Quote:
When someone show me they can reliably identify caps blind, I'll be glad to be put out to pasture. Hell, Jan and the Frog can drive the truck!

Hoooooray! Gas is $1.45 a gallon!

Quote:
As you know, I never insult others first, only in defense.

--Ethan

Now that

Frank S I am not mocking anyone. I am incredulous to many of Ethan's wild statements and felt his reply to my post should be read side-by-side so newcomers to this thread can compare and contrast our respective approach to audio. That's why I quoted my previous post. Nothing more, nothing less.

As to questions from you that have gone unanswered, if you are referring to the exact details of the quenching process for my resonators, or what we measure for during this process, I am sorry but that is proprietary. As Spinal Tap so sagely stated, "it's a very fine line between clever and stupid". I for one am not about to give away the clever part

Yours in music,
Ted Denney Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Quote:

As to questions from you that have gone unanswered, if you are referring to the exact details of the quenching process for my resonators, or what we measure for during this process, I am sorry but that is proprietary. As Spinal Tap so sagely stated, "it's a very fine line between clever and stupid". I for one am not about to give away the clever part

Yours in music,
Ted Denney Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Hi Ted, I wouldn't expect you to offer "exact details" merely offer some idea as to how a specific quenching process would directly relate to "tuning" your devices. I'll look for any response on the ART thread instead of threadcrapping here. Thanks in advance!

Quote:
The thing that perplexes me is that some people need to know what's on the label before they can hear differences

Hey, that's nothing. I can communicate with the dead! Want proof? Just ask me who was buried in Grant's tomb! Don't go covering up some tombstone and asking me who's buried there though. That stresses me out and makes me lose my powers.

Yours in music,
andy_c

Quote:

Quote:
Tolerances seem to be much closer these days, but in Ethan's world, the last 20 years of improvements have been for naught, sonically. Just how far off do tolerances have to be for you to notice them?

Now hold on a moment there partner! We've always had high-tolerance parts, and it's important to use them in some situations. Such as the capacitors in the left and right channels of a stereo EQ. Likewise, balanced input microphone preamps use precision resistors to reject hum and noise better. And so forth. Even 30 years ago, most 5 percent carbon film resistors measured closer to 2 percent or even tighter.

But the notion of being able to "hear" a competent (and appropriately chosen) capacitor is lunacy IMO. As you suggested, it's a helluva lot easier to identify which cap you're hearing when you can read the label.

When someone show me they can reliably identify caps blind, I'll be glad to be put out to pasture. Hell, Jan and the Frog can drive the truck!

--Ethan

Same Ethan Winer that I grabbed an excellent SF2 from a few years back for my Reality project?

I did an interesting experiment last year with a well known skeptic up here in Canada, the results are here: (and of course the thread goes down the same path as this one

http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9298&highlight=eat+crow

Cheers,
Ian Grant

Quote:
SAS, I tend to land in your camp, but want to ax some questions...

When you are designing a piece of gear and hear the differences you hear, do you need to know the brand of, say, capacitor that you are working with in order to consistently have the same impression of its sonic attributes?

I actually do think that I have heard different capacitors have different impacts on my gear when I have tried switching them around, and I am in the 'cables can sound different group,' so I do not mean this as a 'gotcha' question.

The thing that perplexes me is that some people need to know what's on the label before they can hear differences.

Very curious!

I'd also be interested in how you think the quality of components has progressed. Tolerances seem to be much closer these days, but in Ethan's world, the last 20 years of improvements have been for naught, sonically.

Just how far off do tolerances have to be for you to notice them?

Cheers.

Dear Buddha,

I would say it depends upon whether mass market, or high end. Mass market still uses the same 5% carbon (film) resistors and electrolytic capacitors, even for coupling. I have not checked for long term stability in resistors in decades, so they may stay fairly accurate these days.

Decades ago, 50s, 60s etc, 10% and 20% was the norm for mass market. Over a few years use, I have seen 20% to 50% changes. These days may be much better.

High end audio has seemed to use 1% or even tighter tolerance resistors for 20 years or more, which are quite stable over the long term. There are many more polypropylene capacitor manufacturers than even 10 years ago, and teflon is now widely available, but for a hefty fee as they are very difficult to manufacture.

Which leads me into different capacitors. I used solen for years (80s to mid 90s) and after getting online to the internet, I started hearing about differences in capacitors. So I ended up purchasing 5 different brands and tested them as coupling caps. I saw them when connecting and testing but had no idea if there was any difference or what those differences might be. Afterall, Solen is called "fast" caps which is good advertising.

The solens were not the best, but neither were the most expensive I had. The cap in the upper middle price was the closest to a wire. The most expensive were thin and even with huge amounts of capacitance the sound remained thin.

Hope this answers your questions Buddha.
Cheers.

Quote:
Same Ethan Winer that I grabbed an excellent SF2 from a few years back for my Reality project?

You bet. In fact, I recently put all my original SoundFonts on my site:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/ewsf2.html

Quote:
and of course the thread goes down the same path as this one

As always! On one side you have people with logic and common sense, and a solid understanding of electronics. On the other side are stone-throwers with nothing but insults, who are certain they hear an enormous improvement after replacing one perfectly competent wire with another that of course costs much more. Yep, same ol' same ol'.

--Ethan

Quote:
I am incredulous to many of Ethan's wild statements and felt his reply to my post should be read side-by-side so newcomers to this thread can compare and contrast

You (and others) would be far more convincing if you were able to refute my statements.

--Ethan

Quote:
IMO,the truly developed, scientific mind would recognize the inadequacy of applying these reductionist methods to areas of such complexity as music, audio and perception.

So what kind of person NEEDS this illusion of control?

What kind of person NEEDS to believe they can quantify, fragment, reduce, compartmentalize, measure and mechanize these elements of experience that only exist in their truest form as a whole?

What kind of person NEEDS to simplify, subordinate and dominate the objects of their experience and then insist they better understand their world in all its disconnected pieces and parts?

What kind of a person? Ethan!

Quote:
Frank S I am not mocking anyone. I am incredulous to many of Ethan's wild statements and felt his reply to my post should be read side-by-side so newcomers to this thread can compare and contrast our respective approach to audio. That's why I quoted my previous post. Nothing more, nothing less.

As to questions from you that have gone unanswered, if you are referring to the exact details of the quenching process for my resonators, or what we measure for during this process, I am sorry but that is proprietary. As Spinal Tap so sagely stated, "it's a very fine line between clever and stupid". I for one am not about to give away the clever part

Yours in music,
Ted Denney Lead Designer Synergistic Research Inc.

Seems to me that Ted and Ethan are poles apart, both fringe dwellers. Ethan's comment about there being no significant audio strides in the last 20 yrs (my paraphrase) sounds like something from the fringe. Ted accuses Ethan of wild claims but I visited his website and have to say that claims found there seem equally wild. I think we could all live happily ever after somewhere in between. OK, I'm raising my deflector shields now.

Quote:
Ethan's comment about there being no significant audio strides in the last 20 yrs

That's not exactly what I said. My comment addressed raw audio fidelity - distortion, noise, frequency response - and I think I excluded loudspeakers. Sure, there's lots that is new in audio, for example lossy compression which is pretty good now at high bit rates. And there are many convenience features like better remotes, wireless do-dads, etc. But Buddha asked (also paraphrasing) when audio quality reached the point where anything better would not be audible. And the answer to that question is at least 20 years ago.

--Ethan

Quote:
What kind of a person? Ethan!

How does that refute my claims? You might just as well post "LOL" a few times and call it a day.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Same Ethan Winer that I grabbed an excellent SF2 from a few years back for my Reality project?

You bet. In fact, I recently put all my original SoundFonts on my site:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/ewsf2.html

Quote:
and of course the thread goes down the same path as this one

As always! On one side you have people with logic and common sense, and a solid understanding of electronics. On the other side are stone-throwers with nothing but insults, who are certain they hear an enormous improvement after replacing one perfectly competent wire with another that of course costs much more. Yep, same ol' same ol'.

--Ethan

I'll download your SF2's next time I have my Reality box running, thanks for sharing them.

I like to think I have a decent understanding of electronics, a bit of logic, might be lacking in the common sense department Definatelty am on the pro side that power cables make a difference, just seems to be the more expensive, the more likely to screw up your system.

The simplest way to listen for power cable difference is the seperation and distinction of the bass and kick drum. Something as a recording engineer I spent hours on many mixes getting just right and then listening on varoius playback systems and hearing that work vanish into a single thump on the downbeat. A good power chord can bring back the seperation of the bass and kick.

The logic with the power cables I am familiar with is RF filtering which reduces false harmonics getting into the components at the all important 50 or 60 hz range which are then amplified and reproduced in the music chain with their own false harmonics being generated which muddy up the upper regions of the mix.

3 years ago I was in the 'what ever cable fits the whole works fine' and wouldn't think of spending money on high-end cabling when the funds could go towards more gear. That has all changed now, especially as I get new gear all the time to play with Fun being on the 'other side' of audio again.

Cheers,
Ian

Quote:
How does that refute my claims? You might just as well post "LOL" a few times and call it a day.

OK, that works for me. Winer, your absolute reductionism and uber-cynicism in these affairs does the best job of refuting what you say with each new post you add. You refuse to even acknowlege the experience of others in favor of what a machine tells you.

I don't believe anyone here, even the most subjective of listeners, agrees with you 100% on what matters and what can lead to improvements in a system's sound or how to judge components. The fact you will not even listen to anything new - soundwise or discussion based - finishes the job for a large portion of us. If you cannot look up from your test gear on occasion, what can you really see? Only what you already know. Your attitude of, "Hell, I do know everything", is, as has been stated, a declaration to never even consider learning anything new particularly if it is outside the bounds of your accepted knowledge. You are the same as those who argued against Galileo because, "Hell, they knew everything".

If you can be wrong about cables or components or tweaking, as most feel you are in at least one area, then what else might you have wrong? There's no need to refute what doesn't matter.

>>> "As always! On one side you have people with logic and common sense, and a solid understanding of electronics. On the other side are stone-throwers with nothing but insults, who are certain they hear an enormous improvement after replacing one perfectly competent wire with another that of course costs much more. Yep, same ol' same ol'.
--Ethan " <<<

So, Ethan, you can only see it as TWO sides, can you ??

So, Ethan, what about the people WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics who can ALSO hear improvements after replacing one wire (cable) with another wire - irrespective of it's cost ?????

Again with the price !! The "price" argument is a diversionary argument. The price only comes into the equation AFTER one has established that there is an improvement in the sound which one would desire - then the consideration is what that improvement is worth to that particular individual !!

What about another situation when the SAME wire, connected a different way round, gives an improvement in the sound ? SAME wire, SAME cost !! But heard by people WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics !!

As illustrated with the quote from a British Hi Fi magazine I gave from a few 'posts' back :-

Copied from the 1983 article :- (I have deliberately not named the editor who wrote it - May Belt).

>>> "I had an interesting conversation with a contributor to (???) some months back. "Isn't it about time" I was asked, "that we organised a test to show that this business about cables being directional is a load of rubbish, dreamed up by unscrupulous con men ?"

To fill in some background for those of you who may not read the down-market hi-fi magazines, a number of hi-fi opinion leaders are claiming that any cable - signal or speaker level, it doesn't matter - will cause the sound to be different connected one way round to the other.
How could a phenomenon like directionality in conductors, therefore, have been missed by researchers all this time ? Surely it is too much to believe that it hid if an engineer bearing measuring equipment approached, but it was only too willing to be heard if carrying a music signal ?
My initial reaction, therefore, to this 'new' fact, was to dismiss it as moonshine. However, a less-than-open-mind is nothing to be proud of, even when confronted with statements which appear to contradict everything one has learnt or been told.

The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound.
I certainly thought it worth looking further into the matter but not with the object of 'proving' it to be rubbish (to carry out an experiment with the object of confirming established dogma is akin to intellectual fascism, I believe).

The actual experiments took place inadvertently on my part. I had been visiting ????? in order to listen to the use of a new low-noise transistor. You can imagine my distress at the end of the session, when ????? showed us that the only difference between A and B was the direction of the 1 m length of interconnect between pre-and power amps !!!

If that audible difference really does exist, what on earth can be the reason for it ? To the best of my knowledge, as long as the copper used is of high purity, without lattice defects or impurities, then the blame cannot be laid at the door of the conductor.

But, what about the insulation ? Before you tell me that the current doesn't flow in the insulation, remember that AC signal flow is NOT synonymous with the movement of electrons; rather, it is analogous to a 'shock wave' travelling via the medium of the moving electrons. Heaviside showed at the end of the last century that, dependent on frequency and due to the conductor's self inductance, this 'shock wave' flows to some extent OUTSIDE the conductor.
Maybe Enid Lumley was right after all ! In the meantime, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, something is going on, and we don't know what it is, do we ? " <<< (end of the 1983 article) !!

***********

To quote from this article "Something is going on, and we don't know what it is, do we ?"
But, with your viewpoint of just TWO sides, Ethan, there seems to be nothing (in your opinion) going on which needs investigating !!

And, with your quite rigid viewpoint, there are not people WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics who can ALSO hear improvements after replacing one wire (cable) with another wire and who KNOW, therefore, that it HAPPENS and that there IS something going on which needs investigating !!!!!!

Again, from the 1983 article I have quoted,

>>> "How could a phenomenon like directionality in conductors, therefore, have been missed by researchers all this time ? Surely it is too much to believe that it hid if an engineer bearing measuring equipment approached, but it was only too willing to be heard if carrying a music signal ?
My initial reaction, therefore, to this 'new' fact, was to dismiss it as moonshine. However, a less-than-open-mind is nothing to be proud of, even when confronted with statements which appear to contradict everything one has learnt or been told.

The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound.
I certainly thought it worth looking further into the matter but not with the object of 'proving' it to be rubbish (to carry out an experiment with the object of confirming established dogma is akin to intellectual fascism, I believe)." <<<

Comments as relevant today as they were 25 years ago !!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
The simplest way to listen for power cable difference is the seperation and distinction of the bass and kick drum.

Actually, the simplest way to determine for certain that a cable swap actually changed anything is to measure at the amplifier's output. Or do a null test if you don't know what to measure. Anything else is just guessing, and subject to error.

--Ethan

Quote:
what about the people WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics who can ALSO hear improvements after replacing one wire

I have yet to encounter anyone like that.

Quote:
The "price" argument is a diversionary argument.

Not at all. If these nonsense tweaks were free I'd have no objection. The more they cost, the more it becomes a fraud.

Quote:
To quote from this article "Something is going on, and we don't know what it is, do we ?" But, with your viewpoint of just TWO sides, Ethan, there seems to be nothing (in your opinion) going on which needs investigating !!

First you have to convince me that "something is going on." You could do that easily by passing a blind test. Oh wait, I forgot, your side doesn't believe in blind tests!

--Ethan

Don

Quote:

Quote:
The simplest way to listen for power cable difference is the seperation and distinction of the bass and kick drum.

Actually, the simplest way to determine for certain that a cable swap actually changed anything is to measure at the amplifier's output. Or do a null test if you don't know what to measure. Anything else is just guessing, and subject to error.

--Ethan

Yeah, that's what the average audiophile should do, "measure at the amplifier's output or do a null test!"

All the rest of you's is idiots. Using your ears. PAH!

Quote:
All the rest of you's is idiots. Using your ears. PAH!

You don't really believe that do you? This is a serious question.

A friend of mine commented to me recently that the main motive behind believers expressing strong opinions that what they (think they) hear trumps "science" is simply ego. They don't understand the frailty of human hearing, and they refuse to accept they could be wrong. So instead they get mad at guys like me.

As RG said, what if Ethan is right?

--Ethan

Sorry, I forgot to add:

Bring back DUP

"They don't understand the frailty of human hearing, and they refuse to accept they could be wrong."

We all make mistakes sometime, but from what I can tell those who've learned to trust their ears are light years ahead of of the specs are everything crowd.

It's Invasion of the Body Snatchers all over again.

GK

Quote:

We all make mistakes sometime, but from what I can tell those who've learned to trust their ears are light years ahead of of the specs are everything crowd.

GK

Geoff, just how many light years ahead does one have to be to realize the benefits of the Teleportation tweak?

Ideally, the customer should not be all thumbs and be able to hear out of at least one ear.

Quote:
Ideally, the customer should not be all thumbs and be able to hear out of at least one ear.

C'mon Geoff, That doesn't answer my question. I figured you could give me a number.....in light years of course.

Another unanswered question? My bad.

Quote:

Quote:
How about a new year's "bygones" and start from scratch? All around? I'm in!

I'm in too, but I was already in a few weeks ago when Stephen told SAS and me to both cut it out. So I cut it out, but he kept at it. As you know, I never insult others first, only in defense.

--Ethan

Actually no, that's not entirely true. You project your knowledge base into other people's knowledge base and in a clearly defacto manner call their understandings as being wrong via the promotion of your own ideals over theirs. It's in the way you do it. The sheer blindness of it. Almost as if you are commanding others to exist and act specifically via your knowledge base and nothing else exists outside of that. Like some sort of 'Ethan's way or the highway', as a form of projection.

This is far more insulting than a direct and vulgar insult.

We all do our 'little things' to some degree, but that one seems to give some folks around here grief.

Quote:
This is far more insulting than a direct and vulgar insult.

Kind Sir, I do sincerely hope you are not incorrectly implying Mr. Winer is above making the direct and vulgar insult - several times?

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what about the people WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics who can ALSO hear improvements after replacing one wire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have yet to encounter anyone like that.

Winer, your absolute reductionism and uber-cynicism in these affairs does the best job of refuting what you say with each new post you add.

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the rest of you's is idiots. Using your ears. PAH!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't really believe that do you? This is a serious question.

Quote:
Winer, your absolute reductionism and uber-cynicism in these affairs does the best job of refuting what you say with each new post you add. You refuse to even acknowlege the experience of others in favor of what a machine tells you.

I don't believe anyone here, even the most subjective of listeners, agrees with you 100% on what matters and what can lead to improvements in a system's sound or how to judge components. The fact you will not even listen to anything new - soundwise or discussion based - finishes the job for a large portion of us. If you cannot look up from your test gear on occasion, what can you really see? Only what you already know. Your attitude of, "Hell, I do know everything", is, as has been stated, a declaration to never even consider learning anything new particularly if it is outside the bounds of your accepted knowledge. You are the same as those who argued against Galileo because, "Hell, they knew everything".

If you can be wrong about cables or components or tweaking, as most feel you are in at least one area, then what else might you have wrong? There's no need to refute what doesn't matter.

So right it needs saying twice.

I rest my case.

Quote:

Quote:
This is far more insulting than a direct and vulgar insult.

Kind Sir, I do sincerely hope you are not incorrectly implying Mr. Winer is above making the direct and vulgar insult - several times?

I'm pretty good at insulting and vulgar at the same time. Not quite a 'natural' at it but hey..we can try. To dream....

He who cast first, etc. Best to keep the trap shut and all that.

Quote:

"what about the people WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics who can ALSO hear improvements after replacing one wire"

To which Ethan replied :-
>>> "I have yet to encounter anyone like that." <<<

Jan, it is the disdain, the arrogance with which Ethan dismisses so many people's experiences which I find so surprising.

30 years on, since Jean Hiraga (Editor of the French Hi Fi Magazine La Nouvelle Revue du Son) first caused an impact on the world of audio - what Keith Howard refers to as "eruptions at eight-on-the-Richter-scale", Ethan is still dismissing so many people's experiences. As Keith goes on to say (in his July 2001 Hi Fi News article "The freezing issue") "If even connecting cables sounded different, then nothing of the old view could be taken for granted any longer. Intellectually, the earth had moved".

In this same article Keith says "But, listening to cryogenically-treated speaker cables and interconnects proved to be an astonishing experience."

AND :-

Because the manufacturer of the cables assembled the cables himself, Keith (and a collaborator) were able to listen to cables of identical properties and construction but with one left untreated as the control and the other 'treated'. Keith says :-

>>> "I've now done the comparison many times, and the difference continues to astound me. If anything, the interconnect cables, when they arrived a little later, proved even greater a revelation than the speaker cables. Once again, the sound of the 'treated' cables was characterised by manifestly superior transparency. Music was dynamic in a way that simply eluded the other cables - more finely etched and yet more weighty and punchy too." <<<

The VERY cryogenic treatment which Ethan so readily dismissed (amongst other things) in his comment :-
>>> "Just as bad are magic hockey pucks, too-small room treatments that defy all that is known about physics, power "conditioner" products, amplifiers that claim to use no negative feedback (I guess the designers enjoy 10 percent distortion?), cryogenic products and processes, and so forth." <<<

Is Ethan REALLY suggesting that he HAS NOT encountered someone such as Keith Howard
who would surely be considered as someone "WITH logic, WITH common sense, WITH a solid understanding of electronics AND acoustics who can ALSO hear improvements after replacing one wire"

Regards,
May Belt.

It only takes 3 letters to refute practically everything you say , May : DBT.
No one has passed one re. cables and esoteric tweaks.

All the people that say they hear these differences don't mean anything in a scientific sense. It could all be placebo. These accounts are merely anecdotal.

I am not saying these things don't make a difference, I am saying we have no scientific proof they do.

So please qualify all your evidence as anecdotal, that's all you have to do to have at least some logical consistency

Quote:
It only takes 3 letters to refute practically everything you say , May : DBT.
No one has passed one re. cables and esoteric tweaks.

All the people that say they hear these differences don't mean anything in a scientific sense. It could all be placebo. These accounts are merely anecdotal.

I am not saying these things don't make a difference, I am saying we have no scientific proof they do.

So please qualify all your evidence as anecdotal, that's all you have to do to have at least some logical consistency

The problem with dbt's is that just one variable not accounted for will cause the testing results to be erroneous.

And were any of the dbt tests run properly? Howbeit no because not one that I have seen takes into account "habituation to stimuli". Habituation to stimuli is the phenomonem in which two different but close sounding "entities" sound the same after a few AB repetitions, even though at first they do sound different.

In order to minimize this phenonomen, only 3-4 ABs at a time, per session is permissible. Running more ABs (usually 10-20 ABs) skews the results and are therefore worthless because they are not real world situations when one listens to music. Of course some will not want to change their procedure as this challenges their beliefs and agendas.

No wonder one sometimes sees million dollar dbt test challenges offered. The results are guaranteed with the erroneous tests performed and even if one test result concluded a difference, the procedures of any dbt test can easily be challenged to negate the findings.

Cheers.

While I agree that the "objectivists" are often unscientific in their refusal to recognize or account for the complexities of human perception and psychology, it is equally unscientific to discount the influence of psychological factors (e.g., our expectations, manufacturers' reputations, and the opinions of authorities) on our perception of a component's quality in non-blind tests. Even if a reviewer is convinced that he or she is immune to such psychological effects, others have no reason to trust in such self-proclaimed immunity in the absence of any objective verification.

RG

"...it is equally unscientific to discount the influence of psychological factors."

But noone is discounting them or saying he is immune. Yours is a Strawman Argument. Thanks for the excellent example...

[A strawman argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.]

gk

Quote:

Quote:
Tolerances seem to be much closer these days, but in Ethan's world, the last 20 years of improvements have been for naught, sonically. Just how far off do tolerances have to be for you to notice them?

Now hold on a moment there partner! We've always had high-tolerance parts, and it's important to use them in some situations. Such as the capacitors in the left and right channels of a stereo EQ. Likewise, balanced input microphone preamps use precision resistors to reject hum and noise better. And so forth. Even 30 years ago, most 5 percent carbon film resistors measured closer to 2 percent or even tighter.

But the notion of being able to "hear" a competent (and appropriately chosen) capacitor is lunacy IMO. As you suggested, it's a helluva lot easier to identify which cap you're hearing when you can read the label.

When someone show me they can reliably identify caps blind, I'll be glad to be put out to pasture. Hell, Jan and the Frog can drive the truck!

--Ethan

Ethan, there is a comparison .dyf file in audio diffmaker that shows sonic differences between capacitor types.

Listen to it if you get a chance. quite ear-opening.

the program takes all of about 20 seconds to install. small footprint, easy to use....

Quote:

Quote:
As you know, I never insult others first, only in defense.

--Ethan

Now that

Quote:
Ethan, there is a comparison .dyf file in audio diffmaker that shows sonic differences between capacitor types. Listen to it if you get a chance. quite ear-opening.

Downloading now. I did note that the comparison is between a high quality poly and a disc ceramic cap. The problems with using disc caps for audio are well known, though they are much better than polys for power supply decoupling.

--Ethan

Quote:
there is a comparison .dyf file in audio diffmaker that shows sonic differences between capacitor types. Listen to it if you get a chance. quite ear-opening.

I installed the program and compared the two capacitor types. As expected, the difference between an appropriate cap and no cap is small, and larger with the "wrong" cap type. The difference sounded mostly like normal music, versus grainy artifacts, so I'm not convinced that even the disc ceramic is audibly damaging. But there are some problems with the program.

I assume the pairs of capacitor recordings were made at different times, one after the other, meaning there could be some clock drift. DiffMaker claims to sort out and align clock drift, but it failed to do that on another pair of files I have here. Those files came to me from a famous mastering engineer who recorded through different high-end audiophile line-level cables.

When he first sent me his files last week I loaded them into SONAR, the multi-track DAW program I use. I time-aligned both files manually where they start, and they nulled completely. But over five seconds the nulling became less and less, as the clocks drifted. We both understood the cause, and the fact they nulled completely at least for a few seconds convinced my friend and I there was no real difference between the cables.

I suppose I should extract the raw waves from the capacitor difference files, and see if I can do a better job nulling them manually. I'll do that next.

BTW, while examining the two files from my friend, DiffMaker said I should enable "Compensate for sample rate drift" and I did that. But it still didn't compensate.

I ran into two other bugs, but they were "usability" issues only. One was it hung every time I told it where to store its temp files, rather than let it decide where to store them. The other bug is that the hour glass does not show properly.

--Ethan

Okay, I tried to null the ceramic cap files manually in SONAR but couldn't do any better than DiffMaker does. Playing one file I see the maximum peak level is -9.0 dB, but the other hits -8.9 dB. This could be benign or it could be significant. SONAR can't adjust level finer than 0.1 dB so it'd be great to find a plug-in that can adjust 32-bit float volume in 0.01 dB increments. I've been looking for 15 minutes so far but found nothing.

Anyway, I don't care if the difference between no cap and a disc ceramic is audible. What I want to know concerns only appropriate caps, and if people who claim to be able to "hear capacitors" can do so reliably when they don't know which appropriate cap they're hearing. So far I have yet to see any evidence of this.

--Ethan

____________________
Bring back DUP

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Tolerances seem to be much closer these days, but in Ethan's world, the last 20 years of improvements have been for naught, sonically. Just how far off do tolerances have to be for you to notice them?

Now hold on a moment there partner! We've always had high-tolerance parts, and it's important to use them in some situations. Such as the capacitors in the left and right channels of a stereo EQ. Likewise, balanced input microphone preamps use precision resistors to reject hum and noise better. And so forth. Even 30 years ago, most 5 percent carbon film resistors measured closer to 2 percent or even tighter.

But the notion of being able to "hear" a competent (and appropriately chosen) capacitor is lunacy IMO. As you suggested, it's a helluva lot easier to identify which cap you're hearing when you can read the label.

When someone show me they can reliably identify caps blind, I'll be glad to be put out to pasture. Hell, Jan and the Frog can drive the truck!

--Ethan

Ethan, there is a comparison .dyf file in audio diffmaker that shows sonic differences between capacitor types.

Listen to it if you get a chance. quite ear-opening.

the program takes all of about 20 seconds to install. small footprint, easy to use....

Nc,

The files are on a program? If so can they be downloaded and burned onto a cd and played in one's system, or just listen on the computer? If the computer, or card, that is not a much of a quality audio system as it uses electrolytic capacitors for both the power supply and coupling.

If to cd, the question then becomes how good is one's system. If the system uses poor quality capacitors, which most low/moderately priced systems do, then the system's own capacitors will mask at least some if not the differences.

Either way, I don't see much to be gained by such a simplistic and inaccurate test.

Take care.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Tolerances seem to be much closer these days, but in Ethan's world, the last 20 years of improvements have been for naught, sonically. Just how far off do tolerances have to be for you to notice them?

Now hold on a moment there partner! We've always had high-tolerance parts, and it's important to use them in some situations. Such as the capacitors in the left and right channels of a stereo EQ. Likewise, balanced input microphone preamps use precision resistors to reject hum and noise better. And so forth. Even 30 years ago, most 5 percent carbon film resistors measured closer to 2 percent or even tighter.

But the notion of being able to "hear" a competent (and appropriately chosen) capacitor is lunacy IMO. As you suggested, it's a helluva lot easier to identify which cap you're hearing when you can read the label.

When someone show me they can reliably identify caps blind, I'll be glad to be put out to pasture. Hell, Jan and the Frog can drive the truck!

--Ethan

Ethan, there is a comparison .dyf file in audio diffmaker that shows sonic differences between capacitor types.

Listen to it if you get a chance. quite ear-opening.

the program takes all of about 20 seconds to install. small footprint, easy to use....

Nc,

The files are on a program? If so can they be downloaded and burned onto a cd and played in one's system, or just listen on the computer? If the computer, or card, that is not a much of a quality audio system as it uses electrolytic capacitors for both the power supply and coupling.

If to cd, the question then becomes how good is one's system. If the system uses poor quality capacitors, which most low/moderately priced systems do, then the system's own capacitors will mask at least some if not the differences.

Either way, I don't see much to be gained by such a simplistic and inaccurate test.

Take care.

your view is a bit too ..eh nevermind.. and to say that the test is "simplistic" is a bit crazy...Bill Waslo is very well respected and known in the audio realm. His company Liberty Instruments, Inc. develops and markets audio measurement and analysis software and hardware for acoustics, designers of loudspeakers and electronics, engineers, and researchers. I use the program a lot. Shed quite a bit of light on some bullshit myths I had floating around in my head. It was a given that the fringe crowd would talk trash about it, though.

The critical point is that if you are wanting to isolate one difference (that you aren't sure whether it is really there), while there are other differences that are indeed there, you have no hope of isolating the questionable one until you do something about (eliminate or mitigate) the known differences. Subtraction of signals is merciless, things are the same or they're not, no qualifications will help. A fair bit of insight and understanding about what you are dealing with in any situation is required. So, for instance, if you have two cases where the frequency responses are different, you'll have to remove that factor (via Equalization). Such as: nearly all power amplifiers have different frequency responses (very small differences, but that's all it takes). If you have speed differences (such as from two CD players or even the same one over time or temperature), you have to remove that effect (with sample rate alignment). If there are echoes in one recording and not the other, those have to be gone before you'll be able to see any further. And, worst, if you have a piece of equipment that can't even produce a signal identical with one it made iteslf just before, it will never be able to be identical to any other piece of equipment. I have a junky DVD player that fits that description (can't duplicate its own playback at two separate takes). All vinyl players will have this problem, most speakers will too (from stress.relaxation, heating, wear, etc). The problem is that there a billion ways for two signals (or pieces of gear) to be different, but only one way to be identical. That is DiffMaker's strength (if you get something testing identical, you can be quite sure of it). It is also it's weakness, though, as it has little ability to tell one difference from another -- when something tests "different" you can never be sure whether that difference is important or audible.

Sounds like a wonderful piece of equipment for convincing yourself nothing matters.

Quote:
Sounds like a wonderful piece of equipment for convincing yourself nothing matters.

it was free, so why not? I am of the reformed mind, having been one of the ultrafidelista types at one point in my life. in my case, the overload of snake oil hype, clever marketing campaigns that prey on ultrafidelista minds, and other factors were causing me to think irrationally.

Quote:
your view is a bit too ..eh nevermind.. and to say that the test is "simplistic" is a bit crazy...Bill Waslo is very well respected and known in the audio realm. His company Liberty Instruments, Inc. develops and markets audio measurement and analysis software and hardware for acoustics, designers of loudspeakers and electronics, engineers, and researchers. I use the program a lot. Shed quite a bit of light on some bullshit myths I had floating around in my head. It was a given that the fringe crowd would talk trash about it, though.

Might read my post again. There is a difference between comparing on a poor computer audio system, burning to CD and comparing on a mediocre audio system, and burning to CD and comparing on a good audio system. The first two systems are hardly quality systems to distinquish between capacitor types, which should tell you something. Just because he can design computer soundcards and write computer programs hardly qualifies him in this area of expertise. One has to match the individual's expertise with the discipline being discussed here in order to be meaningful.

If one wants meaningful input check out Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Atmasphere, PHD Edgar etc. They are experts in the field who neither use the most expensive capacitors nor the least expensive capacitors, but use the ones that sound best in their designs.

Quote:

Quote:
your view is a bit too ..eh nevermind.. and to say that the test is "simplistic" is a bit crazy...Bill Waslo is very well respected and known in the audio realm. His company Liberty Instruments, Inc. develops and markets audio measurement and analysis software and hardware for acoustics, designers of loudspeakers and electronics, engineers, and researchers. I use the program a lot. Shed quite a bit of light on some bullshit myths I had floating around in my head. It was a given that the fringe crowd would talk trash about it, though.

Might read my post again. There is a difference between comparing on a poor computer audio system, burning to CD and comparing on a mediocre audio system, and burning to CD and comparing on a good audio system. The first two systems are hardly quality systems to distinquish between capacitor types, which should tell you something. Just because he can design computer soundcards and write computer programs hardly qualifies him in this area of expertise. One has to match the individual's expertise with the discipline being discussed here in order to be meaningful.

If one wants meaningful input check out Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Atmasphere, PHD Edgar etc. They are experts in the field who neither use the most expensive capacitors nor the least expensive capacitors, but use the ones that sound best in their designs.

frankly, who gives a damn? If diffmaker doesnt do it for you, cool. If you think that the methodology is flawed, again...cool. But, again... Mr. Waslo has been around longer than probably 50-75 percent of the people on these forums, working in the audio trenches, so yeah.. im going to put faith in him, more especially over someone who has a financial interest in audio bullshit... besides that. your statement that a computer playback system is flawed is a generalization that is way, way too ...uh..general.. there are computer based systems that run the gamut..and most all well designed cards with a flat frequency response and appropriate snr will be adequate for comparisons.... Meaningful input is whatever I deem it to be, and ill take Mr. Waslo's advice over any audio pimp. any day, any time, any where.

my Juli@ is quite good.
http://www.ixbt.com/proaudio/esi/julia/esi-juli@-lynx-two-2496-4dbu-balanced.shtml

Quote:
While I agree that the "objectivists" are often unscientific in their refusal to recognize or account for the complexities of human perception and psychology, it is equally unscientific to discount the influence of psychological factors (e.g., our expectations, manufacturers' reputations, and the opinions of authorities) on our perception of a component's quality in non-blind tests. Even if a reviewer is convinced that he or she is immune to such psychological effects, others have no reason to trust in such self-proclaimed immunity in the absence of any objective verification.

RG

Then run a proper dbt test with only 3-4 ABs per session. Of course there are other considerations such as time frame etc that can skew the dbt test.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
your view is a bit too ..eh nevermind.. and to say that the test is "simplistic" is a bit crazy...Bill Waslo is very well respected and known in the audio realm. His company Liberty Instruments, Inc. develops and markets audio measurement and analysis software and hardware for acoustics, designers of loudspeakers and electronics, engineers, and researchers. I use the program a lot. Shed quite a bit of light on some bullshit myths I had floating around in my head. It was a given that the fringe crowd would talk trash about it, though.

Might read my post again. There is a difference between comparing on a poor computer audio system, burning to CD and comparing on a mediocre audio system, and burning to CD and comparing on a good audio system. The first two systems are hardly quality systems to distinquish between capacitor types, which should tell you something. Just because he can design computer soundcards and write computer programs hardly qualifies him in this area of expertise. One has to match the individual's expertise with the discipline being discussed here in order to be meaningful.

If one wants meaningful input check out Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Atmasphere, PHD Edgar etc. They are experts in the field who neither use the most expensive capacitors nor the least expensive capacitors, but use the ones that sound best in their designs.

frankly, who gives a damn? If diffmaker doesnt do it for you, cool. If you think that the methodology is flawed, again...cool. But, again... Mr. Waslo has been around longer than probably 50-75 percent of the people on these forums, working in the audio trenches, so yeah.. im going to put faith in him, more especially over someone who has a financial interest in audio bullshit... besides that. your statement that a computer playback system is flawed is a generalization that is way, way too ...uh..general.. there are computer based systems that run the gamut..and most all well designed cards with a flat frequency response and appropriate snr will be adequate for comparisons.... Meaningful input is whatever I deem it to be, and ill take Mr. Waslo's advice over any audio pimp. any day, any time, any where.

my Juli@ is quite good.
http://www.ixbt.com/proaudio/esi/julia/esi-juli@-lynx-two-2496-4dbu-balanced.shtml

Hi NC,

Really, what audio trenches? I see no explanation of his qualifications except in computer program design and manufacturing a computer sound card, which is hardly high fidelity. And what about the rest of the computer audio system and speakers. So what audio trenches? As far as attacking me I have been in electronics for some 50 years, have a degree in electronics and been in audio since I was a kid. I have limited my researched to audio design since 1979.

I see you dismissed such huge and respected audio companies as Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Atmasphere, PHD Bruce Edgar etc who have far more research and expertise than you or Mr. Walso, so why eliminate them?

And please explain your education, research, and other qualifications that allow you to determine that Walso has more expertise than the four entities+ I mentioned above.

Quote:
Meaningful input is whatever I deem it to be, and ill take Mr. Waslo's advice over any audio pimp. any day, any time, any where.

Believe whatever you wish, but calling us "pimps" seems a little overboard don't you think. How do you determine which manfacturers are crooks?

And why do you only bash certain manufacturers, and not others who have faked data etc? In fact, you hyped one manufacturer three times in one string even though you saw the evidence that he was unethical. So please forgive me but I find it hard to believe much of what you state.

Cheers