|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
144.133.197.141
In Reply to: Re: Finally, someone who makes sense! posted by Ted Smith on April 8, 2007 at 10:43:37:
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?
Follow Ups:
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.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: