|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: Prop head posted by rp1@surfnetusa.com on April 10, 2007 at 00:02:27:
>>> "As recently as two years ago this site was for Technical chat; an engineers hangout as it were. A place where the the folk who make the equipment could hash out ideas. You know, ideas engineer/artists could relate to." <<<Precisely. So, why are not the people who make the equipment experimenting with putting all the components and bits and pieces which go into making the complete equipment through the freezing/slow defrost process before assembly ? See Ed Meitner's writings stretching back over 20 years !!! If Prop Head IS the place where the folk who make the equipment can hash out ideas, then why have I not seen Prop Head inundated with descriptions of these 'folks' experiences in that particular area ?
Is it or is it not an 'idea which engineers could relate to' ? If it IS, then why do we see nothing discussed on Prop Head about that technique. If it is not, then why not ?
Or, has it already been dismissed by these so called 'engineers' as merely a 'TWEAK' - i.e. As rp 1 has just said "But this is NOT the room for discussion of tweaks;"
Why don't you experiment for yourself ? Why don't you find out for yourself just what can be achieved ?
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
Of components and assemblies would come under the heading of "engineering". But it would be a discussion of the plusses and minuses of the technique; what was gained and what was lost.And there would be the problem as things in this room sit now...the pure Subjectivist would scream because the engineer didn't COMPLETELY endorse the idea and the pure Objectivist would scream because they didnt get their work approved by a national laboratory!
The engineers that formerly posted in this room had feet in both worlds; they only cared what worked. If theory gets you there, so much the better as it means you can repeat your work on other designs. If your particular selection of parts and layout works a bit better, also good as it means you have brought a bit of art into it that the "other guy" couldnt.
John Curl knows his math and sets up the basics of his designs with it. He could do no other. Then he uses the experience of many years in parts selection and layout to improve on that basic design. But an engineer cannot just randomly throw tweaks at a project; he has to have SOME rational for selection. No man can live long enough to try everything suggested, there has to be a filtering process. There has to be SOME logic to what he is doing, at least in his own mind.
All the above is a long-winded (sorry) way of saying that too much tweak/subjectivist talk chases the engineers away. Since they have their feet in both worlds they still have to be somewhat rigorous in their thinking. So, pure trial and error subjectivism is not going to sit well with the logical, trained, part of their being.
All the above is IMHO on the subject, some gained by knowing many engineers, both male and female. No pure Subjectivists or Objectivists were harmed in the production of this post....
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
> > John Curl knows his math and sets up the basics of his designs with it. He could do no other. Then he uses the experience of many years in parts selection and layout to improve on that basic design. But an engineer cannot just randomly throw tweaks at a project; he has to have SOME rational for selection. No man can live long enough to try everything suggested, there has to be a filtering process. There has to be SOME logic to what he is doing, at least in his own mind. < <Out of curiousity... would that be the same "John Curl" who admitted having heard the effects of the GSIC chip? As you're speaking for him here, have you asked him what that "logic" is? Because I think a lot of other people are asking... (but don't tell me directly, I don't want to know. Takes the fun out of not knowing...).
BTW, I agree that an engineer has to have a filtering process. I said as much to another poster here recently. But that process is no different for Peter Belt than it is for John Curl. So that's the part where you're wrong, if you're suggesting otherwise here, by dividing mathematical designs and applied theory. Belt -is- an engineer, and IMHO, it's the better audio engineers that use pure trial and error subjectivism to figure out what sounds best, because those are usually the designs that sound best. If that scares away the conservative engineers who think that good sound only comes out of calculations and specifications, so much the better.
> > No pure Subjectivists or Objectivists were harmed in the production of this post.... < <
That remains to be seen...
> > Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else! < <
You wrote:" it's the better audio engineers that use PURE trial and error subjectivism to figure out what sounds best " (My emphasis on pure).No one uses PURE trial and error in any human field of endeavor, rather a talented designer uses all the knowledge he learned in his field to do his basic design, and only then does he move on to trial and error. PURE trial and error, I think, would be inserting random things into the box to see what happens...say...a donut for an amplifier device, or a wiener as a resistor. Or not even concerning yourself with such concepts as "resistance" "capacitance" and so on. Using Pure trial and error, I might design an amp with "corpucelence" as its operating principle....PURE trial and error is the proverbial ten thousand monkeys typing out Shakespeare by random typing.
Conversely, no engineer that I personally know "think that good sound ONLY comes out of calculations and specifications". Different people just draw the balance line in different places. Folk that have a lot to lose tend to be a bit more conservative I think. The reason why many engineers are conservative is that, in most engineering fields, mistakes mean death. You make a mistake on a bridge, and it falls down. (It is a Natural Law that bridges DO fall down, and the engineer prays that it is not HIS bridge that does so.)
As an example,I worked in combustion engineering for years; meaning the big gas and oil burners in industrial/power systems. A mistake meant people died. (First one would be my most favorite person, me!) So, yes, in that work I tended to be conservative. In my audio hobby, I tried most everything I could afford to do (mostly DIY) since I really had little to lose. (Except for the occasional melted voice coil from mucking about in feedback loops without the requisite math.) Even then I applied a filtering process, using those frontal lobes humans are so proud of!
What I am sure you meant is that the talented audio engineer is not afraid to buck the trend, to try something new. He may see the logic in something that others may have missed. Or, as Clark as written, he sees the entire system in his minds eye.
I am glad you like my signature! My signature reflects that fact that, 1) I have LOTS of opinions but few beliefs, meaning that opinions are subject to change with new data, 2)certainty is for those that keep their lives VERY simple, ambiguity is the nature of human reality.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
> > Using Pure trial and error, I might design an amp with "corpucelence" as its operating principle... < <I think I had an amp that used that operating principle. Well, it sounded like it did. "Sony" I think it was. Did you design it?
> > What I am sure you meant is that the talented audio engineer is not afraid to buck the trend, to try something new. He may see the logic in something that others may have missed. Or, as Clark as written, he sees the entire system in his minds eye. < <
Not really. The "pure" in "pure t & r subjectivism" was referring to "subjectivism"; as in "pure subjectivism vs. dbt subjectivism". Engineers like Verneker or Yves Bernard Andre might be a few examples of those who adopt subjective listening to their evaluation process, and discard objective means if they don't produce good subjective results. Both can coexist, contrary to popular opinion here. Of course conservative approaches are necessary in bridges or combustion engineering, but this is audio; different game.
> > I am glad you like my signature! My signature reflects that fact that, 1) I have LOTS of opinions but few beliefs, meaning that opinions are subject to change with new data, 2)certainty is for those that keep their lives VERY simple, ambiguity is the nature of human reality. < <
Well I liked the sig simply because it made me laugh. I agree with 2), and indeed, I find it parallels what is going on all across this forum; the battles between those who keep their lives very simple with 'certainties' about audio, and those who have no problem risking ambiguity.
> I find it parallels what is going on all across this forum; the battles between those who keep their lives very simple with 'certainties' about audio, and those who have no problem risking ambiguity. <Precisely! I wish audio were certain as it would mean my life would be that much simpler. :) Unfortunately, buying a new set of speakers one likes and acoustically tidying up one's room isn't all there is to getting the best sound.
I came to PropHead to try and find out why something like cables could change the sound of an audio rig. As the suggested possibility that it's all in my mind is patently wrong, I'm still left wondering.
c
I'm an engineer. I can face up to the subjectivists.Anyway, how much is "too much"? Can you give us a number on that?
I submit that you are not a working engineer anymore; you are a reviewer that makes your living off the more subjectivist part of your being. I would suspect that would throw you more over to the less rigorous, but perhaps, more holistic, modes of thinking. Then again, I could be wrong about that. Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last.....A number? Hmm...somwhere between "here" and "there". You wouldn't want me to rigidly quantify that now would you?
I would say it would not be quantitative but qualitative. Does the post have anything to do with engineering, or creating, a piece of audio gear or software? Of course there are, and always will be, gray areas (or rainbow colors if you prefer). I would think that IC cables and how they relate to the gear under question would be a good topic for this forum. Then again I would say that LED's on the wall as a sound enhancement belongs in another forum. Cryoing gear belongs, as long as both the plusses and minuses can be discussed. Tweaks designed to enhance the human don't belong here, however worthy they might be. AA has TONS of forums for that.
Again, all my talking is moot if all the working audio engineers have already left this forum. In which case...as you were......It was the Impulse of the Night that made me post in the first place.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
Behold: That's a statement made by an "objectivist". After carefully researching the situation and consulting all sources, he comes up with -- a fantastical conjecture. And a wrong one too, by the way. Anyway, if you want to know what I really do think about reviewers, see my referenced column."I submit that you are not a working engineer anymore." You know what they say: Once an engineer, always an engineer. Matter of fact, I'm working on some engineering inventions in the film and video realm, as well as something altogether new in the computer realm.
"A number? Hmm...somwhere between "here" and "there". You wouldn't want me to rigidly quantify that now would you?" I would expect nothing less from a fervent objectivist. So: Cough it up!
"Then again I would say that LED's on the wall as a sound enhancement belongs in another forum." Oh you would, would you? Go right ahead, be my guest; but please give *some* justification, eh?
"Again, all my talking is moot if all the working audio engineers have already left this forum." Newsflash: Almost the only ones ever here are/were high-end types, who largely disagree with AES-type orthodoxy. And I say that, as a "Lifetime Member" of that staid body.
clark
I am not a fervent objectivist, I have feet in both worlds.The operative phrase is "too much" talk of tweaks and so on...too much is, of course, a nebulous value becuase I dont know the exact amount it takes. As in I don't know the exact amount of straw that will break the donkey's back, but do know that too much will do it.
Cool, can you talk of your projects or are they NDA'd?
I read your link; you sure are hard on the desingers...does that include Curl? Lamm? Pass? Hansen? Yourself?
I know the previous engineering posters were high end engineers/designers since this is an audiophile website, but....where are those working engineers now?
LED's on the wall would come, imho, under the rubic of Tweak, as that is not an element that, say , an amp designer could include in his product. The LED's can be well and truly discussed on the many other forums on AA devoted to such things, and I might be convinced to try it based on good postings.
Actually, I can prove that good interior decorating can vastly improve the emotional sound of your system.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
> I am not a fervent objectivist, I have feet in both worlds.But are they firmly on the ground?...
> The operative phrase is "too much" talk of tweaks and so on...too much is, of course, a nebulous value becuase I dont know the exact amount it takes. As in I don't know the exact amount of straw that will break the donkey's back, but do know that too much will do it.
You might try... not reading it...
> Cool, can you talk of your projects or are they NDA'd?
Partly. I have some open source info. If you're intrigued, by all means write me. clarkjohnsen at gmail.com
> I read your link; you sure are hard on the desingers...does that include Curl? Lamm? Pass? Hansen? Yourself?
We know who we are...
> I know the previous engineering posters were high end engineers/designers since this is an audiophile website, but....where are those working engineers now?
Uh... working?...
> LED's on the wall would come, imho, under the rubic of Tweak, as that is not an element that, say , an amp designer could include in his product.
Funny guy! Guess you're not acquainted with Edge...
Besides, how could LEDs on a wall be part of an amp anyway?
> The LED's can be well and truly discussed on the many other forums on AA devoted to such things,
Such as...? (Name three of the "many".)
> and I might be convinced to try it based on good postings.
Or, let's face it, more likely, not.
> Actually, I can prove that good interior decorating can vastly improve the emotional sound of your system.
For myself it's all in the lighting.
> Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
I dunno...
> > Tweaks designed to enhance the human don't belong here, however worthy they might be. < <No, audio accessory products designed to enhance human perception belong here even more than other subjects do, so long as their validity is still in dispute. Because they are on the vanguard of audio science, and it falls under the "scientic -- other topics" section of this forum, and they will only come to be understood and a force for progress and advancement of the audio industry, by discussion of their principles. In scientific terms, they are the most significant thing to happen to audio... and beyond.
Hi.These are two total different animals, my friend.
Cryoenics is a branch of physics (or engineering) that studies the production of very low temperatures (below -150C, or -238F or 123K) & the behaviour of materials at those temperaturs. This deep-freeze started well back in WWII & was first commercialized in 1966 by Ed Busch.
The National Institute of Standards & Technologies defined this lowly -180C basing on the boiling point of permanent gass (helium, hydrogen, nein,nitrogen, oxygen & normal air) being below -180C.
As compared to Freon refrigerants, HsS having boiling points above -180C.Applying cryo science to electroncs, like amp valves etc. can be called cygrotronics.
By freezing it in the frige freezer is NOT cryoing, it is, IMO, a tweak.
Does this tweak work??? I went through this tweak myself hoping that such deep freeze MIGHT help to some extent improve the sonics of the parts, borrowing the cryogenic concept of metal structure stress improvement.
I tried such so called deep freeze of my tube, intersconnects & the likes in my freezer down to -30C for a couple of days & warm them up slowly in a couple of days. A pretty tedeous & boring process.
I found the sonic improvement, if any, was pretty subtle provided that you have a very revealing sound system.
Again, please don't blind us with science which does not apply to this tweak.
c-J
1) Of course freezing using a domestic deep freezer is not freezing at cryogenic temperatures.2) We introduced people to the freezing/slow defrost procedure using their domestic deep freezer for them to experiment for themselves and, if it was successful for them (which, apparently, it turned out not to be for you) then they would be more aware of what things could contribute to improving their sound !! Although you say it did not work for you, nevertheless, it has worked for numerous other people - see Greg Weavers article in Soundstage for just ONE example !!!
3) But, having said all that - we can return to the cryogenic freezing and keep the discussion solely on THAT technique. All the questions I asked are STILL relevant. Why is not Prop Head section inundated with engineers describing THEIR experiences and THEIR sound after trying this technique ? Exactly the same (technical) circuits - exactly the same (technical) components - exactly the same engineering expertise - but the sound is better after this technique is used !! So, why are AUDIO engineers not discussing it ? Over 20 years since it was first described as improving the sound of audio equipment and my questions are even more pertinent than if I had asked them 20 years ago. Precisely because engineers have had plenty of time, in that 20 years, to do all the experiments they would need to do !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi.(1) Yes, I know you always mean home freezer chilling. I know how cryogenics work but I don't know how such 'high' temp home freeze work as well. Hence my question.
Do you think the material being frozen in a home freezer, can have their dislocation of the molecular micro structures realigned properly by such small temp drop?
(2) My question to you is always: can you please explain to us how
a 'high' temp freeze (say -30C in my case) can improve sound with reference to -180C employed in cryogenics
You never try to answwer this core question, but even now, you keep
on endorsing others' finding. Whoever found home freezing works however good, still unanswer this basic question.(3) PHP is a technical plaza where any audio claims are expected to be suported with ideally, measurement reports, or if not available, theories & relevant technical papers. Failing to provide such proper substantiation, we expect at least some scientific reasoning so that we can understand where such claim may come from.
You raise the issue to us & surely we expect you can explain technically how your issue come along. It is your job to explain why you rasie this issue & how & why it happened in your own language.
You don't just pass the bug to the readers to do the homework for you.
If you don't like the way PHP has been running, why not go to other non-technical gossip forums. You're more than welcome.
Who said engineers don't use their ears to listen? I'm one in power engneering, FYI & I use my ears to determine whether the audio gears I design/built work for me or not, sonically to say the least.
But we just don't endorse anything abstract like sonics without concrete technical knowhow established.
c-J
Did anyone get the memo?We all needed to perform an engineering analysis on claims made by everyone and anyone who waltzes into PHP?
Uh, no. That's not how the world works. If you make a claim, you have options as to how you will present yourself:
1) "I think this works, and I heard it and that's all that matters." (in which case kindly do not bring it up at PHP)
2) "I think this works, and here is WHY." (please stay and feel free to discuss in PHP)
3) "I think this works, I don't know why, but would like to." (again, welcome aboard)Those who demand everyone abandon the scientific method and subject themselves to completely uncontrolled listening tests CHALK FULL of expectation bias and placebo affects are really in the wrong forum. And this is why they probably feel under attack - because they have no desire to participate within the cultural norms of PHP. It's like joining a golf club and demanding everyone arrange flowers instead.
Those who wish to discuss topics here need to at least ATTEMPT to substantiate what they are talking about - and NOT pass that duty onto to others. Some seem to believe that they can simply stand behind subjective and unsubstantiable claims, while leaving it up to OTHERS to prove or disprove these claims using scientific methods. That's where those people would be wrong and that's why they (and their vocal supporters) come under such "heavy fire" in this forum.
How can people in this forum refute evidence if none is provided in the first place? There is nothing to confirm or refute! And I personally won't do these "Just try it and see" listening tests because if I tested things only in that manner, I would be forever changing my system, chasing the eternally dynamic and uncharted complexities of human perception. I don't test ANYTHING (exclusively) in this manner for that single reason alone.
The only test I have done that gives me any valuable insight into testing this way (using my ears only in sighted tests) is that repeatability is next to non-existant, and that BELIEVING something was changed resulting in me reporting a sonic change.
If belief can create a perceived sonic change, then we must account for the effects of belief when attempting to substantiate claims.
"Devout" audiophiles seldom admit this can happen - it's a real FAITH SHAKER.
I want to know - in which science is the extra pleasure obtained from aligning screw heads based? Acoustics? Or Psychology?
That's all we want to know May.
new science: Audio as a branch of Primate Psychology.
Give Me Ambiguity or Give Me Something Else!
cheap-Jack wrote:> > Does this tweak work??? < <
Yes!!!!! <--- (note number of exclamation marks)
> > I found the sonic improvement, if any, was pretty subtle provided that you have a very revealing sound system. < <
Right. Yet non-audiophiles have done it on their cheap chinese knockoff mp4 players, and were amazed at the improvement. See my latest post "Who here DOESN'T believe in The Freeze Effect?". I think that says a lot about your listening skills. Once you work on improving them, then you will find the effect is far more significant than you thought.
> > borrowing the cryogenic concept of metal structure stress improvement....
> > Again, please don't blind us with science which does not apply to this tweak. < <LOL! You got that thoroughly backwards, "my friend". You're the one blinding -yourself- to science which does not apply to this tweak. Like most who pretend to stand behind science, you choose to only believe what makes sense to you, rather than what is actually true.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: