PeteAugellio,
Also for all of you who think "the presentation of the soundstage" is the paramount characteristic of a Stereo.
1. The world has many people with only one working ear.
They do Not perceive "the presentation of the soundstage" like you do.
2. Have you ever heard Leontyne Price, live and closeup? . . . I have.
How about other great solo singers, and great solo instrumentalists, live and closeup? . . . I have.
Single, point source, those examples have nothing to do with "the presentation of the soundstage", especially when the acoustics of the surroundings have very few, and very low, amplitude reflections compared to the close and direct sound of the performer.
A lot of the people above (# 1 and # 2) can hear very slight differences in sound.
Just some food for thought.
Time to get back to properly designed and properly conducted double blindfold testing.
Also for all of you who think "the presentation of the soundstage" is the paramount characteristic of a Stereo.
1. The world has many people with only one working ear.
They do Not perceive "the presentation of the soundstage" like you do.
2. Have you ever heard Leontyne Price, live and closeup? . . . I have.
How about other great solo singers, and great solo instrumentalists, live and closeup? . . . I have.
Single, point source, those examples have nothing to do with "the presentation of the soundstage", especially when the acoustics of the surroundings have very few, and very low, amplitude reflections compared to the close and direct sound of the performer.
A lot of the people above (# 1 and # 2) can hear very slight differences in sound.
Just some food for thought.
Time to get back to properly designed and properly conducted double blindfold testing.
I've never heard Leontyne Price in person, but I have listened to A LOT of live, unamplified music over these decades. I often listen with my eyes closed and have trained my spacial localization to the point where I could bounce a tennis ball off of the vocalist's forehead. Up close and in person the sound of a piano is very three dimensional. The lower notes come from four feet farther away and from a much longer string than the right hand.
Real life is extremely three dimensional and dynamic. These are the areas that most stereos fall short, in my experience. Timbral accuracy is fairly straightforward and often achieved.
I realize that some people can't hear in three dimensions -- my ex-wife, for example. I'm not creating a stereo system for them, or anyone else, for that matter. Everyone has individual tastes, priorities and experiences, not to mention unique hearing. I don't much care what others think about my system.
I have heard a lot of violin in my life but I don't think that I could reliably identify a Stradivarius as opposed to a cheap Yamaha practice violin. I'm quite sure that a randomly selected listening panel in a proper double blind test would not be able to tell that there were two different violins, nevermind which is which. Does that mean that anyone who can tell them apart is delusional?
Pete
Real life is extremely three dimensional and dynamic. These are the areas that most stereos fall short, in my experience. Timbral accuracy is fairly straightforward and often achieved.
I realize that some people can't hear in three dimensions -- my ex-wife, for example. I'm not creating a stereo system for them, or anyone else, for that matter. Everyone has individual tastes, priorities and experiences, not to mention unique hearing. I don't much care what others think about my system.
I have heard a lot of violin in my life but I don't think that I could reliably identify a Stradivarius as opposed to a cheap Yamaha practice violin. I'm quite sure that a randomly selected listening panel in a proper double blind test would not be able to tell that there were two different violins, nevermind which is which. Does that mean that anyone who can tell them apart is delusional?
Pete
PeteAugello,
So, to use a stereo amplifier to test one manufacturer's capacitors versus another manufacturer's capacitors . . .
1. Do a listening test of coupling capacitors of one manufacturer that have Exactly: the same phase, same time delay, dissipation factor, and same frequency response (that can be done very accurately), Now, with:
one in the left channel and one in the right channel (single ended amp); or two in the left channel and two in the right channel (push pull amplifier).
Specifically listen for the three dimensional and localization characteristics of the sound.
2. Repeat the listening test of coupling capacitors of Another manufacturer that have Exactly: the same phase, same time delay, dissipation factor, and same frequency response (that can be done very accurately), Now, with:
one in the left channel and one in the right channel (single ended amp); or two in the left channel and two in the right channel (push pull amplifier).
Specifically listen for the three dimensional and localization characteristics of the sound.
3. Please explain how and why there would be any difference in the three dimensional and localization characteristics of the sound of capacitors
in # 1, versus capacitors in # 2.
I really would like to know the cause of such differences in dimensional and localization.
The whole premise of a good stereo is identical channels of the amplifier, and the speakers too.
I used to think that as long as the the phase, time delay, and frequency response of the amplifier channels and the speakers were identical, that the dimensional and localization were correct.
Concerning Violins, I believe the largest differences in the sound is twofold:
The string material.
The bow material.
A Stradivarius with bad strings and bad bow, is like the ugliness of a Gold Ring in a Pigs nose.
So, to use a stereo amplifier to test one manufacturer's capacitors versus another manufacturer's capacitors . . .
1. Do a listening test of coupling capacitors of one manufacturer that have Exactly: the same phase, same time delay, dissipation factor, and same frequency response (that can be done very accurately), Now, with:
one in the left channel and one in the right channel (single ended amp); or two in the left channel and two in the right channel (push pull amplifier).
Specifically listen for the three dimensional and localization characteristics of the sound.
2. Repeat the listening test of coupling capacitors of Another manufacturer that have Exactly: the same phase, same time delay, dissipation factor, and same frequency response (that can be done very accurately), Now, with:
one in the left channel and one in the right channel (single ended amp); or two in the left channel and two in the right channel (push pull amplifier).
Specifically listen for the three dimensional and localization characteristics of the sound.
3. Please explain how and why there would be any difference in the three dimensional and localization characteristics of the sound of capacitors
in # 1, versus capacitors in # 2.
I really would like to know the cause of such differences in dimensional and localization.
The whole premise of a good stereo is identical channels of the amplifier, and the speakers too.
I used to think that as long as the the phase, time delay, and frequency response of the amplifier channels and the speakers were identical, that the dimensional and localization were correct.
Concerning Violins, I believe the largest differences in the sound is twofold:
The string material.
The bow material.
A Stradivarius with bad strings and bad bow, is like the ugliness of a Gold Ring in a Pigs nose.
Last edited:
When everyone that knows about these things tells you it won't make any difference, it is clear that your question is non-sensical.
Why you want an answer still?
Are you trolling?
Jan
I don't care about preferences at this stage. I only talk about objective things. The idea of damping to address vibrations doesn't work. It's a downgrade, patches put here and there that degrade the performance in a random fashion. On what would you base your preferences if there is not a systemtic approach?
For the rest there is no such thing like lighter sound, hevay sound etc...there is the one and only MUSICAL sound.
But here goes the question. How do you define "musical sound"? Let's say, hypothetically, that you poll a fixed amount of people by letting them audition a variety of systems. If they're all looking for their definition of "musical sound", will their preferences match?
It is the main reason I'm not advocating absolute solutions to an issue, because subjective preferences should be the leading criteria. You might not like the specific sound of one system, but another person will do. And will spend the money/effort to get it.
If my opinion wasn't true, people would build only one type / model / topology of audio devices. This is not the case, taste and preferences are all over the place in the audio world.
It is the main reason I'm not advocating absolute solutions to an issue, because subjective preferences should be the leading criteria. You might not like the specific sound of one system, but another person will do. And will spend the money/effort to get it.
If my opinion wasn't true, people would build only one type / model / topology of audio devices. This is not the case, taste and preferences are all over the place in the audio world.
The musical sound is the music played by instruments. This is not a random definition because music has clear rules and practices developed over centuries. The musical sound in re-production is the same with the limitations imposed by the system. The first most important limitation comes from the listening room, followed by the source. The stereo system needs to reproduce it with the highest possible fidelity.
How am I so certain that the system I posted eariler is a reference (and not just me, the consesus is unanimous among all the people who have had the possibility to listen to it)? I am certain because anything you throw at it is at the very least enjoiable and realistic when the same material in more conventional systems, including shiny expensive stuff with bells and whistles, would mostly go in the bin. It simply extracts the maximum amount of information out of anything because the systematic errors in reproduction have been reduced to a minimum.
I am perfectly aware that most people cannot have a room threated like that, cannot have that turntable etc...however this has nothing to with having a reference for my scaled-down system. The target of minimum amount of systematic errors still stands and cannot be based on preference for those few solutions that can be based on objective analysis. Vibrations are precisely one source of systematic error that can be managed and solved objectively.
How am I so certain that the system I posted eariler is a reference (and not just me, the consesus is unanimous among all the people who have had the possibility to listen to it)? I am certain because anything you throw at it is at the very least enjoiable and realistic when the same material in more conventional systems, including shiny expensive stuff with bells and whistles, would mostly go in the bin. It simply extracts the maximum amount of information out of anything because the systematic errors in reproduction have been reduced to a minimum.
I am perfectly aware that most people cannot have a room threated like that, cannot have that turntable etc...however this has nothing to with having a reference for my scaled-down system. The target of minimum amount of systematic errors still stands and cannot be based on preference for those few solutions that can be based on objective analysis. Vibrations are precisely one source of systematic error that can be managed and solved objectively.
Last edited:
Understandable enough. However, neither you, neither I, have the power to persuade every audio listener into your understanding of sound.
Remember there is a huge amount of varieties. Even taking the same musical instrument, but placed under difficult circumstances, be it a subway violin musician with a marble hallway, to an orchestra hall with wooden diffraction panels to opera hall with a lot of soft materials, including the physical distance of the musician towards the listeners and voila, you have already variables that will result into different perceptions of that same violin. So where is really your reference? How do you define absolute musical information, while it can vary in the real world and not only within audio systems? You have an understanding of fidelity, but the most important point to remember is, it stays as such in your own world only, and probably close to other audio listeners with similar preferences.
Remember there is a huge amount of varieties. Even taking the same musical instrument, but placed under difficult circumstances, be it a subway violin musician with a marble hallway, to an orchestra hall with wooden diffraction panels to opera hall with a lot of soft materials, including the physical distance of the musician towards the listeners and voila, you have already variables that will result into different perceptions of that same violin. So where is really your reference? How do you define absolute musical information, while it can vary in the real world and not only within audio systems? You have an understanding of fidelity, but the most important point to remember is, it stays as such in your own world only, and probably close to other audio listeners with similar preferences.
I have no wish to persuade anyone. The point is exactly that a different original space, a different tone of a specific instrument, different dynamics, different genre of music, different perspective of the soundstage from various listening positions will all show up beatifully and naturally in that system! You don't need to be an expert or an erudite to appreciate it. In a conventional system you only get a surrogate, in the best case....
If you have time, sometime we can arrange one day in Rome and then you can listen by yourself what I am talking about.
If you have time, sometime we can arrange one day in Rome and then you can listen by yourself what I am talking about.
Its things like asymmetrical crosstalk and or signal-correlated noise that can cause problems if they are not measured for.
@andyjevans have you tried Russian PIOs? They are very cheap as well. K75, K40, K42?>>
I had some big green ones which I didn't like at all, and some silver coloured ones I didn't rate very highly. I use FT-2 and FT-3 teflon or also K72, which I preferred to the brown square silver mica ones which were quite nice also. The PIO caps I do like are the Russian KBG ones, big, brown, rectangular and sound very nice. Some like the PETP for coupling, but I haven't tried them. Most of these are better than polypropylene, though.
I had some big green ones which I didn't like at all, and some silver coloured ones I didn't rate very highly. I use FT-2 and FT-3 teflon or also K72, which I preferred to the brown square silver mica ones which were quite nice also. The PIO caps I do like are the Russian KBG ones, big, brown, rectangular and sound very nice. Some like the PETP for coupling, but I haven't tried them. Most of these are better than polypropylene, though.
Markw4,
Interesting observation!
Asymmetrical crosstalk?
Recordings:
1. Like 2 or more microphones recording a piano, flute, etc. (at least 2 microphones are required for stereo)
Even a single mid-side ribbon microphone, has 2 elements with matrix math creating the L and R signals.
Playback:
2. Like a listening room with varied reflective surfaces in different places, non symmetrical shape, etc. ?
Signal Correlated Noise?
I do not know what that is, at least by that name.
. . . Please define or describe it
Thanks!
Interesting observation!
Asymmetrical crosstalk?
Recordings:
1. Like 2 or more microphones recording a piano, flute, etc. (at least 2 microphones are required for stereo)
Even a single mid-side ribbon microphone, has 2 elements with matrix math creating the L and R signals.
Playback:
2. Like a listening room with varied reflective surfaces in different places, non symmetrical shape, etc. ?
Signal Correlated Noise?
I do not know what that is, at least by that name.
. . . Please define or describe it
Thanks!
Last edited:
45,
I wish I could go and hear your system.
. . . And to all the others on this thread, I wish i could go an hear all your systems too.
That is why in my location, we have Audio Crawls:
3 hosts, take 3 groups of 5 listeners (15 listeners) and they do a Round-Robbin listening session.
If you live in an area with a club, I suggest you try the Audio Crawl.
I wish I could go and hear your system.
. . . And to all the others on this thread, I wish i could go an hear all your systems too.
That is why in my location, we have Audio Crawls:
3 hosts, take 3 groups of 5 listeners (15 listeners) and they do a Round-Robbin listening session.
If you live in an area with a club, I suggest you try the Audio Crawl.
Back to Post # 1 . . .
Paralleling capacitors, such as coupling caps, and self bias bypass caps:
Easy to test . . . feed the Left channel output of a phono preamp, or the Left channel output of a CD player to:
Both the Left and Right channels of a stereo amplifier (or pair of Mono Blocks).
Connect the parallel bypass cap in only one of the amplifier channels (or only one Mono Block).
Use a switch to connect & disconnect the Left channel music source from the L and R channels (alternately).
Move the speakers side by side to get as similar as possible room acoustic properties which do affect the sound of the speaker.
Listen.
Conclude.
Done.
If you want to test using paralleling a small quality capacitor across a B+ electrolytic capacitor,
Use the same technique as above.
However, you will need 2 Mono Blocks, and modify Only 1 Mono Block to have the parallel cap.
Listen.
Conclude.
Done.
Paralleling capacitors, such as coupling caps, and self bias bypass caps:
Easy to test . . . feed the Left channel output of a phono preamp, or the Left channel output of a CD player to:
Both the Left and Right channels of a stereo amplifier (or pair of Mono Blocks).
Connect the parallel bypass cap in only one of the amplifier channels (or only one Mono Block).
Use a switch to connect & disconnect the Left channel music source from the L and R channels (alternately).
Move the speakers side by side to get as similar as possible room acoustic properties which do affect the sound of the speaker.
Listen.
Conclude.
Done.
If you want to test using paralleling a small quality capacitor across a B+ electrolytic capacitor,
Use the same technique as above.
However, you will need 2 Mono Blocks, and modify Only 1 Mono Block to have the parallel cap.
Listen.
Conclude.
Done.
For that specific system, I truly believe it is worth listening and by no means I'm attempting to challenge your building claims and philosophy. And you have my grattiude for sharing partial knowledge and especially, the photos.
But keep in mind that in our national audiophiles communities, we have also experimented and studied, not 100% exact, but quite similar experiments. I find big constructive simularities and wisdom your pictures, and by no means looking to discredit them. And yes, one can achieve a very natural experience, as you described it, a feeling of constant 3D accross the room and tone naturalness, which I also call musicality. I suspect that the chance we're sharing mutual subjective preferences is very high. Thank you kindly for your invitation, I will take the chance of PM-ing you in case I travel to Rome.
But I have also stumbled accross people who wouldn't expect and dislike aspects of such kind of sound. And I believe they have their (democratic) right to do so. People are different.
It can come from layout problems in preamps or amplifiers. For example, if the output of one channel is physically close to the input of the other channel but not vice versa, then the crosstalk may be greater in one direction than the other.
Its something I first learned about for Sigma-Delta dacs. However, it probably explains things like Bybees too. Its a type of noise that is partially a function of the audio signal. So, no signal, then no noise. There are a couple of ways that it can be looked for on an FFT. There are noise skirts that can be seen at the base of spectral lines. Bohrok2610 showed a way of visualizing the noise skirts: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/phase-noise-in-ds-dacs.387862/#post-7063038 Actually, the rest of the thread that follows may also have some posts of interest.
Signal-correlated noise which is less closely correlated with the audio signal may also show up as a general change in noise floor and or 1/f noise with the presence or absence of an audio signal. In that case the noise energy may be spread out over a wider frequency range, so using a lower res FFT with fewer bins may make changes in noise floor more easily visible.
What causes such things? In Sigma Delta dacs there is a pattern of bits that is trying to approximate on average a particular DC dac output level. The pattern will repeat for a static DC level, unless the modulator is dithered. In the dithered case the noise will be less correlated with the signal. (Either way, it tends look like noise on an FFT even when it is an undithered deterministic signal). For Bybees it seems that they are like the ferrites and hysteresis distortion/noise which Bruno Putzeys described as a problem in class-D amplifiers (due to the ferrites in output inductors). If enough current is run though a Bybee they may tend to make a similar type of EMI/RFI noise that may cause enjoyable or unfavorable audible side effects in audio equipment.
Last edited:
Markw4,
Thanks for your answers!
1. Spectrum analyzers: I started using in 1971, and better and better ones ever since, until 2012 when I retired.
Every time I look at spectral lines, such as test tone(s), using the worlds best spectrum analyzers, I often see . . .
Phase Noise
AC filament sidebands
1/f noise riding on clocks that are used in recording, or creating test tones, etc.
And phase noise sidebands from PLLs used on clocks
B+ ripple sidebands
Amplified KTB noise
Etc.
And yes, sidebands do not exist, unless the carrier is present (test tone or music notes).
No signal, no sidebands.
If you look for dirt under the rug, you will find it, even if you have to use a magnifying lens.
2. I never knowingly experienced asymmetrical crosstalk.
But here is an example of correlated [equal channel to channel] cross talk:
I built an SE 45 stereo amplifier. There was only one 6.3V filament winding that had to power the 6.3V filament of a dual triode, and had to power the 45 filaments that were in parallel, 2 series dropping resistors, one from each leg of the 6.3V. There were 2 additional resistors from the 45 parallel filament leads to a common self bias resistor to ground, with a bypass capacitor across the self bias resistor.
That circuit caused both L to R channel, and R to L channel crosstalk; in both cases it was -40dBc, Measured Accurately.
I used a CD player, and that SE 45 amplifier, with a pair of Usher S-520 speakers.
Everybody at work liked the sound, nobody ever commented about the lack of separation.
Another example of correlated crosstalk:
When I was a kid, I listened to stereo systems; the music was from turntables and phono cartridges.
At midrange frequencies, most cartridges were only -25dBc separation; perfect cartridge alignment of a real good cartridge gave -30dB separation.
Do not ask about the separation at low frequencies, and do not ask about the separation above 5kHz (they are awful!).
I do not remember about any complaints about the poor separation then either.
3. Back to spectral analysis and phase noise.
When I worked in the engineering department, I realized that you can reduce phase noise.
But, it is just like a Tube shaped Ballon.
Push down and collapse the first end, the middle and second end will grow.
Push down and collapse the second end, and the middle and the first end will grow.
Low frequency phase noise at reduced amplitude; High frequency phase noise at reduced amplitude . . . pick one at the expense of the other.
Or make both have medium amplitude.
Thanks for your answers!
1. Spectrum analyzers: I started using in 1971, and better and better ones ever since, until 2012 when I retired.
Every time I look at spectral lines, such as test tone(s), using the worlds best spectrum analyzers, I often see . . .
Phase Noise
AC filament sidebands
1/f noise riding on clocks that are used in recording, or creating test tones, etc.
And phase noise sidebands from PLLs used on clocks
B+ ripple sidebands
Amplified KTB noise
Etc.
And yes, sidebands do not exist, unless the carrier is present (test tone or music notes).
No signal, no sidebands.
If you look for dirt under the rug, you will find it, even if you have to use a magnifying lens.
2. I never knowingly experienced asymmetrical crosstalk.
But here is an example of correlated [equal channel to channel] cross talk:
I built an SE 45 stereo amplifier. There was only one 6.3V filament winding that had to power the 6.3V filament of a dual triode, and had to power the 45 filaments that were in parallel, 2 series dropping resistors, one from each leg of the 6.3V. There were 2 additional resistors from the 45 parallel filament leads to a common self bias resistor to ground, with a bypass capacitor across the self bias resistor.
That circuit caused both L to R channel, and R to L channel crosstalk; in both cases it was -40dBc, Measured Accurately.
I used a CD player, and that SE 45 amplifier, with a pair of Usher S-520 speakers.
Everybody at work liked the sound, nobody ever commented about the lack of separation.
Another example of correlated crosstalk:
When I was a kid, I listened to stereo systems; the music was from turntables and phono cartridges.
At midrange frequencies, most cartridges were only -25dBc separation; perfect cartridge alignment of a real good cartridge gave -30dB separation.
Do not ask about the separation at low frequencies, and do not ask about the separation above 5kHz (they are awful!).
I do not remember about any complaints about the poor separation then either.
3. Back to spectral analysis and phase noise.
When I worked in the engineering department, I realized that you can reduce phase noise.
But, it is just like a Tube shaped Ballon.
Push down and collapse the first end, the middle and second end will grow.
Push down and collapse the second end, and the middle and the first end will grow.
Low frequency phase noise at reduced amplitude; High frequency phase noise at reduced amplitude . . . pick one at the expense of the other.
Or make both have medium amplitude.
Last edited: