
05/23/91 01:54:30
From: JOHN CURL
To: STEVE EDDY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 29969 (THIS IS SCIENCE?)
AB what? 1,2,2-, most solid state amplifiers have higher order distortion
caused by low output quiescent current. Ask Ken where he biases his amplifer.
Msg#:30094 *Tweaks & Mods*
05/24/91 11:40:10
From: STEVE EDDY
To: JOHN CURL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 30005 (THIS IS SCIENCE?)
Oh I wasn't intending to split hairs on the type of AB biasing or higher
order distortion of SS amplifiers. I simply disagreed with your statement that
"Solid state circuits usually try for class B operation for preamp output and
power output stages. (usually high crossover distortion)." Can you give me an
example of any high end products that fit that description?
se
Never did give me an example of any high end products that fit that description.
se
That was a quibble from you, even then. I stand by the fact that MOST audio preamps, and especially the ones using IC's, have class B outputs. I DEFINE class B, in a preamp as when the preamp cannot both drive its feedback and its power amp load with approximately its output stage quiescent current at 2V rms output.
Now to show what this means. Let us say that the feedback resistor is 3.3Kohms. Let us say that the power amp is 50K ohms. Then, the peak current at 2V rms, (3Vpk) is approximately 1 ma.
Now this is just an example, BUT most IC's don't have 1 ma output stage quiescent current. Now, can this be 'fudged' to keep it within the guidelines? Yes, but ONLY with a higher value feedback resistor (more overall noise) and a high Z load (50K or greater). Real designs cannot assure this.
Another quibble, (best to take care of it in advance) is that the 'class A region' can be defined as 2 times the quiescent current, BUT that presumes a perfectly linear output stage, so that both sides of the output stage are contributing equally, but this is almost impossible, so it is better to stop at 50% of the full output current deviation for both sides, where linearity is still pretty good.
That was a quibble from you, even then.Wasn't a quibble at all.
You made a very broad statement without any qualifications.
I stand by the fact that MOST audio preamps, and especially the ones using IC's, have class B outputs.
But that's not what you stated originally. There was no qualification about preamps using IC's. You simply said "Solid state circuits usually try for class B operation for preamp output..."
And when I replied, I said virtually every solid state preamp I'd come across that didn't use IC's had class A biasing throughout.
So what preamps that don't use IC's are biased in class B? According to you that would be most of them. Can you name some of them?
se
Edits: 02/10/11
Steve, I worked for more than 1 year for HK as a design consultant. I debated THIS with the then preamp designer. He wanted class B operation, I recommended class A. How many OTHER discrete preamps followed this formula. What about Sony? What about Yamaha? What about just about everybody, except hi end manufacturers, like Mark Levinson, Krell, etc?
You are still quibbling with a master designer, why?
What about just about everybody, except hi end manufacturers, like Mark Levinson, Krell, etc?
We weren't talking about mass market gear at Circuit City.
Here is the question I put to you lo those 20 years ago:
Can you give me an example of any high end products that fit that description?
You are still quibbling with a master designer, why?
I've never questioned your design skills, John.
se
Heck, I recently found debates between you and me, back in 1993, from this website...
Uh, John, this website didn't exist in 1993.
In 1993, we were on The Audiophile Network.
Here's a little sample:
Msg#:13792 *Audio Hardware*
01-22-93 23:51:24
From: JOHN CURL
To: MATT SPITZER
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13665 (HEAD AMP)
Matt, I would first try to add a load resistor to the phono input, before
making any rash judgements. Try a 100 ohm metal film resistor on each phono
input. You only need more gain if your volume control is at maximum or the
noise from the phono stage is just too much. Don't let anyone tell you
anything different. If you need more gain, I would recommend a transformer
made for MC cartridges. This will improve the signal to noise of the phono
stage, yet not add a transistor sound to your phono input.
se
...people should be free to speculate.
It's difficult to draw a line between opinion, speculation and a statement.
You know, like cable manufacturers explaining why their product is superior...
...people should be free to speculate.
Sure, but to what end?
To attempt to gain some insight which may lead to greater understanding and knowledge?
Or just to show that they can string some words together that have no particular meaning or worth?
Because unless speculations can be commented on, all you're left with is the latter.
se
> Because unless speculations can be commented on, all you're left with is the latter.>
Anyone who wants technical info or to find out if they are speculating in the right direction can pose the question on Prop-Heads for the technical folks.
Anyone who wants technical info or to find out if they are speculating in the right direction can pose the question on Prop-Heads for the technical folks.
I would rephrase that to read:
Anyone who wants technical info or to find out if they are speculating in the right direction can speculate on Prop-Heads for the technical folks.
Because after all, what other point is there to speculating than to see if you're going in the right direction?
So keep the speculating on Prop-Heads and leave Tweaks for all the subjective, experiential stuff.
To say one can speculate on Tweaks but it can't be discussed except on Prop-Heads is completely nonsensical.
se
...discussion, perhaps, just not the contentuous ones you're fond of.
... that owning last post in a thread gives them victory in whatever battle they're fighting. One of those things that are evidence of his "maturity", apparently.
...discussion, perhaps, just not the contentuous ones you're fond of.
I'm not fond of contention. I'm fond of discussion.
If I make a statement or express an opinion and do so in a respectful fashion and someone else gets all bent out of shape because of what I'd said, they're the one being contentious.
And sure, if someone starts to get nasty and engages in personal attacks, I can get nasty right back. But I'd much prefer it not get nasty in the first place.
And things wouldn't get nasty if more people were a little more mature and wouldn't start screaming like banshees just because someone may have an opinion different from theirs.
se
Well said, bobcole.
John, thanks, but see my response to Steve.
N/T
nt
Conjecture about what causes a particular sound is assumed to be just that, conjecture. If not specifically stated to be conjecture is is automatically assumed to be. No challenges or confrontation will be allowed over such conjecture.
This I don't understand at all.
What other purpose does conjecture serve than an attempt to get at the truth of something with which to increases our knowledge and understanding?
And how can that possibly be achieved if all conjecture is made immune to any sort of question, challenge or comment?
To make conjecture as sacrosanct as the expression of one's religious beliefs makes absolutely no sense at all.
se
Tweakophobes and anti-tweak argumentalists seem to have the idea firmly planted in their heads that placebo effect or expectation bias cancels out all claims of audible effects and that for certain tweaks somehow - they're not quite sure why - the laws of science must have been violated.
Whether it's demagnetizers, ionizers, ebony discs, extremely low frequency generators, travel alarm clocks, liquid cables, magic foils, crystals, tiny "singing" bowls or photos in the freezer, naysayers and self-styled skeptics clammor and cajole. If the real explanation isn't provided in a high school physics text or doesn't pop up in a half-hearted Google search it doesn't exist.
Steve - have you had a chance to try the photos in the freezer tweak yet.? Just curious.
And of course we can count on you to always be fair and unbiased.
I wonder who will be the first to be banned, will it be Steve Eddy or will it be me?
Anyone taking bets? Two for one?
Edits: 02/09/11
Hint: badgering others about proof that metal outlet covers with carbon fiber inlay profide better RF rejection than just metal ones is NOT what this forum is intended for.
Betting on one!
...already a DBT free zone?
That solves the problem of the naysayers asking for what they consider to be "evidence".
Seems obvious.
What are you waiting for?
Trolls are the least of the problems.
that is based on proving how something works.
Give Steve and his band of followers a place to go!!!!
The same will be the case with whatever new forum is created for them specifically - they HAVE to be controversial and dusruptive, to be satisfied with the experience. Talking among themselves (all 5 of them) will not be satisfying.
Maybe it would be less work for the
moderators if the topic is moved quickly
to another forum such as Prop Heads. I
see this done on other forums at times.
Or simpily close the topic!
Edits: 02/09/11
"Maybe it would be less work for the
moderators if the topic is moved quickly
to another forum such as Prop Heads."
You don't understand!!
We don't want to talk about it with the type that hang out in Prop Heads.
Excellent!
But I understand, maybe...
If folks that REALLY CARE why things work, and I do sort-of, would spend their time trying to figure that out and also what truly lies behind puzzling but repeatable observations then we'd probably make reasonable progress. Unfortunately they too often get distracted by focusing on a putative explaination if they indeed even accept the observation at all.
I can see where it would be tiring if someone doesn't believe that you saw a rattlesnake unless you show him the bite on you swollen arm.
Regards, Rick
You got that right, and most of these guys, won't even try it, so they cannot give us a reason why. Thet are the ones that should be trying to figure our how it works.
We already know it works and that is first, knowing why is secondary and to me, not as important as knowing it works.
I'm with benie. What works, works. That is ALL that really matters, except to researchers, like me, who would like to know WHY it works, but trust me, even measurements will be disregarded by SE and his associates.
...but trust me, even measurements will be disregarded by SE and his associates.
Those are cheap and empty words when you have nothing to back them up with.
And it's precisely because of personal attacks such as this that you're on moderation at diyAudio.
se
Perhaps, but you and they have rejected and ridiculed measurements put up on line for all to see, without ANY attempt to DUPLICATE. Not mimic, DUPLICATE.
In many subtle tests, DUPLICATION is what gives the experiment life. A CLOSE APPROXIMATION might miss the mark. Pons and his associates suffered from this, as well. Anyone who wishes can find this out.
Perhaps, but you and they have rejected and ridiculed measurements put up on line for all to see, without ANY attempt to DUPLICATE. Not mimic, DUPLICATE.
In many subtle tests, DUPLICATION is what gives the experiment life. A CLOSE APPROXIMATION might miss the mark.
There was indeed an attempt to duplicate them, John.
All you did was shove a sinewave into one end of the cable, took the output from the other end of the cable, notched out the fundamental, and then plotted the spectra of the residual.
Bruno did the same thing, using his Audio Precision System Two Cascade. He did so at a variety of levels and a variety of source and load impedances.
And guess what?
There was no sign of the distortion products you were getting in your measurements, even though the AP system was able to see better than 20dB below your measurements.
Even when you objected, saying that Bruno wasn't measuring the same cables that you were, I arranged to send you and Bruno identical cables. When you measured your set, you were still getting distortion products. When Bruno measured his set, he did not.
So yes, John, every attempt was made to DUPLICATE your measurements.
The only difference was that Bruno wasn't using 30 year old test gear. He was using a modern Audio Precision system.
Pons and his associates suffered from this, as well. Anyone who wishes can find this out.
But unlike Pons and his associates, you're still running around claiming you've discovered cold fusion.
se
That is NOT duplication. Duplication is to use exactly the SAME test equipment and exactly the same test conditions. It can be another unit, in a different location, but ALL conditions MUST be met. IF you don't, then all subsequent measurements are suspect. EVEN if the ORIGINAL test is somehow flawed, THEN the FLAW should be analyzed, but the results should not be rejected, by testing with completely different equipment, with different drive and grounding, and saying it is the same. It is NOT!
Steve, you are impossible to teach. I say this HERE, because I can. Somewhere else, I might be suspended, or worse, but it sure gets old. I might, for completeness, say that YOUR test cables were all very good, compared to some others that I have in my lab. EVEN the dirt cheap 'freebee' interconnects that you submitted. Had you been a more reasonable individual, I would have invited you to visit my lab and to help me find the source of this distortion difference between different wires. Alas, that was not to be, but I even today, with similar but DIFFERENT pieces of test equipment, I can roughly duplicate my initial results from 15 years ago.
Why this is so, is still as much a mystery to me, as to everyone else, but there it is!
Hi John,
It looks like you and Steve are rehashing some cable distortion tests. Do you know if there is still a link to them somewhere? I'd enjoy eyeballing them.
Thanks, Rick
John never provided distortion spectra plots of the cables I'd sent to both he and Bruno. He simply said that he was getting results similar to his previous measurements.
Those measurements, the ones he was claiming were measurements of the "micro diodes" in the wire itself which is what started this whole drama, are here.
From top to bottom, a JPS Labs cable, a Radio Shack cable and a ven den Hul cable:
The levels by the way are not correct. It was later calculated that the noise floor in John's measurements were at about -120dB, not the -70dB as shown in the plots.
The big spike just below 16kHz is interference. I believe John said it was coming from his neighbor's TV (NTSC has a horizontal scan rate of 15.734 kHz).
But what caused me to question these measurements is best illustrated in the measurement of the Radio Shack cable (middle photo). There you can clearly see distortion products, all at nearly the same levels, extending all the way out to the 19th harmonic.
I couldn't see anything save for an active circuit producing a distortion spectrum like that.
Anyway, here are Bruno's plots of the cables that I sent to both him and John.
From top to bottom, a cheap "freebie" cable of the sort that's included with most cheap electronics, an old, well used Radio Shack Gold cable, a spankin' new Radio Shack Gold cable, and a cable from Dan Banquer of RE Designs which use RG174 coax.
It's worth noting that the RG174 cable used a copperclad STEEL center conductor. These were included to give the best possible chance of seeing distortion in a cable as the steel core, being ferromagnetic, has hysteresis.
However what distortion it produces is below the measurement threshold here, which is about -140dB, 20dB below where John's measurements were at. If any of the cables were producing distortion of the level indicated by John's measurements, they'd be sticking up taller than the only distortion product that can be seen in the measurements, which is the residual distortion of the AP analyzer at 3kHz.
The measurements shown here were made using a 30mV source voltage, a 600 ohm source impedance and a 600 ohm load impedance.
Additional measurements were done at different levels and different source/load impedances. All of those measurements can be found here:
Additional Cable Measurements
se
What SE has shown, is essentially accurate. However, the mysterious distortion comes ONLY when certain cables are plugged into the analyzer, osc out to test in. This is a very easy connection that is BUFFERED on both sides from extra concern about loading, small impedance differences, etc.
Just within the last hour, I was able to find an RS cable that measures WORSE than the VDH reference, without too much trouble at all. I also found an RS cable that measures very much like the VDH cable. The main factor that seems to create this difference, is that the GOOD RS cable is well used with the test gear, and it is part of my lab stock.
The tests that SE has posted are only 3, of dozens and dozens of measurements of a whole lot of cables. This is what I found in general:
First, cable cost does NOT seem to be the major contributor in this test. Some very cheap cables (including SE's test units) measured good to very well in this test. Some other cheap and some very expensive cables, like the VDH and the JPS that I use to establish my baseline, have always tested well.
Second, it MIGHT be the ground return, or the shield that is to TRUE distortion producer. IF SO, then this should be looked into, because most real hi fi systems may be equally sensitive to this distortion generation, as much as the ST1700B.
Third, my test equipment is dated but works well enough for this test, but it is not 'idiot proof' and may be difficult to interpret if done on an absolute scale, BUT COMPARISON between the cables can be easily noted, and it should be obvious that among the 3 tests, the RS looks the worse. Also, the sameness in the test samples is usually the test equipment residual, and should be ignored. This is one of the problems with the ST1700 systems, they were designed for consistent performance to 100dB, NOT 120dB and this requires modification of the test equipment to lower the residual, or else to systematically ignore the test equipment residual. The test equipment that I am using TODAY, is completely unmodified, and actually shows a slightly higher test equipment residual than my personal unit, which the screen shots shown were measured on, that was slightly modified to LOWER the oscillator residual.
Fourth, my first hypothesis was that I was looking for 'microdiodes' as I have seen similar behavior in potentiometers. However, it might as well be 'microgaps' instead. In any case, it acts like a 'dead zone' at 0 V. We usually call this crossover distortion, a general definition.
Fifth, I first thought that I was paralleling the test that VDH did many years ago, but HIS measurement level was much lower, maybe 60 dB lower, and that is a separate issue.
Sixth, I found that my 'bad examples' often became fairly good examples, IF used over a period of several hours, so I found that I had to REMOVE the BAD cables and put them aside, IF I wanted to use them to show the problem in future. Previously, I might leave the test equipment running with the cable installed, and a week later, the cable measured much better. I suspect it is 'break-in' that is being shown, in this case. Any questions, anyone?
Edits: 02/12/11 02/12/11 02/12/11 02/12/11
Interesting indeed...
Being an old (among many other things) RF guy my thoughts always turn to connectors and corrosion when the conversation is cables and distortion. It might be telling to physically fuss with the fittings, as it were, and see if the results shift around. Internally I wouldn't be surprised if the RS cable has connectors that have the center pin swagged and/or the ground lug captured under a bent-over shell both of which can get flaky easily.
It also might be interesting to test them for intermod, as that seems to be a specialty of flaky cables and connectors.
I'll keep my eyes open, I don't ever recall seeing harmonic distortion from cables but then again I don't think I've ever looked at as low of levels as you are.
Again my thanks to Steve for digging this up and to you John for discussing and updating it. I think AA's both a great resource and a lot of fun.
Regards, Rick
It also might be interesting to test them for intermod, as that seems to be a specialty of flaky cables and connectors.
Bruno has done a whole suite of tests on various cables. From THD to intermod including multitone signals taken from actual music, to micro phase shift, and even the ol' Hafler null test.
Nothing.
Also, harmonic distortion and intermod rather go hand in hand, so if you've got intermod, by definition you'll also have harmonic distortion.
Certainly bad contacts can cause problems, but beyond that, there's no convincing evidence that cables have any physical effect beyond their resistance, inductance and capacitance.
Again my thanks to Steve for digging this up...
You're quite welcome.
se
At the time he was working as an engineer at Philips' Applied Technologies Lab in Belgium. Now he heads up R&D at Hypex, which sells his UcD class D power modules.
Shortly after John provided me with the plots of his cable measurements, I came across a post from Bruno on one of the rec.audio newsgroups where he told about some similar measurements he had made, and that there was no sign of any distortion.
I contacted him and he was kind enough to provide me with the distortion spectra plots of those measurements.
As I said in my previous post, John dismissed them, saying that Bruno wasn't measuring the same cables that he was.
That's when I arranged to send both John and Bruno identical cables for each to measure in order to address John's objection.
se
I suspect it is 'break-in' that is being shown, in this case.
Given that distortion measurements made using much more modern, capable, and resolving equipment than yours has not turned up the distortion products you're seeing in your measurements, why on earth would you suspect this?
It's akin to Percival Lowell being shown modern, high resolution images of Mars, and then he looks through his old telescope and continues to insist there are canals on Mars.
se
No Steve, the test equipment does NOT break-in, it doesn't change. The cable changes.
No Steve, the test equipment does NOT break-in, it doesn't change. The cable changes.
So let me get this straight.
You're saying that a simple length of wire and an insulator changes, but a complex piece of test equipment which is loaded with wires and insulators not to mention resistors, capacitors, semiconductors, etc. does not?
Please explain your reasoning behind this extraordinary claim of yours.
Also, how can you say the cable is changing when there is no compelling reason to believe that the distortion products in your measurements are being produced by the cables themselves?
se
The test equipment is OLD, the wires are NEW.
The test equipment is OLD...
Yes, I know.
You forgot this one:
Also, how can you say the cable is changing when there is no compelling reason to believe that the distortion products in your measurements are being produced by the cables themselves?
se
Because the CABLE is the ONLY variable being changed, even over a duration of a few minutes, or a few years. IF it were NOT the CABLE, then EVERY CABLE would show distortion.
Because the CABLE is the ONLY variable being changed, even over a duration of a few minutes, or a few years. IF it were NOT the CABLE, then EVERY CABLE would show distortion.
But there's no evidence that the distortion that's showing up in your measurements is being produced by the cable. If it were, it would have shown up in Bruno's measurements.
So stick with your old telescope and your claims of canals on Mars. I'm through with this.
se
No, the GROUNDING of the Audio Precision is DIFFERENT in a significant way compared to the Sound Technology. One is NOT better than the other, just different. Look, I am a little tired of repeating myself. Accept it or forget it. You have NO test equipment, have very little experience with measurements such as this, and not much understanding of electronics design in general.
Edits: 02/12/11
That is NOT duplication. Duplication is to use exactly the SAME test equipment and exactly the same test conditions.
Nonsense.
To duplicate a test you use the same methods and procedures.
It can be another unit, in a different location, but ALL conditions MUST be met. IF you don't, then all subsequent measurements are suspect. EVEN if the ORIGINAL test is somehow flawed, THEN the FLAW should be analyzed...
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If the distortion products were being produced by some inherent quirk in the test equipment, then how would you ever know this if all you ever do is keep using the same test equipment to duplicate the original test?
That's like saying that in order to determine if there are canals on Mars, you can only use the same telescope that Percival Lowell used, instead of a more powerful, higher resolving telescope.
...but the results should not be rejected, by testing with completely different equipment, with different drive and grounding, and saying it is the same. It is NOT!
Look, John, what was being tested for was distortion produced BY THE CABLES THEMSELVES. You know, the "micro diodes" in the wires themselves that you claimed your distortion measurements were proof of.
Now, if the distortion products in your measurements were in fact being produced by the cables themselves, then if you measure the very same cables using the same methods and procedures and a system which is much more resolving than yours, and there's no sign of distortion other than the system's residual distortion, then it's pretty damn clear that the distortion products shown in your measurements WERE NOT being produced by the cables themselves but rather were being produced by your equipment.
That's your problem.
Instead of clinging to that 30+ year old ST1700 and claiming there are canals on Mars, why don't you step out of the 1970's and get yourself a more modern, more capable, higher resolving test system?
Parasound's making good money off your name. Why don't they step up to the plate and get you a nice AP rig?
se
??That's your problem.
> > Instead of clinging to that 30+ year old ST1700 and claiming there are canals on Mars, why don't you step out of the 1970's and get yourself a more modern, more capable, higher resolving test system?
Huh?
I didn't follow of of it, but it seemed like John said it got some results and you thought his gear was bad and he got the same result with other gear. Would you quit if he send you the gear to test?
What does it take?
-Rod
His "other gear" was just another old Sound Technologies unit.se
Edits: 02/11/11
...John has initiated against me over the years, I'm afraid he's an exception to the rule and things will always be somewhat contentious between the two of us.> > Instead of clinging to that 30+ year old ST1700 and claiming there are canals on Mars, why don't you step out of the 1970's and get yourself a more modern, more capable, higher resolving test system?
Huh?
I didn't follow of of it, but it seemed like John said it got some results and you thought his gear was bad and he got the same result with other gear. Would you quit if he send you the gear to test?
What does it take?
He doesn't really say exactly what the "other gear" is.
All he says is:
However, I have also changed my Sound Technology for another unit, very much the same.
What does that mean? Does it mean he's using another model from Sound Technology? Or a different make that's designed very much the same as his Sound Technology unit?
In either case, it's entirely possible that they both have the same problems.
But here's the bottom line.
If it were the cables producing the distortion products shown in John's measurements, they would have stuck out like a sore thumb in Bruno's measurements which used an Audio Precision System Two Cascade.
That's because the AP rig can see more than 20dB below where John is capable of measuring. In John's measurements, his noise floor is about -120dB. The AP rig was measuring down to -145dB.
So it's clear that the distortion products in John's measurements ARE NOT being produced by the cables as John keeps claiming they are. The AP rig simply WOULD NOT have missed them if they were there.
The problem is clearly in John's system/setup/environment. That's his problem to deal with and until he does, he should stop passing off his measurements as proof of "micro diodes" in the wires that make up the cables or anything else for that matter.
Here's his famous quote from back in 2003:
Hate to be the one to tell you, BUT there are diodes in your metal wires. More than you will ever bother to measure. I have measured them.
se
Edits: 02/11/11
The other unit is a ST 1700B, exactly the same as mine, yet another is a 1700A, and another is an ST 1710. Yes, there MAY be something wrong with the design of the units, BUT what is it? AND why do some cables measure like they have a good deal of higher order distortion, yet others do NOT? The AUDIO PRECISION is a completely different company, AND a completely different grounding system, why is it IMMUNE from measuring any difference? Is it really BETTER, or just DIFFERENT?
IF the ST1700 has a 'fatal flaw' should we not try to find out what it is? After all, ALL my designs are dependent on this unit, or its kind for the last 35 years. How did I design a Vendetta, CTC Blowtorch, or JC-1 or JC-2 power amps with this 'flawed' analyzer?
No, I suspect that the GROUNDING SYSTEM is MORE TYPICAL of traditional audio equipment, and the Audio Precision is more exotic. Check it out, everyone!
Therefore, IF I measure a problem with a 1 meter connecting wire, maybe, just maybe it is a problem shared when the wire is used in a domestic audio system. Why not?
IF the ST1700 has a 'fatal flaw' should we not try to find out what it is?
What's this "we" shit?
It's not my ST1700.
After all, ALL my designs are dependent on this unit, or its kind for the last 35 years.
Then imagine what you could do with a nice AP rig.
Time to move beyond "35 year ago..." John.
se
TRUE, you don't own ANY serious test equipment, SE.
TRUE, you don't own ANY serious test equipment, SE.
You're right. I don't.
I'm not a bean counter and don't design by numbers.
I have an old General Radio signal generator and a 60MHz Hitachi 'scope, which is sufficient to determine that a design is stable and not grossly distorting the signal.
After that I go with what sounds good to me as that's all I really care about and numbers have never really been able to tell me what will sound good to me and what won't.
So for me, there's really no point in owning one. Yeah, it'd be fun to play around with an AP rig, but I wouldn't really want to spend that much on what would ultimately just be a toy.
se
I must plainly state the Steve Eddy is the nastiest, most contentious, and the most libelous individual that I have ever had to contend with, on the internet. He comes up with half investigated assertions of my associates and myself, and spreads lies about our veracity, and our designs. This is much like a noisy neighbor who spreads 'rumors' or makes them up out of pure malice.
This is MY opinion of SE, yours may vary.
When have I ever lied about your veracity and designs?
Quote me.
se
For everyone to know and understand: I use a ST 1700B, and have used one since 1976, but this must be also used with another piece of test equipment, for example a computer with a digital FFT program to act as a noise averager, and a spectrum analyzer.
In some of my PUBLISHED measurements, I used a program called 'MactheScope' with some satisfaction. However, before this, I used an HP3581 with B&K chart recorder, and an HP3580 with a scope screen. These two instruments, while not averaging, could be made to sweep slow enough to work.
For THIS application, FFT with signal averaging, is better, mostly because it is FASTER. Waiting 1/2hour for each measurement can get tiring.
Today, I use an HP 3563, while obsolete in military terms, cost 27,000+ dollars, new, and has more computing power than I will ever use in my lifetime. It gives me the SAME quality measurements, with signal averaging, in less than 1 minute.
However, I have also changed my Sound Technology for another unit, very much the same. Guess what, the SAME distortion measurement gives me the SAME distortion! What a concept!
Now, what could be wrong? Well maybe the ST has a grounding problem that is unique to it. It's possible, but what is it? Where is it? WHY does it act up with ONLY some cables, with the SAME length, characteristic impedance, RCA plug termination, DC resistance, parallel capacitance, etc? Also, why do SOME cables get 'better' and measure with much lower distortion over weeks, months, or years, yet some nearly identical cables, not often used for anything, measure just as bad as the original units that 'mysteriously' got better? This is not for SE, he has heard it all before, any suggestions anyone?
Edits: 02/11/11 02/11/11
You got that right, and most of these guys, won't even try it, so they cannot give us a reason why.
Because simply trying it won't provide an answer to that question.
Thet are the ones that should be trying to figure our how it works.
And in order to figure out how it works, it first has to be established that it actually is working beyond "placebo effect." You don't do that by simply "trying it."
We already know it works...
No, you believe that it works. You don't know that it works unless by "works" you're also including the "placebo effect," which it doesn't seem that you are.
And as long as you approach this from the perspective of what amounts to religious dogma, then you can't really say you're interested in how it works, because religious dogma doesn't get you there.
It's like saying "We already know that the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old, so don't try telling us otherwise."
se
"And as long as you approach this from the perspective of what amounts to religious dogma..."
Oh Bullshit! Do you think this sort of tripe is helpful to the cause?
How would you like your car mechanic to treat you the way you are treating this poster? "Running rough you say? Well buddy you'd better be prepared to prove it or your bill will double. It ran fine when I drove it from the lot into the stall but I noticed that you have a little green tree hanging from your mirror so you must be religious nutcase tree hugger. That would explain a lot...
Life's short, be a force for good.
Rick
Oh Bullshit! Do you think this sort of tripe is helpful to the cause?
What exactly is "the cause" you're speaking of here?
How would you like your car mechanic to treat you the way you are treating this poster? "Running rough you say? Well buddy you'd better be prepared to prove it or your bill will double. It ran fine when I drove it from the lot into the stall but I noticed that you have a little green tree hanging from your mirror so you must be religious nutcase tree hugger. That would explain a lot...
Not an apt analogy at all.
Look, here's the deal.
We KNOW that humans are prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences. This is trivially easy to demonstrate and has been done many many times.
To deny this fact, and/or to insist that one is somehow immune to it, and that whenever there is any subjective perception of a difference it MUST be due to something going on in the cable or equipment, or whatever, is nothing short of religious dogma.
One can't adhere to such dogma and at the same time say they want to know WHY something works. Not when there are two possible outcomes but one is only willing to accept one of them.
se
The 'cause' is simply the enjoyment and investigation of home audio. I love it for some reason. Good music, good gear, good folks, good times...
Shucks, I thought the analogy was pretty good, sorry you didn't like it.
As to the rest of it, well... Most of the time we CAN trust our senses otherwise we'd surely be dead by now. Most of us are also intelligent enough to apply a bit of reasoning here and there and very few of us believe that we're infallible.
"One can't adhere to such dogma [believing that it's gotta be the hardware] and at the same time say they want to know WHY something works. Not when there are two possible outcomes but one is only willing to accept one of them."
Seems to me that there are N possible outcomes and the user imagining the problem is just one of them. On top of that he will probably go to a lot more effort to characterize/analyze/mesmerize his gear than someone who thinks they may be hearing things so he's likely to come up with interesting stuff.
Regards, Rick
Seems to me that there are N possible outcomes and the user imagining the problem is just one of them.
And I've never said anything more than that.
se
Well said, Rick.
I do understand. If you move the
topic to Prop Heads we do not have
to deal with it in Tweaker's.
No you don't understand!!
We WANT to talk about it.
But if it goes to Prop Heads we CAN'T talk about it!!
Because they won't let us!!
I am not sure if I understand.
If the thread goes to Prop Heads
why can't you discuss it their.
No you don't understand!!
We WANT to talk about it.
But if it goes to Prop Heads we CAN'T talk about it!!
Because they won't let us!!
Says who?
se
While most people probably wouldn't mind the discussion of DBTs per se, for some the subject has become a source of zealotry. Consequently, we have the zealots demeaning, deriding, and insulting the apostates who dare not to convert to the zealot's world view in every aspect of life, even if that aspect is just to discuss subjective experiences with audio tweaks on an internet forum, even though that forum has created a special area for only the kind of discussions the zealots deem appropriate.
But I assume I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
What puzzles me is why you've avoided fixing the problem until after the zealots have run off members, the latest of which is kenster, who has contributed a great deal of useful information that was in keeping with the spirit of this section of the forum.
The solution to this problem has been evident for some time, and your unwillingness to implement that solution has diminished the forum, quite possibly to an extent that none of us are aware. You know very well that the zealots aren't going to behave reasonably, this is not the first time their hysteria has reached a critical mass, there have been previous calls for implementing a posting policy similar to that of Cable Asylum, and yet you have done little to fix the problem.
If you really want to make life easier for yourself and Jon, then stop catering to the zealots by giving them their own areas to play in, stop periodically punishing them only after their contributions have become tedious and tiresome, and do what should have been done a long time ago, and then enforce it.
___
Boycott Monster Cable
It's really simple - he DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN about any of this, occasionally pretending that he does, like in this instance.
PC Audio forum was recently overrun by several individuals (registered users), who pretended to be non-registered, and posted terrible insults using fake monikers and proxy IP servers. After many people expressed their outrage, Rod M. came up with the brilliant idea of putting the issue "Should registration be required in PC Audio" up for vote. Despite the fact that voting box was not easily visible on the page (you'd have to scroll down, to see it), more than 100 members voted, and the result was overwhelming "YES" (like 5:1 or 6:1).
Can you guess what was done as the result of that? Can you guess whether any explanation was provided why nothing was done?
Consequently, we have the zealots demeaning, deriding, and insulting the apostates who dare not to convert to the zealot's world view in every aspect of life, even if that aspect is just to discuss subjective experiences with audio tweaks on an internet forum...
Can you point to any recent example of this on this forum?
se
"Can you point to any recent example of this on this forum?"
Do you mean during the peroid you where Banned or before??
He's really good at it. It's called "Playing Dumb".
Just point to a recent example of this:
Consequently, we have the zealots demeaning, deriding, and insulting the apostates who dare not to convert to the zealot's world view in every aspect of life, even if that aspect is just to discuss subjective experiences with audio tweaks on an internet forum...
se
... all the insulting, demeaning crap that you posted right before that was deleted, too?
That's a huge loss to the community.
... all the insulting, demeaning crap that you posted right before that was deleted, too?
I don't know. Was it?
If it wasn't, then it should be a rather simple matter to point to it, shouldn't it?
se
Do you mean during the peroid you where Banned or before??
Before.
se
"Tweaks" covers a wide range of things, from modifying a component in a substantial way that pretty much anyone here would agree would make a difference for sound, scientifically acceptable, reasons through to things that many regard as capable of producing only a psychological effect in the mind of those who believe in the particular tweak.
My feeling is that it would be a good idea is to separate out discussion of experiences with tweaks of any kind, including instructions on how to make or perform a tweak, from discussions of the scientific basis for how a particular tweak works and any calls for and discussion of evidence that the tweak works. Let those who want to debate whether or not a particular tweak is in accord with the laws of physics and/or the validity for any evidence that it does or does not work do so, but let them do it in a different forum to the one in which people discuss their experiences and how to do it. If someone wants to question the theoretical basis for a tweak whose effects are being described by an inmate who has tried it, they can do so in the other forum and provide a link to the discussion about the experiences of those who have tried it.
In other words, keep the two sorts of discussion separate—have an "experience based forum" and an "evidence based forum". If you post in the first you're saying "I don't want to discuss issues of proof and evidence, I just want to discuss what I experienced". If you post in the second forum you're saying "OK, let's argue the evidence for these claims". In my view those are 2 different but equally legitimate sorts of discussion. Posters should be able to choose which sort of discussion they want to take part in, and be able to do so without the kind of discussion they want to have being taken over by those who want to have the other sort of discussion. Anyone who wants to take part in both can also do so if they wish, and anyone who chooses to discuss their personal experiences in the evidence based forum is saying that they're prepared to deal with demands for proof to back up whatever they say their experience was.
That seems the fairest way of going about things to me.
David Aiken
In other words, keep the two sorts of discussion separate—have an "experience based forum" and an "evidence based forum". If you post in the first you're saying "I don't want to discuss issues of proof and evidence, I just want to discuss what I experienced". If you post in the second forum you're saying "OK, let's argue the evidence for these claims". In my view those are 2 different but equally legitimate sorts of discussion.
I agree, they are two different but equally legitimate sorts of discussion.
However I don't see any need for segregation.
Posters should be able to choose which sort of discussion they want to take part in, and be able to do so without the kind of discussion they want to have being taken over by those who want to have the other sort of discussion.
But what sort of discussion it is ultimately is defined by what's said to begin with.
If what is said is of the "experiential" variety, then there's nothing to be argued. One's experience is what it is regardless of what the reasons may be.
However if what is said is of the "evidentiary" variety, then what is said should be open to question or challenge, regardless of what forum it's posted on.
The problem arises when people want it both ways and make statements of the "evidentiary" variety yet expect to have the same immunity to question or challenge that's afforded to statements of the "experiential" variety.
Segregation won't solve that problem.
All that can be done is to make it clear that if you make statements of an "evidentiary" nature, then expect them to be questioned or challenged. If you don't like it, then don't make statements of an "evidentiary" nature.
Simple.
se
Like Cables, should it be a DBT zone?
How about a Mature Adults Only Zone?
That's really the only problem as I see it.
A number of individuals are just too immature when it comes to dealing with those who may have a different opinion or point of view from theirs or of those who may say something critical about something they've said.
Instead of responding maturely, or simply ignoring what was said, they tend to get rather nasty, offensive and in some instances, basically just throw a temper tantrum.
se
"How about a Mature Adults Only Zone?"
"A number of individuals are just too immature when it comes to dealing..."
It IS comments like this that rub people up the wrong way, like it does me a bit. Not that you may necessarily be calling me immature, but you do lower the tone in this place whenever you appear.
You want to say that that comment was called for and a valid response another post? No (except I know that this will lead to another long convoluted train of argument as you so often seem to enjoy embarking on). What is your purpose here?
Your tone, in those comments and others, suggests you genuinely believe you are above us (come on, you do don't you?). It would be like me going to hydrogen audio and incessantly questioning their motive (which I really don't get, I think they're missing out, hence I'm here). I would know that I have nothing to contribute and that they would never change their ways. My motivation in writing about NOT proving my experiences, deep down and if I was sad enough to bother, would only be to get a reaction. I think I'd get banned pretty quickly, and rightfully so, because I'd only be trolling.
So what is it you want to contribute or learn because all I ever see you in is long discourses about things unrelated to the actual experiences of people tweaking their sound system? It should be clear by now that nobody's proving anything. Why should they? No no, don't quote and answer that, I've read it a thousand times before. The view of all who contribute here is that it's not necessary and our experiences do prove that. This seems to be the crux set let me repeat: YOU WILL NOT CHANGE IT so why not give it a rest?
N/T
"How about a Mature Adults Only Zone?"
"A number of individuals are just too immature when it comes to dealing..."
It IS comments like this that rub people up the wrong way, like it does me a bit.
I'm sorry if it may rub some people the wrong way. But that's the way I see it.
I see some people getting terribly upset over things that I can't see any mature, reasonable person getting upset about.
Take this comment by Todd B for example:
Consequently, we have the zealots demeaning, deriding, and insulting the apostates who dare not to convert to the zealot's world view in every aspect of life, even if that aspect is just to discuss subjective experiences with audio tweaks on an internet forum...
I replied asking if he could point to any recent example of that happening recently on this forum.
No response from Todd B. And neither benie nor carcass93 could point to any example.
Clearly Todd B is quite upset. But about what exactly?
Not that you may necessarily be calling me immature, but you do lower the tone in this place whenever you appear.
I don't see that I lower the tone here. I do see the tone get lowered by those who make things personal.
Just look at the last two threads by Curl. They didn't have anything to do with tweaks or DIY, or even anything about audio. It was nothing but a bunch of whining about me. And not about anything going on here, but on some other forum.
What exactly does that do but lower the tone here?
Or the ground tweak pt II thread.
I hadn't even posted anything in that thread, yet rickmcinnis called me out with a post titled "I wish Mr. Eddy would define what a TWEAK is?" which devolved into my being taken to task over the cables that I make.
What did that do to raise the tone in here?
You want to say that that comment was called for and a valid response another post?
Yes, I do. And I just gave you three good examples of why.
se
Steve, the reasons that two of my inputs, (compared to what, 100's of yours) have no tweeks or mods directly discussed in them, is because they are dealing with another problem: YOU
You have made yourself into a figure of controversy, because you argue with everyone, usually ending up making everyone else unhappy.
Now, I, on another website can be considered just as annoying, but it is for another reason. Instead of arguing AGAINST another's belief in what they hear, and why, I am typically arguing FOR another's belief and experience in what they hear, including my own. This upsets some, there, because they believe, much like you, that tweaks and mods are silly, expensive, and scientifically demeaning.
What do they do about me, then? As you have stated here, on this website, they MODERATE me, and remove ANY material that gives them the slightest offense, even if it is only to defend myself from you or someone else taking a 'cheap shot' at me, for example. No level playing field there, but I trudge on, until they might get tired of ANY discussion from me at all, and perhaps ban me, from their website.
What then should they do with you? Here, where you are antithetical to most everything present here, (speaker platform damping excluded). They must decide, not me.
Steve, the reasons that two of my inputs, (compared to what, 100's of yours) have no tweeks or mods directly discussed in them, is because they are dealing with another problem: YOU
And Tweaks/DIY isn't the forum for whining about your personal issues with me, or about your situation at diyAudio.com.
se
Sure it is: I got action, I got results, I got answers, to a COMMON PROBLEM on ANY threads talking about subjective aspects of audio reproduction, even with the SAME people.
People here, also found answers to their questions as to WHY some people act out in this forum and others. The 'solution' is the only ponderable question, now. I find myself engaged in the SAME arguments here, and elsewhere, with the SAME people over the years, with NO resolution, and it gets old, after awhile .
Just send the significant off-topic traffic to Propheads, it's now dead because everyone's here. The school has swam to warmer water. But it really is the appropriate place to argue about WHY your power cord sounds better if formed into a hangman's noose and how to quantify performance differences as a function of neck size.
Requiring registration seems to have little downside but I don't know if it would help.
Don't pick on DBT's, they can be useful even if those that worship then aren't.
Thanks, Rick
... required registration is the right thing to do in PC Audio forum, where pseudo-unregistered morons run amok, thanks in part to that joke of a moderator, Chris. What was done? That's right - nothing.
What are you asking the advice for - to create a (false) impression that you give a damn?
Yes, "No DBT zone", but also faster banishment of serious offenders. And they are easy to spot these days...
and a very small group are determined to derail any useful discussions that occur. Getting rid of just one of them could transform the atmosphere here.
nt
Seriuosly, the level of discourse here has really deteriorated of late.
I know the moderators are volunteers and doing the best job they can of balancing freedom of expression with keeping things from getting out of hand. So I don't fault them. They can't monitor everything every hour of the day.
It would help to have some rules here (like the "no DBT zone") and a little faster response to the more offensive posts.
Other than that, we have to count on self-monitoring. Wish that were the case with some posters I could name, but they are least likely to do that, no matter what you say except "you are banned!"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: