Tom's Hardware: Topic Linkwitz' Orion design
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cv62gn0tv1@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >
>> > Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by
>> > the *marketing* department, not the engineering department.
>> >
>> > AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind
>> > comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self
>> > has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly
>> > comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with
>> > all-audiophile components. They sounded identical.
>>
>> When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test
>> high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film
>> resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to
>> the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used
>> improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response,
>> to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to
>> measure.
>>
>> On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or
>> controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive
>> passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of
>> the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price
>> means better, and that they possess the golden ears.
>
> It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers from
> other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of
> designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening.
Can you show how that is a "fact" and not simply what you want to
believe? I am an EE, and probably not what you called an "audio
engineer". I always verify my design via measurements, and when it is an
audio project, also listen to the final thing, and modify if necessary.
In fact, I know of no electrical engineer who does not verify their
designs in a similar way: via measurements or actual usage.
> They do not
> automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily the
> last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best sounding
> gear(whether absolute or at a price point).
If generally accepted principles are proven wrong, then they are no
longer generally accepted principles, no? Where is the proof that, say,
metal film resistors that cost 0.1 cent or less are not good enough?
> And virtually all of these
> engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless hours
> on component selection and specification...usually listening to many
> variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in".
You are repeating what the high-end marketing guys tell you.... I am
sure we can find statements like yours in many high-end audio websites,
or "whitepapers". You have to wonder how competent these designers are
if they have to this over and over again 
. Wouldn't you expect them to
learn from their experience?
> I once
> worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as knowing
> it from other sources.
Did the HK guys say that the expensive passive components sound better
than the standard ones?
>
> Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as well as
> engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not
> believe it mattered.
I can tell you there are a lot of excellent engineers who would not
worry about using standard passive components in audio design... and
have the measurements to prove that they are right.
> I'll grant you that the differences today are probably
> not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences.
Differences in what? Certainly there are differences in price,
appearances, features, etc...
>
> I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not
> agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping
> distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by
> saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer audio
> components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality
> (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all price
> points.
The biggest difference between today's equipment and those made 25 years
ago is in the *active* components, not passive! 25 years ago there were
no DAC's, digital filters, DSP, etc. in audio. Today's op amps are
better than those 25 years ago. Today's resistors and capacitors are
*not* better sonically than those 25 years ago.
Perhaps outrage would be an overstatement. Many of us would just think
that you are simply wrong, given the obvious advances in digital audio,
and in semiconductor technology...
> Some of the very best designs are truly stunning in their
> transparency, and even popular priced gear often has a transparency that was
> not achieved by any component 25 years ago.
Sure, today's $200 CD players beat just about any playback gear 25 years
ago in transparency. Not to mention DVD-Audio or SACD. Transparency as
measured in signal to noise measurements, frequency response and distortion.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cv8rv602dt5@news3.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:cv62gn0tv1@news2.newsguy.com...
> >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by
> >> > the *marketing* department, not the engineering department.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind
> >> > comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self
> >> > has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly
> >> > comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with
> >> > all-audiophile components. They sounded identical.
> >>
> >> When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test
> >> high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film
> >> resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to
> >> the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used
> >> improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response,
> >> to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to
> >> measure.
That's the conventional engineering wisdom and is right as far as it goes.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or
> >> controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive
> >> passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of
> >> the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price
> >> means better, and that they possess the golden ears.
> >
And that is a belief system.
It doesn't sound like you did such testing yourself? Why not?
> > It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers
from
> > other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of
> > designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening.
>
Perhaps "fact" is an overstatement. But I've described my experience with
engineer/designers. And I've had the equipment and interest to follow this
hobby in depth over the years.
I've also collected at one time or another withing the last few years an HK
Citation 12, and Amber, a Dyna 400, an Ampzilla, and an ARC 100 - all
solid-state amplifiers from the mid-seventies to around 1982. I have been
able to listen to them against the framework of todays better amps - krells,
c-j's and even mid-priced units - Onkyo's, Adcoms with which I am familiar.
None use opamps...all are designed via passive parts. And their is a
signature difference in the amount of transparency...the ability to "listen
into" the sound that doesn't seem to be based on specific design, but rather
on currency of design. Nor do the older units sound different from what I
remember them sounding like at the time.
> Can you show how that is a "fact" and not simply what you want to
> believe? I am an EE, and probably not what you called an "audio
> engineer". I always verify my design via measurements, and when it is an
> audio project, also listen to the final thing, and modify if necessary.
> In fact, I know of no electrical engineer who does not verify their
> designs in a similar way: via measurements or actual usage.
>
Again, a call for "proof" via dbt. No, I am a hobbyist, not an engineer or
scientist. But if I may point out, you say above that after "verifying"
your design you listen to the final thing. I am saying an audio design
professional doesn't consider final "final" until they have iteratively
substituted and lsitened to various types and quality levels of passive
components at critical parts of the circuit. This has nothing to do with
measurement and circuit design; it has to do with finding the right
brand/construction/ype component to optimize the sound of the design. They
obviously believe it matters and can hear the difference.
>
> > They do not
> > automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily
the
> > last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best
sounding
> > gear(whether absolute or at a price point).
>
> If generally accepted principles are proven wrong, then they are no
> longer generally accepted principles, no? Where is the proof that, say,
> metal film resistors that cost 0.1 cent or less are not good enough?
Perhaps they do not need proof; perhaps they have enough experience and
belief in their own hearing acuity to make a confident choice without
"proof" in a scientific sense. Or perhaps they simply realize that if they
had to dbt every choice they made they would never get the design out the
door.
>
> > And virtually all of these
> > engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless
hours
> > on component selection and specification...usually listening to many
> > variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in".
>
> You are repeating what the high-end marketing guys tell you.... I am
> sure we can find statements like yours in many high-end audio websites,
> or "whitepapers". You have to wonder how competent these designers are
> if they have to this over and over again . Wouldn't you expect them to
> learn from their experience?
>
First I am not repeating anything except what I have observed and been told
by designers themselves. I am telling you what was the case at HK was among
the fellows who designed the Citation line of solid state gear, and by way
of converstations I have had with them and since with other
designer/engineers. It seems to be a common practice among engineers in the
home audio industry when the final value is "sound quality".
Second, they do learn from experience and that is why in general high-end
designers use types of components that are more expensive than the cheaper,
stock-grade stuff out there. But they still end up often evaluating among
this very good stuff.
> > I once
> > worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as
knowing
> > it from other sources.
>
> Did the HK guys say that the expensive passive components sound better
> than the standard ones?
They said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that
they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics:
resistors and capacitors.
> > Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as
well as
> > engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not
> > believe it mattered.
>
> I can tell you there are a lot of excellent engineers who would not
> worry about using standard passive components in audio design... and
> have the measurements to prove that they are right.
>
Which is why there is an active modification business right now converting
conventional and otherwise well-engineered Sony and Pioneer SACD players
into really fine sounding pieces of gear largely through the use of
better-sounding and/or performing components. The difference ends up being
the difference between quite good stuff and truly excellent-sounding stuff.
> > I'll grant you that the differences today are probably
> > not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences.
>
> Differences in what? Certainly there are differences in price,
> appearances, features, etc...
I'm talking about passive electronic components: resistors, capacitors.
> >
> > I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not
> > agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping
> > distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by
> > saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer
audio
> > components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality
> > (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all
price
> > points.
>
> The biggest difference between today's equipment and those made 25 years
> ago is in the *active* components, not passive! 25 years ago there were
> no DAC's, digital filters, DSP, etc. in audio. Today's op amps are
> better than those 25 years ago. Today's resistors and capacitors are
> *not* better sonically than those 25 years ago.
I'm not talking about active components, but about passive ones. And I hear
your claim...I am simply skeptical of the level of proof that has been
generated. Seems to me that if it were incontrovertible, the practice would
stop; it hasn't.
>
> Perhaps outrage would be an overstatement. Many of us would just think
> that you are simply wrong, given the obvious advances in digital audio,
> and in semiconductor technology...
>
> > Some of the very best designs are truly stunning in their
> > transparency, and even popular priced gear often has a transparency that
was
> > not achieved by any component 25 years ago.
>
> Sure, today's $200 CD players beat just about any playback gear 25 years
> ago in transparency. Not to mention DVD-Audio or SACD. Transparency as
> measured in signal to noise measurements, frequency response and
distortion.
I'm talking amps, preamps, tuners -- I thought I made that clear but perhaps
not. But I don't argue with your arguments for what lies behind
transparency, just your argument that their hasn't been improvement in
passive components with regard to noise and distortion, for specific
purposes via specific construction of those passive components. I am
talking about what choices have been made for audio gear ... twenty five to
thirty years ago versus today.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cv8rv602dt5@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>> > news:cv62gn0tv1@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, Otala's work has been entirely discredited. He was hired by
>> >> > the *marketing* department, not the engineering department.
>> >> >
>> >> > AFAIK, the Holman preamp has never been the subject of a blind
>> >> > comparison, so we simply don't know what it sounded like. Doug Self
>> >> > has however shown that passive parts don't matter, by directly
>> >> > comparing an amp built with 'el cheapo' parts to one built with
>> >> > all-audiophile components. They sounded identical.
>> >>
>> >> When I designed audio circuits that had to have the resolution to test
>> >> high-end audio products, I used standard components: metal film
>> >> resistors and capacitors of all types (from aluminum electrolytics to
>> >> the newer plastic film capacitors). There are some components if used
>> >> improperly that will cause noticeable distortion or frequency response,
>> >> to be sure, but those imperfections are very easy to understand and to
>> >> measure.
>
> That's the conventional engineering wisdom and is right as far as it goes.
That sounds like a perfect non-statement .
>
>> >>
>> >> On the other hand, no one that I know of has shown any test (or
>> >> controlled listening) results that prove the audibility of expensive
>> >> passive components. It is simply a myth that feeds on the insecurity of
>> >> the high-end audiophiles: everything makes a difference, higher price
>> >> means better, and that they possess the golden ears.
>> >
>
> And that is a belief system.
Yes, audiophiles need a belief system to support their claims.
>
> It doesn't sound like you did such testing yourself? Why not?
What testing you are talking about? When I can design using standard
passive components and measure almost ideal performance, how can more
expensive components help? And didn't I tell you that I rely on
measurements and listening on audio projects?
For instance, the noise contribution from a resistor is well-known.
There is no way an expensive resistor can reduce the noise contribution
from theoretical; the noise is set by laws of physics. Standard metal
film resistors come very close to theoretical as far as noise is
concerned. And in a preamp or power amp, the main noise contribution
comes from active devices. So there is absolutely no reason to pick
expensive resistors believing that the overall noise can be reduced.
How come no one has shown any measurements showing the benefits if
expensive passive components like resistors and capacitors?
>
> > > It is a fact that one of the things that separates *audio* engineers
> from
>> > other electrical engineers is that they use an iterative process of
>> > designing, then listening, then modifying, then listening.
>>
>
> Perhaps "fact" is an overstatement. But I've described my experience with
> engineer/designers. And I've had the equipment and interest to follow this
> hobby in depth over the years.
Well, your experience is based on faulty premises, like everything makes
a sonic difference, and that there have been *tremendous advances* in
passive components. Once you believe those, then it is easy to come up
with an *experience* to support those claims. You know, like if you
believe something should sound different, then they probably will sound
different.
My experience, on the other hand, is based on measurements that are
orders of magnitude more sensitive, and more objective and repeatable.
>
> I've also collected at one time or another withing the last few years an HK
> Citation 12, and Amber, a Dyna 400, an Ampzilla, and an ARC 100 - all
> solid-state amplifiers from the mid-seventies to around 1982. I have been
> able to listen to them against the framework of todays better amps - krells,
> c-j's and even mid-priced units - Onkyo's, Adcoms with which I am familiar.
> None use opamps...all are designed via passive parts. And their is a
> signature difference in the amount of transparency...the ability to "listen
> into" the sound that doesn't seem to be based on specific design, but rather
> on currency of design. Nor do the older units sound different from what I
> remember them sounding like at the time.
And you believe it's all because of resistors and capacitors?
You have shown your lack of technical understanding, when you said "none
use opamps... all are designed via passive parts". The components that
have the most impact are the transistors, and they are *active* parts!
Show me a power amp that only uses passive parts, and you have my vote
for a Nobel prize!
Lack of technical understanding is really nothing to be worried or
ashamed about (it's just a hobby!). But if you state your claims based
on a lack of understanding, and elevate those claims to facts, then you
have a serious credibility problem.
>
>> Can you show how that is a "fact" and not simply what you want to
>> believe? I am an EE, and probably not what you called an "audio
>> engineer". I always verify my design via measurements, and when it is an
>> audio project, also listen to the final thing, and modify if necessary.
>> In fact, I know of no electrical engineer who does not verify their
>> designs in a similar way: via measurements or actual usage.
>>
> Again, a call for "proof" via dbt.
No, I am just telling you that good engineers do not depend on
subjective evaluation. They absolutly depend on measurements, and in the
case of audio, actual usage.
If you do not have the resources to do measurements, then dbt's are best
for detecting subtle differences, but you should know that already .
> No, I am a hobbyist, not an engineer or
> scientist.
Therein lies the problem. The scientific and engineering principles in
audio reproduction can be mysterious to you, and your source of
technical information is largely second-hand and often wrong. Like more
expensive resistors are necessarily better.
> But if I may point out, you say above that after "verifying"
> your design you listen to the final thing. I am saying an audio design
> professional doesn't consider final "final" until they have iteratively
> substituted and lsitened to various types and quality levels of passive
> components at critical parts of the circuit.
That is your belief, and perhaps that's how you choose to *define* an
"audio design professional". I am saying that a lot of the passive
component selection can be done based on what we know about these
components, and you do not need to pick the right ones by trial and
error. Of course, you should always verfiy the design via measurements
first, then check results with actual usage.
> This has nothing to do with
> measurement and circuit design; it has to do with finding the right
> brand/construction/ype component to optimize the sound of the design. They
> obviously believe it matters and can hear the difference.
And why is it that you believe everything they tell you? Don't you think
that if there are optimizations to be made, then mesaurements are the
best way to verify such optimizations?
>
>>
>> > They do not
>> > automatically assume that generally accepted principles are necessarily
> the
>> > last word, or good enough, when attempting to design the very best
> sounding
>> > gear(whether absolute or at a price point).
>>
>> If generally accepted principles are proven wrong, then they are no
>> longer generally accepted principles, no? Where is the proof that, say,
>> metal film resistors that cost 0.1 cent or less are not good enough?
>
> Perhaps they do not need proof; perhaps they have enough experience and
> belief in their own hearing acuity to make a confident choice without
> "proof" in a scientific sense. Or perhaps they simply realize that if they
> had to dbt every choice they made they would never get the design out the
> door.
Think measurements!
>
>>
>> > And virtually all of these
>> > engineers, once the final circuit design is complete, spend countless
> hours
>> > on component selection and specification...usually listening to many
>> > variations at critical points in the circuit before "locking in".
>>
>> You are repeating what the high-end marketing guys tell you.... I am
>> sure we can find statements like yours in many high-end audio websites,
>> or "whitepapers". You have to wonder how competent these designers are
>> if they have to this over and over again . Wouldn't you expect them to
>> learn from their experience?
>>
>
> First I am not repeating anything except what I have observed and been told
> by designers themselves.
I am sure they want to keep that belief system going...
>I am telling you what was the case at HK was among
> the fellows who designed the Citation line of solid state gear, and by way
> of converstations I have had with them and since with other
> designer/engineers. It seems to be a common practice among engineers in the
> home audio industry when the final value is "sound quality".
>
> Second, they do learn from experience and that is why in general high-end
> designers use types of components that are more expensive than the cheaper,
> stock-grade stuff out there. But they still end up often evaluating among
> this very good stuff.
And yet no proofs via measurements or controlled tests? If they found
that a certain resistor improves sound for instance, couldn't they show
us exactly which parameter is affected, via measurements?
>
>> > I once
>> > worked for HK and I've seen this process from the inside, as well as
> knowing
>> > it from other sources.
>>
>> Did the HK guys say that the expensive passive components sound better
>> than the standard ones?
>
> They said components differ in their sound despite similar specs, and that
> they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the basics:
> resistors and capacitors.
But you said these professionals have to do it over and over
again...Shouldn't they learn the tricks after a few designs?
>
>> > Let's face it ... these folks who tend to be audio perfectionists as
> well as
>> > engineers would not spend all this time and effort if they truly did not
>> > believe it mattered.
How do you know this? And could it be that they are not as competent as
you think?
>>
>> I can tell you there are a lot of excellent engineers who would not
>> worry about using standard passive components in audio design... and
>> have the measurements to prove that they are right.
>>
>
> Which is why there is an active modification business right now converting
> conventional and otherwise well-engineered Sony and Pioneer SACD players
> into really fine sounding pieces of gear largely through the use of
> better-sounding and/or performing components. The difference ends up being
> the difference between quite good stuff and truly excellent-sounding stuff.
That belief supports the tweaks and mods industry. That does not mean
that it is based on real improvements. 10,000 people believing Elvis is
alive does not make it so.
>
>
>> > I'll grant you that the differences today are probably
>> > not as great as they were 25 years ago, but there are still differences.
>>
>> Differences in what? Certainly there are differences in price,
>> appearances, features, etc...
>
> I'm talking about passive electronic components: resistors, capacitors.
Then you are simply misguided in your belief.
>
>> >
>> > I can agree with much that is said here on RAHE, but I decidedly do not
>> > agree that the quality of passive parts does not count in helping
>> > distinguish the very best from the rest. In fact I'll create outrage by
>> > saying that the biggest overall improvement in the design of consumer
> audio
>> > components in the last 25 years has been the emergence of better quality
>> > (e.g. more neutral, more transparent) passive component parts at all
> price
>> > points.
>>
>> The biggest difference between today's equipment and those made 25 years
>> ago is in the *active* components, not passive! 25 years ago there were
>> no DAC's, digital filters, DSP, etc. in audio. Today's op amps are
>> better than those 25 years ago. Today's resistors and capacitors are
>> *not* better sonically than those 25 years ago.
>
> I'm not talking about active components, but about passive ones. And I hear
> your claim...I am simply skeptical of the level of proof that has been
> generated.
Shouldn't you be even more skeptical about the lack of proof from those
who you believe in?
> Seems to me that if it were incontrovertible, the practice would
> stop; it hasn't.
Hey, there are bad designs today, and there are bad designs 25 years
ago. But to say that today's designs are better because of improvements
in resistors and capacitors is simply ludicrous.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cvdro301f9s@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > "Per Stromgren" <per.stromgren@telia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:cvau4401nmm@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >They [HK engineers] said components differ in their sound despite
> similar
>> > specs, and that
>> >> >they had to listen to make final choices. The were dealing with the
>> > basics:
>> >> >resistors and capacitors.
>> >>
>> >> If that is really the case, how on earth do they do quality assyurance
>> >> in manufacturing of their units? This means that you *cannot* know the
>> >> auido quality of the finished product without listening to *every
>> >> single* unit!
>> >>
>> >> This seems very odd to me. I thought that they specified all
>> >> sub-contracted components with error tolerance, based on the design,
>> >> and know what the outcome would be.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > What did I miss?
>> >
>> > You missed that fact that I am talking about the choices to include in
> the
>> > specification...types of construction and sometimes by brand. And you
> are
>> > right...QC can be a problem. That's why a good QC program does include
>> > listening to as well as measuring new parts batches (at least on the
>> > critical parts) as well as to samples of the production run.
>> >
>
>>
>> Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts
>> (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you
>> appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing
>> incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet
>> specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig,
>> I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point
>> is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs
>> that determine the sonic quality of those components.
>>
>
> Who has said they can't be determined by spec alone, or largely by spec.
Well, here's what you said: "They said components differ in their sound
despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final
choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors."
You were clearly implying that there are differences in sound that
cannot be determined by spec's alone.
> If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds better
> than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister sounds
> better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit
> hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd. And if
> one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better (remember they
> listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would try to
> determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the part
> because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that.
If they can be spec'ed, then why do they spend countless hours listening
to different resistors and capacitors? Isn't it clear that they should
pick the components with the best specs? Can't they tell which parts
would work well, and which wouldn't after a few trials?
By the way, the metal-film resistor costing 0.1 cent is a low-noise
resistor, with almost no additional noise above thermal. You buy a $10
resistor, and you are not going to get better noise. Not that the noise
of an amplifier should be determined by resistors if it is well-designed.
>
>> Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound
>> and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to
>> better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs
>> of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the
>> standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are
>> those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound
>> better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech
>> manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades?
>>
>
> Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in the
> circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any important
> difference and they found by using a different
> type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference.
Can you give any example of such conventional wisdom? You keep saying
that such conventional wisdom is wrong, but if so, how could it still be
conventional wisdom if even you (not being a scientist or an engineer)
know that it is wrong? Or is it simply conventional wisdom from a
layman's point of view, and not from an engineer's?
> Sometimes they
> could figure out why; sometimes not.
So can they be spec'd or not? Do they know which spec makes the
difference? Is the use of resistors and capacitors in audio still
something not fully understood, after so many decades? Are these guys
competent?
> Their job was to get a design
> completed, not to do pure research. But because of people like them, it is
> common today even in mainstream gear to use poly capacitors and low-noise
> resistors...you didn't find that thirty years ago. And the reason they are
> affordable today is that word spread about the superior sonic qualities and
> more and more companies started using them. With quantity, price dropped,
> usuage spread, prices dropped, etc. But it was a relatively few high end
> designer/engineers who did the work. And still do today when it comes to
> sonic quality.
You have it totally wrong. The high-end audio industry could never have
the volume to change the price of components like resistors and capacitors.
Plastic-film capacitors are popular *not* because they sound better.
They are used because they have very little memory effect, a
characteristic that is important in data-acquistion applications. They
also have superior stability, are non-polar so they do not cause
distortion in some circuits, and have low effective resistance. These
capacitors were well understood and commonly used more than 25 years
ago. We have understood the noise performance of various types of
resistors for almost a century. High-end audio does not teach us which
resistors have lower noise. For a given application, one can easily tell
whether they would be the right choice. You have over-estimated the
contribution of "high-end audio" designers by several orders of
magnitude. One does not have to listen for hours to know if they would
work well!
>
>> And here is the thing that the modders have failed to
>> answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these
>> passive component tweaks?
>
> They have the best test of all ... people buy their work, rave about it,
> have friends listen, the friends order, etc.
Hmmm, yet they cannot show you any measurement?
People rave about the sound of certain cables. People are absolutely
sure that cables need to be broken in. Do you agree with them?
How about the huge number of consumers who do *not* believe in modding?
> Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a difference.
> You do not know that. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash are
> convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof".
> Unlike some here.
I'm pretty sure you understand "sighted bias", so there is no need to
explain that .
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cvgjs9069v@news4.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:cvdro301f9s@news2.newsguy.com...
> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> > "Per Stromgren" <per.stromgren@telia.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:cvau4401nmm@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> >> On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
wrote:
> >> >>
>snip, to keep it manageable<
> >>
> >> Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts
> >> (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you
> >> appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing
> >> incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet
> >> specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig,
> >> I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point
> >> is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs
> >> that determine the sonic quality of those components.
> >>
> >
> > Who has said they can't be determined by spec alone, or largely by spec.
>
> Well, here's what you said: "They said components differ in their sound
> despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final
> choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors."
>
> You were clearly implying that there are differences in sound that
> cannot be determined by spec's alone.
>
And there are. But often the difference in specs is there, but just not
considered important and not very large.
>
> > If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds
better
> > than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister sounds
> > better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit
> > hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd. And
if
> > one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better (remember
they
> > listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would
try to
> > determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the part
> > because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that.
>
> If they can be spec'ed, then why do they spend countless hours listening
> to different resistors and capacitors? Isn't it clear that they should
> pick the components with the best specs? Can't they tell which parts
> would work well, and which wouldn't after a few trials?
>
> By the way, the metal-film resistor costing 0.1 cent is a low-noise
> resistor, with almost no additional noise above thermal. You buy a $10
> resistor, and you are not going to get better noise. Not that the noise
> of an amplifier should be determined by resistors if it is well-designed.
>
Perhaps 25-30 years ago, things weren't so clear-cut, perhaps? Or perhaps,
your assumptions occassionally don't hold up in reality. For example "pick
the component with the best specs". What if the component with the "best
specs" in a conventional engineering sense is not the best sounding one in
circuilt. What if some other aspect of its design not normally considered
important turns out to be. Frankly, 40 years ago a conventional audio
engineer would have laughed at the idea of using low-noise resistors
extensively. After all the noise level contributed by the resistors was
considered insignificant and in any case noise was plenty low enough, it was
thought. Everybody knew "resistors don't have a sound". .
> >
> >> Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound
> >> and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to
> >> better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs
> >> of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the
> >> standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are
> >> those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound
> >> better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech
> >> manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades?
> >>
> >
> > Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in the
> > circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any important
> > difference and they found by using a different
> > type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference.
>
> Can you give any example of such conventional wisdom? You keep saying
> that such conventional wisdom is wrong, but if so, how could it still be
> conventional wisdom if even you (not being a scientist or an engineer)
> know that it is wrong? Or is it simply conventional wisdom from a
> layman's point of view, and not from an engineer's?
Nope, can't help much here. I'm simply trying to as accurately as I can,
recall the viewpoint of the folks I observed and talked with back in the
mid-seventies and early eighties. Not being an engineer, the technical fine
points even if related would have been mumbo-jumbo to me. These were
engineers, doing an engineers job. Perhaps instead of hocking me about it,
you should do some research of what the conventional wisdom was 25-35 years
ago in audio design with regard to material choices. I don't sense that you
are old enough to have been there yourself.
>
> > Sometimes they
> > could figure out why; sometimes not.
>
> So can they be spec'd or not? Do they know which spec makes the
> difference? Is the use of resistors and capacitors in audio still
> something not fully understood, after so many decades? Are these guys
> competent?
>
They were competent...in fact producing some highly regarded equipment as
viewed by both engineers and audiophiles.
> > Their job was to get a design
> > completed, not to do pure research. But because of people like them, it
is
> > common today even in mainstream gear to use poly capacitors and
low-noise
> > resistors...you didn't find that thirty years ago. And the reason they
are
> > affordable today is that word spread about the superior sonic qualities
and
> > more and more companies started using them. With quantity, price
dropped,
> > usuage spread, prices dropped, etc. But it was a relatively few high
end
> > designer/engineers who did the work. And still do today when it comes
to
> > sonic quality.
>
> You have it totally wrong. The high-end audio industry could never have
> the volume to change the price of components like resistors and
capacitors.
>
Not by itself, I agree. But it certainly contributed to volume for certain
types and values of componetn.
> Plastic-film capacitors are popular *not* because they sound better.
> They are used because they have very little memory effect, a
> characteristic that is important in data-acquistion applications. They
> also have superior stability, are non-polar so they do not cause
> distortion in some circuits, and have low effective resistance. These
> capacitors were well understood and commonly used more than 25 years
> ago. We have understood the noise performance of various types of
> resistors for almost a century. High-end audio does not teach us which
> resistors have lower noise. For a given application, one can easily tell
> whether they would be the right choice. You have over-estimated the
> contribution of "high-end audio" designers by several orders of
> magnitude. One does not have to listen for hours to know if they would
> work well!
>
What I am telling you is that back in the sixties and seventies, what you
claim (which may be true) was not the conventional wisdom quiding choices in
the audio industry, until some high-end engineers associated with some of
the best sounding equipment designs started exploring the sonic effect of
the choices of passive components on sound. Remember, i am not talking
aerospace. My claim is that improvement in passive parts has been the
largest factor in improved sound over the last twenty five years. That
reflects the *choice* of components to use in audio equipment, even though
the components may have existed and been used in other applications.
Are you aware that there is now some demand for "oil in paper" capacitors
from restorers carefully trying to fully recreate "that sixties sound". As
for me, I was happy to have my Fisher KX200 rebuilt with modern capacitors
and resistors....it was much more transparent.
> >
> >> And here is the thing that the modders have failed to
> >> answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these
> >> passive component tweaks?
> >
> > They have the best test of all ... people buy their work, rave about it,
> > have friends listen, the friends order, etc.
>
> Hmmm, yet they cannot show you any measurement?
>
Ask them. I certainly don't care if they can or can't.
> People rave about the sound of certain cables. People are absolutely
> sure that cables need to be broken in. Do you agree with them?
>
> How about the huge number of consumers who do *not* believe in modding?
>
This isn't about me. And as for others, people can believe anything they
want. When a host of audiophiles agree that something represents an
improvement, that suggests to me that it is more likely than not that there
is an improvement. Since I don't buy mods (the Fisher had already been
modded when I bought it) it is a moot point for me personally. But when the
modders with teriffic reputations say, for instance, that substituing Black
Gates into the output stages and the power supply of a Sony SACD machine of
a certain model provides the best sound of a dozen or more capacitors tried,
I am willing to suspect that they do. Especially if that modder also has
the honesty to say that Brand X in such-and-such a model is so close to that
sound that Black Gates represent little improvement in that particular case.
> > Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a
difference.
> > You do not know that. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash
are
> > convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof".
> > Unlike some here.
>
> I'm pretty sure you understand "sighted bias", so there is no need to
> explain that .
I certainly understand it. I also understand it adds uncertainty; it
doesn't prove falsehoods.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cvgjs9069v@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>> > news:cvdro301f9s@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> > "Per Stromgren" <per.stromgren@telia.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:cvau4401nmm@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> >> On 20 Feb 2005 16:20:11 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>> >> >>
>
>>snip, to keep it manageable<
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Per Stromgren's point is that if sonic performance of passive parts
>> >> (resistors and capacitors) cannot be determined by specs alone, as you
>> >> appeared to suggest, how could they possibly do QC? The only thing
>> >> incoming inspection can perform is making sure that the parts meet
>> >> specs. They can't possibly listen to every component (in some test rig,
>> >> I assume) before deciding whether the parts are good enough. His point
>> >> is a very valid point. So the conclusion has to be that there are specs
>> >> that determine the sonic quality of those components.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Who has said they can't be determined by spec alone, or largely by spec.
>>
>> Well, here's what you said: "They said components differ in their sound
>> despite similar specs, and that they had to listen to make final
>> choices. The were dealing with the basics: resistors and capacitors."
>>
>> You were clearly implying that there are differences in sound that
>> cannot be determined by spec's alone.
>>
>
> And there are.
Thanks for admitting that we did not put words in your mouth...
> But often the difference in specs is there, but just not
> considered important and not very large.
But now you are not making much sense. Who are those who do not
considered them important? So you are saying differences in specs, even
if the differences are small, do result in differences in sound?
>
>>
>> > If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds
> better
>> > than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister sounds
>> > better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit
>> > hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd. And
> if
>> > one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better (remember
> they
>> > listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would
> try to
>> > determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the part
>> > because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that.
>>
>> If they can be spec'ed, then why do they spend countless hours listening
>> to different resistors and capacitors? Isn't it clear that they should
>> pick the components with the best specs? Can't they tell which parts
>> would work well, and which wouldn't after a few trials?
>>
>> By the way, the metal-film resistor costing 0.1 cent is a low-noise
>> resistor, with almost no additional noise above thermal. You buy a $10
>> resistor, and you are not going to get better noise. Not that the noise
>> of an amplifier should be determined by resistors if it is well-designed.
>>
>
> Perhaps 25-30 years ago, things weren't so clear-cut, perhaps?
Well, I would agree that to the lay-person, or to those who are not
skilled in the art, things are never clear-cut . Do you also now agree
that the noise of an amplifier should not be determined by resistors?
Then why pay for expensive resistors?
> Or perhaps,
> your assumptions occassionally don't hold up in reality. For example "pick
> the component with the best specs". What if the component with the "best
> specs" in a conventional engineering sense is not the best sounding one in
> circuilt.
Then that component can't have the best spec for that particular
application then, no? Shouldn't those auido designers know which specs
are important?
Perhaps I should have clarified that best specs means best specs for
that particular application. I thought that should have been obvious.
> What if some other aspect of its design not normally considered
> important turns out to be.
That's what engineers do: figure out what aspect of the design is
important...highly regarded "audio dsigners" or not.
> Frankly, 40 years ago a conventional audio
> engineer would have laughed at the idea of using low-noise resistors
> extensively.
Now how would you know? 40 years ago, engineers understood that for the
lowest noise performance, carbon resistors should not be used *where
there is an impact on overall noise performance*. There are plenty of
places where carbon resistors can be used to save cost, with no penalty
in overall signal-to-noise ratio. And in a line-level preamp or power
amp, there are very few places where carbon resistors cannot be used, as
a matter of fact. But given that metal film resistors are so cheap, they
have become the more common type.
> After all the noise level contributed by the resistors was
> considered insignificant and in any case noise was plenty low enough, it was
> thought.
Thought by whom? By the lay person? And in fact, that was correct in
just about all line-level preamps and amps.
Everybody knew "resistors don't have a sound".
Now, out of curiosity, are you saying that resistors have a sound? What
exactly do they sound like? You think you can tell a carbon resistor
from a metal film resistor of the same value in a line-level amp or
power amp? Or a 0.1-cent resistor from a $10 audiophile grade resistor?
>
>> >
>> >> Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in sound
>> >> and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to
>> >> better passive components, then there have to be some measureable specs
>> >> of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the
>> >> standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are
>> >> those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor sound
>> >> better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech
>> >> manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in the
>> > circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any important
>> > difference and they found by using a different
>> > type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference.
So what are those specs? Why no measurement results? What constitutes an
upgrade, if the difference is not measureable? Is the upgrade simply in
knowing that the more expensive part is used?
What is in the construction of expensive audiophile resistors that makes
them better than the 0.1 cent metal film resistor, which are used at
frequencies thousands of times higher than audio, and used in precision
instrumentation?
>>
>> Can you give any example of such conventional wisdom? You keep saying
>> that such conventional wisdom is wrong, but if so, how could it still be
>> conventional wisdom if even you (not being a scientist or an engineer)
>> know that it is wrong? Or is it simply conventional wisdom from a
>> layman's point of view, and not from an engineer's?
>
> Nope, can't help much here. I'm simply trying to as accurately as I can,
> recall the viewpoint of the folks I observed and talked with back in the
> mid-seventies and early eighties. Not being an engineer, the technical fine
> points even if related would have been mumbo-jumbo to me.
So you don't really know what is considered conventional wisdom by the
engineers and what's not. Fair enough. As I suspected, you got all your
technical info second or third-handed, and you might have been
misguided. Of course, that brings up the question how can you be so sure
about the advances in passive components, or how they cause audio
products to sound better.
> These were
> engineers, doing an engineers job. Perhaps instead of hocking me about it,
> you should do some research of what the conventional wisdom was 25-35 years
> ago in audio design with regard to material choices. I don't sense that you
> are old enough to have been there yourself.
Well, I am sorry to say that I had my first EE degree in 1975 .
>
>>
>> > Sometimes they
>> > could figure out why; sometimes not.
>>
>> So can they be spec'd or not? Do they know which spec makes the
>> difference? Is the use of resistors and capacitors in audio still
>> something not fully understood, after so many decades? Are these guys
>> competent?
>>
>
> They were competent...in fact producing some highly regarded equipment as
> viewed by both engineers and audiophiles.
But they still have to spend countless hours listening to find out about
passive components like resistors and capacitors? Shouldn't they have
learned after a few times?
>
>> > Their job was to get a design
>> > completed, not to do pure research. But because of people like them, it
> is
>> > common today even in mainstream gear to use poly capacitors and
> low-noise
>> > resistors...you didn't find that thirty years ago. And the reason they
> are
>> > affordable today is that word spread about the superior sonic qualities
> and
>> > more and more companies started using them. With quantity, price
> dropped,
>> > usuage spread, prices dropped, etc. But it was a relatively few high
> end
>> > designer/engineers who did the work. And still do today when it comes
> to
>> > sonic quality.
>>
>> You have it totally wrong. The high-end audio industry could never have
>> the volume to change the price of components like resistors and
> capacitors.
>>
>
> Not by itself, I agree. But it certainly contributed to volume for certain
> types and values of componetn.
The volume of passive components used in the audiophile industry is
truly miniscule. Think about several hundred millions of cellphones made
every year, and you should start seeing the picture. Talk about
state-of-the-art passive components.
>
>> Plastic-film capacitors are popular *not* because they sound better.
>> They are used because they have very little memory effect, a
>> characteristic that is important in data-acquistion applications. They
>> also have superior stability, are non-polar so they do not cause
>> distortion in some circuits, and have low effective resistance. These
>> capacitors were well understood and commonly used more than 25 years
>> ago. We have understood the noise performance of various types of
>> resistors for almost a century. High-end audio does not teach us which
>> resistors have lower noise. For a given application, one can easily tell
>> whether they would be the right choice. You have over-estimated the
>> contribution of "high-end audio" designers by several orders of
>> magnitude. One does not have to listen for hours to know if they would
>> work well!
>>
>
> What I am telling you is that back in the sixties and seventies, what you
> claim (which may be true) was not the conventional wisdom quiding choices in
> the audio industry, until some high-end engineers associated with some of
> the best sounding equipment designs started exploring the sonic effect of
> the choices of passive components on sound.
In the sixties, they already had all the necessary equipment to make
signal-to-noise ratio, freqeuncy response and distortion measurements.
They understood how to use passive components, and probably even better
than the engineers today. Sorry to keep putting down your "high-end"
engineers.
> Remember, i am not talking
> aerospace. My claim is that improvement in passive parts has been the
> largest factor in improved sound over the last twenty five years.
You keep saying that, despite all the counter-arguments given...
> That
> reflects the *choice* of components to use in audio equipment, even though
> the components may have existed and been used in other applications.
>
> Are you aware that there is now some demand for "oil in paper" capacitors
> from restorers carefully trying to fully recreate "that sixties sound".
Once I realize that some audiophiles firmly believe in cables needing
breaking-in, nothing really surprise me anymore when it comes to the
high-end.
> As
> for me, I was happy to have my Fisher KX200 rebuilt with modern capacitors
> and resistors....it was much more transparent.
Of course, the electolytes used in your capacitors could have simply
dried up...
>
>> >
>> >> And here is the thing that the modders have failed to
>> >> answer: where is the test data that confirms the validity of these
>> >> passive component tweaks?
>> >
>> > They have the best test of all ... people buy their work, rave about it,
>> > have friends listen, the friends order, etc.
>>
>> Hmmm, yet they cannot show you any measurement?
>>
>
> Ask them. I certainly don't care if they can or can't.
Hmmm, has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps they can't show you
because there is no difference?
>
>> People rave about the sound of certain cables. People are absolutely
>> sure that cables need to be broken in. Do you agree with them?
>>
>> How about the huge number of consumers who do *not* believe in modding?
>>
>
> This isn't about me. And as for others, people can believe anything they
> want. When a host of audiophiles agree that something represents an
> improvement, that suggests to me that it is more likely than not that there
> is an improvement.
So you only consider the reinforcing data, and disregard the data
opposing your beliefs?
Look at that example I gave you. Many people believe that cables need to
be broken in. According to your logic, there must be something real
about cables needing break-in. Now do you really believe in that?
> Since I don't buy mods (the Fisher had already been
> modded when I bought it) it is a moot point for me personally. But when the
> modders with teriffic reputations say, for instance, that substituing Black
> Gates into the output stages and the power supply of a Sony SACD machine of
> a certain model provides the best sound of a dozen or more capacitors tried,
> I am willing to suspect that they do.
You believe things the high-end modders say? Where do you draw the line?
You believe in Shatki stones, or the green CD pen?
> Especially if that modder also has
> the honesty to say that Brand X in such-and-such a model is so close to that
> sound that Black Gates represent little improvement in that particular case.
>
>> > Your implicit premise is that people only *think* they hear a
> difference.
>> > You do not know that. And the people laying out their hard-earned cash
> are
>> > convinced enough to do so without feeling the need or demanding "proof".
>> > Unlike some here.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you understand "sighted bias", so there is no need to
>> explain that .
>
> I certainly understand it. I also understand it adds uncertainty; it
> doesn't prove falsehoods.
>
But you seem to say that you have no uncertainly at all...
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cvj8lm0877@news4.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:cvgjs9069v@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:cvdro301f9s@news2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >
> >>snip, to keep it manageable<
>>> snip again to keep it manageable
> >>
> >> > If an teflon dialectric capacitor using a certain construction sounds
> > better
> >> > than another type, it can be spec'd. And if a low-noise resister
sounds
> >> > better than a conventional resistor in a certain part of the circuit
> >> > hitherto unsuspected, then the low-noise resister would be spec'd.
And
> > if
> >> > one manufacturers component of a certain type sounded better
(remember
> > they
> >> > listened, extensively and carefully), then being engineers they would
> > try to
> >> > determine why. But even if they couldn't, they would specify the
part
> >> > because it sounded better. What is so hard to understand about that.
> >>
> >> If they can be spec'ed, then why do they spend countless hours
listening
> >> to different resistors and capacitors? Isn't it clear that they should
> >> pick the components with the best specs? Can't they tell which parts
> >> would work well, and which wouldn't after a few trials?
> >>
> >> By the way, the metal-film resistor costing 0.1 cent is a low-noise
> >> resistor, with almost no additional noise above thermal. You buy a $10
> >> resistor, and you are not going to get better noise. Not that the noise
> >> of an amplifier should be determined by resistors if it is
well-designed.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps 25-30 years ago, things weren't so clear-cut, perhaps?
>
> Well, I would agree that to the lay-person, or to those who are not
> skilled in the art, things are never clear-cut . Do you also now agree
> that the noise of an amplifier should not be determined by resistors?
> Then why pay for expensive resistors?
Lay person, smay person. These were engineers and "then why pay for
expensive resistors" was the conventional widom that they challenged. And
the same for capacitors.
> > Or perhaps,
> > your assumptions occassionally don't hold up in reality. For example
"pick
> > the component with the best specs". What if the component with the
"best
> > specs" in a conventional engineering sense is not the best sounding one
in
> > circuilt.
>
> Then that component can't have the best spec for that particular
> application then, no? Shouldn't those auido designers know which specs
> are important?
>
They started with the conventional wisdom of the time as to what were the
appropriate specs. Then they found that substituing better quality and
different construction types affected the sound. So those who cared about
sound eventually found more and more improvement from using better
components previously thought to be "overkill". That's how the state of
knowledge *in audio* progressed. I wouldn't necessarily expect an EE in a
completely different field to be aware of the audible effects of various
forms of components. Only in high-fidelity equipment is it an issue.
> Perhaps I should have clarified that best specs means best specs for
> that particular application. I thought that should have been obvious.
>
> > What if some other aspect of its design not normally considered
> > important turns out to be.
>
> That's what engineers do: figure out what aspect of the design is
> important...highly regarded "audio dsigners" or not.
>
Yep, but it is doubtful that an EE designing microwave transmitters ever
worries about what three different types of resistors *sound* like. That's
the province of the audio engineer. Which is why the NASA people that HK
hired in the mid-late seventies weren't terribly good audio engineers and
why the equipment HK produced at that time was its worst sounding ever.
> > Frankly, 40 years ago a conventional audio
> > engineer would have laughed at the idea of using low-noise resistors
> > extensively.
>
> Now how would you know? 40 years ago, engineers understood that for the
> lowest noise performance, carbon resistors should not be used *where
> there is an impact on overall noise performance*.
That was the conventional wisdom. Experience in the seventies was teaching
audio engineers that they could have an audible effect when used in places
previously considered "safe" as I understood it.
There are plenty of
> places where carbon resistors can be used to save cost, with no penalty
> in overall signal-to-noise ratio. And in a line-level preamp or power
> amp, there are very few places where carbon resistors cannot be used, as
> a matter of fact. But given that metal film resistors are so cheap, they
> have become the more common type.
>
Oh, I see. It's just "accident". That might seem plausible to an EE not in
audio. But in fact, their use spread word to mouth among the audio
engineering community based on some of this non-conventional experimentation
and "findings". These engineers did not rush to publish papers based on
spending six months doing scientifc research. They just built better
equipment and told their fellow engineers about it over drinks at the
equipment shows.
>
> > After all the noise level contributed by the resistors was
> > considered insignificant and in any case noise was plenty low enough, it
was
> > thought.
>
> Thought by whom? By the lay person? And in fact, that was correct in
> just about all line-level preamps and amps.
>
> Everybody knew "resistors don't have a sound".
>
> Now, out of curiosity, are you saying that resistors have a sound? What
> exactly do they sound like? You think you can tell a carbon resistor
> from a metal film resistor of the same value in a line-level amp or
> power amp? Or a 0.1-cent resistor from a $10 audiophile grade resistor?
>
I think you will find that most audio engineers (as opposed to EE's working
in other fields) feel that different types of resistors and capacitors
affect the transparency and sonic characteristics of amps and preamps, yes.
That is what I have been saying. Not necessarily a single resistor or
capacitor, but the sum total of the resistors and capacitors. And that is
why on truly high end equipment today, time is still spent trying to
optimize the "sound" including selection of passive components.
I will be the first to say that the differences are much less today that
they were back in the late sixties-to-seventies, however. Because most
audio equipment now uses what in those days would have been considered
pretty esoteric components. That was my original point...that the widespread
use of such components in even mid-fi gear has led to a marked overall
upgrade in audio quality....and my assertion that it was perhaps the most
important change during that time since much of the other technology in line
and power stage design hasn't changed that much.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> Now, if as you said, passive components make a huge difference in
sound
> >> >> and that the advance in sonic quality in the last 25 years is due to
> >> >> better passive components, then there have to be some measureable
specs
> >> >> of these new resistors and capacitors that make them superior to the
> >> >> standard ones used in the less "high-end" products. What exactly are
> >> >> those specs? What makes an expensive, audiophile grade resistor
sound
> >> >> better than the standard metal-film ones used by the truly high-tech
> >> >> manufacturers like HP/Agilent for the last several decades?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Partly it is an upgrade of the parts themselves at given points in
the
> >> > circuit, where conventional wisdom said there wouldn't be any
important
> >> > difference and they found by using a different
> >> > type/construction/manufacturer they could hear a difference.
>
> So what are those specs? Why no measurement results? What constitutes an
> upgrade, if the difference is not measureable? Is the upgrade simply in
> knowing that the more expensive part is used?
>
> What is in the construction of expensive audiophile resistors that makes
> them better than the 0.1 cent metal film resistor, which are used at
> frequencies thousands of times higher than audio, and used in precision
> instrumentation?
>
You've beaten this one to death. I'm not an engineer, and never claimed to
be.
> >>
> >> Can you give any example of such conventional wisdom? You keep saying
> >> that such conventional wisdom is wrong, but if so, how could it still
be
> >> conventional wisdom if even you (not being a scientist or an engineer)
> >> know that it is wrong? Or is it simply conventional wisdom from a
> >> layman's point of view, and not from an engineer's?
> >
> > Nope, can't help much here. I'm simply trying to as accurately as I
can,
> > recall the viewpoint of the folks I observed and talked with back in
the
> > mid-seventies and early eighties. Not being an engineer, the technical
fine
> > points even if related would have been mumbo-jumbo to me.
>
> So you don't really know what is considered conventional wisdom by the
> engineers and what's not. Fair enough. As I suspected, you got all your
> technical info second or third-handed, and you might have been
> misguided. Of course, that brings up the question how can you be so sure
> about the advances in passive components, or how they cause audio
> products to sound better.
>
I never claimed to get the info first hand. I said from the beginning that
I got it from audio engineer's at HK in the mid-seventies and from a few
other engineers in other firms a bit later. Moreover I never said I was
*sure*...there's that call for *proof* again. I said it was my opinion from
the very beginning. I even correctly pointed out that you would not like it
and likely find it outrageous.
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
Related Topics
- Should be easy to design an acoustically perfect one
- breakthrough microphone design
- Frontier Design TranZport
- New Nady SCM 900 design?
- audio design F 700X-N comp/limiter/gate : anyone ever use ..
- Small room design/treatment
- digi design project II
- Mic Amp Design
- FS on eBay: Grace Design Model 101 Mic Preamp
Related Content
- how to measure frequency response
- measuring frequency response
- how to pick right power supply
- solid state comparison
- green cd pen
- ratio of 1 1 provides the best level of stability
- low noise resistors
- shatki stone
- linkwitz orion review
- what do you get when you combine a resistor with a capacitor
- home audio transmitter
- test your rig
- better than linkwitz orion
- reduce the case noise
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 13:08 OvrClkr won the Overclocking badge
- 01:00 vianescute won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 meywd won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 nayega won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 gpfear won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 Conrad925 won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 skythra won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 Ckaz won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 james59 won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 snarl won the Uniformed badge