AQ"s DBS A reality?

Printable View

  • 07-06-2006, 05:23 PM
    ruadmaa
    Looks like you have all the answers
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I am confident that Julian was capable of obtaining very accurate measurements. The relevant question is: so what? Back when I was fifteen, I took my AR amplifier to a McIntosh clinic to get its distortion measured. Sure enough, the specs were as good as the magazines reported. I learned an important lesson then about the (lack of) importance of such. Why then did it sound horrible at low levels? The numbers provided data but not information.

    May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

    rw

    So, - - - have you measured a burned in cable against a brand new one and found any differences??? If so, please enlighten us all. You seem to be in the quantifying business.
  • 07-06-2006, 07:10 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruadmaa
    So, - - - have you measured a burned in cable against a brand new one and found any differences??? If so, please enlighten us all. You seem to be in the quantifying business.

    A much better question would be: what factors other than the standard placebo effect response could be responsible for this common observation? Do you think that the system should be analyzed rather than taking the cable out of it's context?

    Like musicoverall, I don't really care about break in. I just listen to components and withhold serious judgement for a while. I just don't understand those who make pronouncements about that which is not fully understood.

    rw
  • 07-06-2006, 08:38 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I don't want to get into the middle of anything here but that article "10 audio lies" is the biggest load of crap I've read in a long time. I am not familiar with the writer but I have serious doubts as to him ever having any hands on audio experience. I believe he has an axe to grind or just wanted to get a buzz going by printing contradictory babble. I will try to stick with cables since that's the topic but all 10 of his rants were off base.

    You know if you want to use zip cord for speaker wire that's your choice, and if you've actually tried better wire and didn't think you heard a difference, I don't see how, but too bad for you. But it really makes my blood boil when I do hear a difference and some one says it's my imagination. Whether it's some one here or an idiot with a english degree who is paid to write articles that attract readers, and what's better to attract readers than causing controversy by going against popular opinions on audio subjects.

    I've returned products that I've tried and didn't hear a difference or not enough to warrant the expense. I have a hard time believing that anyone really wants to spend hundreds of dollars when they don't have to. I am fortunate enough to have a good relationship with a couple shops here and I audition before I buy, when I put something in my system, I'm not sitting there thinking boy I hope I get to spend a few hundred more dollars.

    Not all audible differences can be measured. Explain why your average receiver will have better spec sheets than a Krell or Levinson. That may not be the best analogy but there are materials and designs that do make sonic differences that there are no way to measure. What about capacitors for instance, you may have several measuring the same micro farrads yet because of the material inside they have different sonic effects on audio equipment.

    I personally have not noticed any differences in my cables over time but I have never compared a new one to one I've had in my system with many hours use either. I believe there must be some break in period because some companies have a device called a cable cooker for just that purpose. I have in many instances heard sonic differences between brands of cables.
  • 07-07-2006, 02:26 AM
    superpanavision70mm
    Why can't we all be friends?

    The cable debate really seems to fire people up on this site. The camps are divided. Those that say they DO make a difference and those that say they DON'T. The only real debate that the disbelievers have is the argument about 'fact' or 'scientific proof', which is all fine and dandy except for one minor problem. All the math in the world doesn't mean squat to most people. What does matter is a true difference. We are not talking about something very microscopic here....the cables that I have tested and compared have all shown dramatic differences that are noticeable quickly to even the most uninterested listener.

    So if everyone wants to keep this debate going on and on that's fine, but there will really never be a final conclusion because no one actually wants to take the time to listen to one anothers systems and perhaps become convinced otherwise.
  • 07-07-2006, 04:29 AM
    musicoverall
    No, I agree with JNeutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruadmaa
    Perhaps you should tell JNeutron that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll bet he would shoot you full of holes. You also might mention to Gene that he's full of hot air. Personally I highly respect the opinions of both men.

    He said Roger Russell is full of hot air and I agree. I would therefore have no reason to tell JNeutron he doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I respect that you respect the opinions of both men. But you claimed that the Della Salla link was "fact". Now that we know that was a misstatement, we're all ok. Carry on.
  • 07-07-2006, 04:39 AM
    musicoverall
    You think Peter "Axe-l" has an axe to grind????
    Naaaaahhhhhh! :)

    Short version - he was once able to hear differences in cables, amps, etc. Then he reviewed the Fourier speaker and "forgot" to tell his readers that he was part-owner. Naturally the review was a rave and the speakers were perfectly ordinary. The audiophile community (media, etc) came down on Aczel pretty hard and he did something right for a change - he went away. When he came back, he became the biggest most extreme objectivist the world has ever known. I'd say he's grinding his axe quite nicely. He even has a readership - small but vocal.
  • 07-07-2006, 04:45 AM
    musicoverall
    If I had to listen to this system...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    May he rest in peace with measurement champs such as a pair of his beloved AR-LSTs driven a Crown IC-150 preamp and DC-300a amplifier. :)

    rw

    ...I'd want to rest in peace myself! Or at least it would cure my obsessive music buying problem! :)
  • 07-07-2006, 05:24 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    but all 10 of his rants were off base.

    No, you are incorrect. Not all ten are off base. A few of them are correct.

    John
  • 07-07-2006, 06:29 AM
    musicoverall
    Please feel free to expound
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jneutron
    No, you are incorrect. Not all ten are off base. A few of them are correct.

    John

    Which ones?
  • 07-07-2006, 06:59 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Which ones?


    1. Cables.... A mix. States RLC matters, correct. Then provides an example of a coat hanger (magnetic, wide spacing) as equiv, even though R and L are incredibly different. Both sides at the same time??? Ok...

    2. Tubes..another mix..tube sound vs transistor..tubes rarely have low Z high current slew signals internal to the chassis while zistors do. Major diff..

    3. Antidigital..Reconstruction accuracy in the time domain we hear is based entirely on the depth of the digital algorithms. Too shallow gives loss of time and amplitude accuracy. And, has he ever heard the 11 uSec interchannel shift??

    4. Listening test..He has no clue as to human localization parameterics, especially the time dependence to changes in cues. Use of any switching style listening test for image change discernment is futile without consideration of this.

    5. Feedback without control of in-chassis magnetic fields is a mixed bag. Pos and neg rails in ss amps project different field patterns, and affect feedback based on the quadrant of operation..

    6. Burn in..In essence, correct. It is not the cables that are burning in, it is the human re-interpretation of changed cues.

    7. Bi wire..He's never calculated the dissipation loss envelope for single vs two wire sets. And, he is incorrect that whomever figures it out will garner major scientific prizes.

    Oh, and magnets in shoes to indeed do something. They produce discomfort.

    8. Power conditioning.. He knows nothing at all about ground loop currents. Guess anyone who hears hum is simply hearing things..The good thing about hum, is it announces it'self. Without it, the user is unaware there is a problem. Bryston was aware..

    9. CD treatments.He needs to learn what "dielectric coefficient, and "light dispersion" is. While I do concur on the green thingy, I am familiar with optics.. Sometimes, a fluid can be used to "buff" out, even temporarily, an interface issue. This has even more meaning for CD's that are burned over 8x, as the reflection diff between a 1 and a 0 is less.

    10. Golden ear..It depends on what one is listening for. Localization cue training has been reported by researchers, down to 1.5 uSec capability.

    Cheers, John

    PS. Sorry for the tech talk, guys...this forum is not supposed to be for that, but I don't think anybody would look in the lab for my response.

    PPS..sheesh, the typo's one gets when one doesn't look at the keyboard...
  • 07-07-2006, 08:51 AM
    musicoverall
    Don't apologize, Big Guy?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jneutron
    1. Cables.... A mix. States RLC matters, correct. Then provides an example of a coat hanger (magnetic, wide spacing) as equiv, even though R and L are incredibly different. Both sides at the same time??? Ok...

    2. Tubes..another mix..tube sound vs transistor..tubes rarely have low Z high current slew signals internal to the chassis while zistors do. Major diff..

    3. Antidigital..Reconstruction accuracy in the time domain we hear is based entirely on the depth of the digital algorithms. Too shallow gives loss of time and amplitude accuracy. And, has he ever heard the 11 uSec interchannel shift??

    4. Listening test..He has no clue as to human localization parameterics, especially the time dependence to changes in cues. Use of any switching style listening test for image change discernment is futile without consideration of this.

    5. Feedback without control of in-chassis magnetic fields is a mixed bag. Pos and neg rails in ss amps project different field patterns, and affect feedback based on the quadrant of operation..

    6. Burn in..In essence, correct. It is not the cables that are burning in, it is the human re-interpretation of changed cues.

    7. Bi wire..He's never calculated the dissipation loss envelope for single vs two wire sets. And, he is incorrect that whomever figures it out will garner major scientific prizes.

    Oh, and magnets in shoes to indeed do something. They produce discomfort.

    8. Power conditioning.. He knows nothing at all about ground loop currents. Guess anyone who hears hum is simply hearing things..The good thing about hum, is it announces it'self. Without it, the user is unaware there is a problem. Bryston was aware..

    9. CD treatments.He needs to learn what "dielectric coefficient, and "light dispersion" is. While I do concur on the green thingy, I am familiar with optics.. Sometimes, a fluid can be used to "buff" out, even temporarily, an interface issue. This has even more meaning for CD's that are burned over 8x, as the reflection diff between a 1 and a 0 is less.

    10. Golden ear..It depends on what one is listening for. Localization cue training has been reported by researchers, down to 1.5 uSec capability.

    Cheers, John

    PS. Sorry for the tech talk, guys...this forum is not supposed to be for that, but I don't think anybody would look in the lab for my response.

    PPS..sheesh, the typo's one gets when one doesn't look at the keyboard...

    GREAT stuff. I'll look up what I don't understand of the specifics but I think generally - even for those of us that are scientifcally challenged - you've given us another example of what happens when opinions are taken as facts. But could you clarify what you mean in item #6? What cues are changed and how? Thanks.

    Oh, sorry for the question mark in the title - tried to edit it out but it'll only let me edit text.
  • 07-07-2006, 09:10 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    GREAT stuff. I'll look up what I don't understand of the specifics but I think generally - even for those of us that are scientifcally challenged - you've given us another example of what happens when opinions are taken as facts. But could you clarify what you mean in item #6? What cues are changed and how? Thanks.

    Oh, sorry for the question mark in the title - tried to edit it out but it'll only let me edit text.

    When we hear a sound, our ears give us information that the brain uses to interpret where it is coming from. Our ears give the brain two essential things..the ear to ear time delay, and an ear to ear level difference. With both of these, the brain has enough to go by to localize a source.

    If a source is directly in front, there is no arrival difference and no intensity difference.

    If a source is on our right, the right ear gets it first, and gets it loudest.

    The music recorded in a studio is put onto the final two channel recording by using a pan pot, which uses only intensity as a side cue. Unfortunately, humans are not hardwired to interpret only the intensity difference to locate a sound, we are wired to also use the delay from ear to ear.

    We have to learn, or acclimate, to this different style of sound locating. It is unnatural. With headphones, the brain interprets the information as being within the head (unnatural for most, I think). With speakers, the added ear to ear stuff helps confuse the brain into thinking the source is in front of us. But still, in a very un-natural way...speakers produce 4 images for one intended image source. 1, the desired image cause by the right ear getting the right signal, the left the left signal. 2, the image that happens when the right speaker gets to the left ear, and the left to the right ear. 3, the left speaker by itself, and 4, the right.. temporally and amplitude wise, we tend to interpret #1 as the primary image, but that requires the brain reject the other three. A learned response..

    Any part of the reproduction chain that can change either the intensity difference or timing difference between channels, will alter the cues the brain needs to localize. Once a change is made, it takes a while to adjust...remember, the brain has to learn how to reject the spurius images.

    Our sensitivity to these ear to ear differences extends down to the 1.5 to 5 uSec range for time delay, and strange as it seems, less than .1 dB..

    I know of nobody in the audio world who has demonstrated the ability to measure those type of differences accurately at the low impedances of a speaker, even for simple two tone sines, nevermind a complex signal.

    The researchers I speak to do not even understand the basic concepts of 2-D localization, nevermind the more complex angular and spacial first and second order derivatives necessary for differential localization and image stability.

    It's not rocket science, for goodness sake...sheesh..

    Cheers, John

    PS...differential localization is our ability to determine the difference in spacial location of two sources, like two people ten feet away side by side talking to us. We are far more able to discern the relative positions of two people in space than we are to discern one person's absolute location. We key on one source as a reference point.



    Image stability is how solid the virtual image is in space, even though the signal is being massaged either by the electronics, or by the position of our head. As an example of this, consider the toe in of a speaker that beams it's highs..if the beams intersect in front of you, when you move to the right, the left signal becomes louder while the right becomes weaker, shifting the image to the left. That is not what happens with a real source..and if the mids do not beam, the mid image will act more naturally. The effect will be to seperate the frequencies of the image spacially..Disembodiment.
  • 07-07-2006, 10:42 AM
    musicoverall
    Ok
    But I'm still not getting how this ties into cable burn in. Are you saying there could be a change in sound but it's not the cable, it's our body position and the change in localization?

    Might that not be true of a lot of component changes (swaps)? Your explanation reveals a lot but I'm quite certain I'm missing your point with respect to cable burn in.
  • 07-07-2006, 11:16 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    But I'm still not getting how this ties into cable burn in. Are you saying there could be a change in sound but it's not the cable, it's our body position and the change in localization?

    Might that not be true of a lot of component changes (swaps)? Your explanation reveals a lot but I'm quite certain I'm missing your point with respect to cable burn in.

    Ah, sorry.

    The cable is electrically locked. It's RLC parameters can be sufficient to alter the signals in such a way that the cues we use for localization are changed. When you put a new cable in, your brain is not adapted to the new cues. It takes time for you to acclimate to those new cues, but as you do, you are more aware of the images that are being presented.

    So the cable is not changing as in burn in, but your ability to discern image placement does. Note that this does not mean that you are getting better or worse hearing wise, just that you are adapting to the current stimulus.

    Unfortunately, slow adaptation by the human is not considered when doing ABX or DBT or SBT... The assumption is that memory is short, so test quick..

    That is a significant test methodology error. The test method has to be sensitive to the entity being tested. Currently accepted scientific methods are not sensitive to subtle localization changes...that being imaging, soundstage, focus..because the localization cues are being altered from one completely un-natural relationship, to another un-natural one.

    One of the typical arguments for localization not being an issue includes the term "head in a vice". If absolute positioning were the issue, yes I would agree. But absolute image positioning is not the issue, it is the relative image positioning...and further down the line, not only relative, but how the relative positioning sensitivity is affected by other entities..IOW, image stability in light of perturbations.

    But image stability is a concept that is unknown in the world of audio. Differential localization isn't even known..they have a long way to go, don't they?

    Cheers, John
  • 07-07-2006, 11:53 AM
    musicoverall
    That clears it up
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jneutron
    Ah, sorry.

    The cable is electrically locked. It's RLC parameters can be sufficient to alter the signals in such a way that the cues we use for localization are changed. When you put a new cable in, your brain is not adapted to the new cues. It takes time for you to acclimate to those new cues, but as you do, you are more aware of the images that are being presented.

    So the cable is not changing as in burn in, but your ability to discern image placement does. Note that this does not mean that you are getting better or worse hearing wise, just that you are adapting to the current stimulus.

    Unfortunately, slow adaptation by the human is not considered when doing ABX or DBT or SBT... The assumption is that memory is short, so test quick..

    That is a significant test methodology error. The test method has to be sensitive to the entity being tested. Currently accepted scientific methods are not sensitive to subtle localization changes...that being imaging, soundstage, focus..because the localization cues are being altered from one completely un-natural relationship, to another un-natural one.

    One of the typical arguments for localization not being an issue includes the term "head in a vice". If absolute positioning were the issue, yes I would agree. But absolute image positioning is not the issue, it is the relative image positioning...and further down the line, not only relative, but how the relative positioning sensitivity is affected by other entities..IOW, image stability in light of perturbations.

    But image stability is a concept that is unknown in the world of audio. Differential localization isn't even known..they have a long way to go, don't they?

    Cheers, John

    Thanks!

    Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

    Even ye scientists don't always agree, eh? :)
  • 07-07-2006, 12:04 PM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Thanks!

    Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

    That is why he says cables don't make a difference. From his scientific understanding and viewpoint, he is correct. Since changing cables does not cause significant frequency response changes, they cannot make a difference.

    When he understands differential localization, his science basis will change. Then he will support what you experience..till then, he has to live by his views of science. That is not a bad thing, btw..science is not anarchy..

    Once he understands differential localization, I will introduce him to differential image localization stability. Unfortunately, understanding the latter requires understanding the former..

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Even ye scientists don't always agree, eh? :)

    It would be boring if we did.

    Cheers, John
  • 07-07-2006, 12:21 PM
    Resident Loser
    I am of the opinion...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Interesting info, as always. I found imaging and soundstaging to be critical factors in cables, although JJ on another audio board tells us that those factors are 100% caused by frequency response differences rather than localization issues.

    ...that it's probably a bit of both...

    About 20yrs. ago when I installed my half-octave EQ I decided, quite to the contrary of everything I had read, to use music and my ears to set it up...To my ears, I was able to bring various instruments in and out of focus (for lack of better words)...most notably a snare drum...Unfortunately other instruments suffered and there was little or no track-to-track continuity...In hindsight I would hazard a guess that the miking techniques coupled with the attendant loss of the required audio cues (due to multi-tracking and use of the pan pot which JN often cites) was, in concert with FR changes, responsible for this ability/inability...

    jimHJJ(...with maybe a little phase error/correction thrown in for good measure...)
  • 07-07-2006, 05:31 PM
    Mr Peabody
    I feel like Shane here :) What you are saying J makes sense but I still don't understand how it applies to cable burn in or anything else because we are always changing position or shifting our body around in our sitting spot. If I understand what you are saying, and I don't think I do, our system would sound different every time we turn it on.

    To confuse the issue, if there is no burn in why do some cables provide arrows or other markings so we can keep the flow the same direction when hooking it back up? We know that oxygen free copper sounds better than typical copper because there are about 66% less crystals in the oxygen free copper to hinder flow. We also know that silver sounds different than copper and copper over aluminum, wouldn't differences such as these and how the wires are stranded, wound, insulated etc, account for the difference in sound?
  • 07-08-2006, 11:02 AM
    hermanv
    Oh goody, cable wars.
    Mr ruadmaa: Although it is possible to measure certain things with great precision and accuracy, one needs to know ahead of time what the thing is one wants to measure. Generic testing (like say an oscilloscope) rarely produces answers better than 1 or 2%. Human ears are much better than this. People who have studied and measure cable effects often hide their results by going into the cable business (see for example: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...piricalint.htm ) Its also worth noting that the telephone company who sends poor quality audio over long distances found long ago that wires are most important, and that those details like capacitance and inductance can make ordinary speech unintelligible when the wires are long enough. So, short wires must by definition also degrade the sound, just less so.

    Mr. Peabody: Some cables are constructed to be directional. As an example consider the cable with two conductors and a shield. The two conductors go from one end to the other but the shield is often connected at only one end. By grounding the shield only at one end it provides its intended shielding function but can not conduct signal current or ground return current. This cable is mechanically directional (usually the shield is grounded at the source end)

    With this technique a single ended cable can provide a little bit of the common mode current cancellation offered by balanced connections.

    Whether cables that are fully symmetrical also exhibit directional bias after long use is a different question altogether, mine seem to, it is subtle and goes away within a few hours. Iíll argue neither side of this one.

    JNeutron: My system sounds better when its been on a while. All the parts are electrically locked (to borrow your term). Although it might be possible that I am re-learning or acclimating to it's sound, I don't think this is it (no, I can not prove this). If it were just heat (many components change parameters with temperature) the system wouldn't need warm up on hot days or at least less of it. I doubt if the answer is quite that simple. I know plastics used as insulators accumulate electrons very slowly and release them even slower, this might be part of the answer. Since we last traded ideas, I have done much reading on cable effects and built many cables. I can now build a predictably good cable at will because it turns out there is indeed an audio cable science, the answers are available on the net.

    The trouble with cable wars is the shouting of absolutes. Sad, the whole issue is about subtle distinctions
  • 07-08-2006, 04:24 PM
    Fergymunster
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hermanv
    Mr ruadmaa: Although it is possible to measure certain things with great precision and accuracy, one needs to know ahead of time what the thing is one wants to measure. Generic testing (like say an oscilloscope) rarely produces answers better than 1 or 2%. Human ears are much better than this. People who have studied and measure cable effects often hide their results by going into the cable business (see for example: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...piricalint.htm ) Its also worth noting that the telephone company who sends poor quality audio over long distances found long ago that wires are most important, and that those details like capacitance and inductance can make ordinary speech unintelligible when the wires are long enough. So, short wires must by definition also degrade the sound, just less so.

    Mr. Peabody: Some cables are constructed to be directional. As an example consider the cable with two conductors and a shield. The two conductors go from one end to the other but the shield is often connected at only one end. By grounding the shield only at one end it provides its intended shielding function but can not conduct signal current or ground return current. This cable is mechanically directional (usually the shield is grounded at the source end)

    With this technique a single ended cable can provide a little bit of the common mode current cancellation offered by balanced connections.

    Whether cables that are fully symmetrical also exhibit directional bias after long use is a different question altogether, mine seem to, it is subtle and goes away within a few hours. Iíll argue neither side of this one.

    JNeutron: My system sounds better when its been on a while. All the parts are electrically locked (to borrow your term). Although it might be possible that I am re-learning or acclimating to it's sound, I don't think this is it (no, I can not prove this). If it were just heat (many components change parameters with temperature) the system wouldn't need warm up on hot days or at least less of it. I doubt if the answer is quite that simple. I know plastics used as insulators accumulate electrons very slowly and release them even slower, this might be part of the answer. Since we last traded ideas, I have done much reading on cable effects and built many cables. I can now build a predictably good cable at will because it turns out there is indeed an audio cable science, the answers are available on the net.

    The trouble with cable wars is the shouting of absolutes. Sad, the whole issue is about subtle distinctions

    I'm curious about what you said about warm up.I've experience this with my system in that after about 30 minutes of continuous play it indeed sounds better.Thus my original post suggesting the AQ Jaguar with DBS.My thinking was that with the attached battery pack it would speed up the process.Yes or No? Furthurmore, I could live with the AQ king cobra in that it just takes a little more time to warm up and the AQ Jaguar is just one for convenience sake.Yes or No?Mind you I'm only a begginer and I'm impressed with the AQ king cobra.
  • 07-09-2006, 03:18 PM
    Fergymunster
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fergymunster
    I'm curious about what you said about warm up.I've experience this with my system in that after about 30 minutes of continuous play it indeed sounds better.Thus my original post suggesting the AQ Jaguar with DBS.My thinking was that with the attached battery pack it would speed up the process.Yes or No? Furthurmore, I could live with the AQ king cobra in that it just takes a little more time to warm up and the AQ Jaguar is just one for convenience sake.Yes or No?Mind you I'm only a begginer and I'm impressed with the AQ king cobra.

    Forget it,as I answered my own questions.In other words I'm keeping the King Cobra as it's truely an exceptional interconnect for the price.
  • 07-09-2006, 05:59 PM
    hermanv
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fergymunster
    I'm curious about what you said about warm up.I've experience this with my system in that after about 30 minutes of continuous play it indeed sounds better.Thus my original post suggesting the AQ Jaguar with DBS.My thinking was that with the attached battery pack it would speed up the process.Yes or No? Furthurmore, I could live with the AQ king cobra in that it just takes a little more time to warm up and the AQ Jaguar is just one for convenience sake.Yes or No?Mind you I'm only a begginer and I'm impressed with the AQ king cobra.

    I am an electronic engineer by training and trade, many things I was taught professionally seem to be simplifications of the true process. Other than allowing for heat build-up in the various active devices the EE community as a whole denies there is anything more complex going on. (They also say this about cables and many claim that any properly designed amp is indistuingisihable from any other well designed amp) My experience does not match these beliefs.

    Warm up and break in, to me at least, have quite similar sonic signatures (they certainly span quite different time frames), but the thing I usually hear is an increase in "ease" a difference of making the sounds without trying as hard. Probably a poor explanation, but that is mostly what I hear. The warmed up (or broken in) system is more relaxed, it still has great or even more detail but it doesn't have that stark outline like an over enhanced TV image, detail appears without excessive treble. Some cables initially seem to increase detail, but long term listening reveals them to be over-hyped and artificial, long term listening to cables like this for me produces listener fatigue.

    So the short answer is I don't know. The battery pack would in theory eliminate any power supply warm up, but we don't know whether or not power supply warm up matters.

    Is it possible to design truly great sounding equipment without using exotic overpriced parts? Vishay metal foil resistors on a glass substrate sound better to me (at about $10 each retail they damn well ought to), but an Ohmeter confirms that they have identical resistance to a common one penny metal film resistor. Capacitors with Teflon dielectric (mostly understood due to lowest dielectric absorbtion) usually sound best, but why should silver foil or copper foil sound better than aluminun foil? This as far as I know is not understood, There are some distortion tests that show the exotics have lower distortion, but no real explanation of why this should be true.

    When attempts are made to disuss these effects, inevitably some one will drown out the discussion with shouts of "where's the proof?" "You're all buying snake oil, you must be stupid". Obviously this person doesn't hear what most audiophles hear.
  • 07-10-2006, 05:28 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I feel like Shane here :) What you are saying J makes sense but I still don't understand how it applies to cable burn in or anything else because we are always changing position or shifting our body around in our sitting spot. If I understand what you are saying, and I don't think I do, our system would sound different every time we turn it on.

    The distinction lies in the term differential localization. Simple localization is the ability to locate a source in space. That requires our head be in a vice to repeatably see the same image, and it is limited by our abilities with respect to absolute position. . Differential localization is the act of determining the relative positioning of the multiple images with respect to each image. We use aural feedback to locate the receiver pair..If you were to randomly put the listening position into different locations, both in the sweet spot and out, you would certainly notice differences.

    Differential localization is initially considered as the ability to separate in space, the two sources. That is simply logical. What is not intuitive is the possibility that one source can have it's signal corrupted channel to channel versus frequency. If you delay the sibilance of a mono signal on the right channel only, it will drift to the left of the rest of the content..It is easy enough to demonstrate this with a female vocal and a decent graphic eq.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    We know that oxygen free copper sounds better than typical copper because there are about 66% less crystals in the oxygen free copper to hinder flow.

    Actually, we don't know that. And guaranteed, any experimentation to show such is flawed, as they are never done with adequate controls. If you believe the "white papers" that promote such stuff, that is a different issue...not a scientific one, but one of believing without understanding. That has always been a problem, and is more so one now that the internet provides a platform for anyone, even crackpots, to espouse any silly idea they wish.

    As for the crystal boundaries, I can indeed measure the effect. The conductivity of copper down near absolute zero is hugely affected by grain boundaries, impurities, and lattice defects. Copper conductivity can increase by a factor of 1000 if it is good quality stuff, the electrons can move up to 10 cm before a "collision", whereas at room, it's closer to a millionth of a cm. Given a wire where each electron experiences 50 to 100 million collisions along it's length, do you really think a thousand more is significant?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    We also know that silver sounds different than copper and copper over aluminum, wouldn't differences such as these and how the wires are stranded, wound, insulated etc, account for the difference in sound?

    It is not as clear that conductivity has no effect, nor stranding, insulation, or geometry. Since the researchers have yet to consider what is looked for in terms of imaging, there is no verifiable proof one way or the other..lots of arguments, but that only treads water.

    What is clear is the abysmal record of those who sell such stuff, and the silly white papers..while techy sounding, full of nonsense. They do nothing to advance the science or end the arguments, but they do advance someone's wallet.

    Of course, articles like that one I just pointed out the errors of also do nothing to advance the science. It appears to just be a rant, without much scientific substance. In that case, it is also...about his wallet..

    Cheers, John
  • 07-10-2006, 05:47 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hermanv
    JNeutron: My system sounds better when its been on a while. All the parts are electrically locked (to borrow your term). Although it might be possible that I am re-learning or acclimating to it's sound, I don't think this is it (no, I can not prove this). If it were just heat (many components change parameters with temperature) the system wouldn't need warm up on hot days or at least less of it. I doubt if the answer is quite that simple. I know plastics used as insulators accumulate electrons very slowly and release them even slower, this might be part of the answer.

    By on a while, do you mean listening a while, or just on.

    Drift of the circuitry during warmup is hugely established, there is absolutely no question of that. What is not answered is can that drift affect the imaging parameters, and I've no answer to that since nobody's established measurement criteria..heck, nobody understands the required criteria.

    Hot days.... It's not the absolute temperature that is the issue for most components, it is the differential temperatures, or gradients, within the chassis, and sometimes within the components themselves. Lab grade instrumentation is not guaranteed as within calibration until a specified warmup period, that period depending on the piece itself.

    Something as simple as the idle current of an output stage has thermal time constants measured in minutes or hours. The tracking device is usually on the heatsink, not on the transistor surface where it is really needed.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hermanv
    Since we last traded ideas, I have done much reading on cable effects and built many cables. I can now build a predictably good cable at will because it turns out there is indeed an audio cable science, the answers are available on the net..

    Cool. Have you established any type of correlation between what you built and how it sounded?

    Careful on getting info from the net, however..there are so many jerks out there, that you will have a hard time avoiding them.....there are so many of us..:)

    Cheers, John
  • 07-10-2006, 05:55 AM
    jneutron
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hermanv
    I am an electronic engineer by training and trade

    You have my sympathies..

    Me too, btw..don't think I'm dissin ya..

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hermanv
    many things I was taught professionally seem to be simplifications of the true process.

    Yah, the actuals can be too complex, and hinder use. Skin effect being one of them, with improper use of the "exponential depth" approximation..

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hermanv
    and many claim that any properly designed amp is indistuingisihable from any other well designed amp)

    Actually I would claim the same thing. However, that said, I also have to say that there are NO properly designed amps out there. Some are better than others, but the designers are just shooting craps without understanding what's going on. Random, random..random..

    Cheers, John