Jump to content
IGNORED

Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

When using electrolytic capacitors one can be quite relaxed in how the values are used, because no resonant peak is emphasised.

 GARBAGE !!!

  In a good system it is easy to hear differences between PSUs with much lower output impedances at  either end of the spectrum even when the Output Z is already quite low.. This even applies where a Capacitance Multiplier circuit is used, where you can still clearly hear the difference where low ESR or Audio type capacitors (e.g.  Elna for Audio) of the same value are used, and that's with a simulated capacitance of a couple of FARADS !!!..

P.S. 

 You have already verified the last part for yourself with files that you listened to, where the exact same amount of capacitance was used, but with different types in a capacitance multiplier 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 GARBAGE !!!

  In a good system it is easy to hear differences between PSUs with much lower output impedances at  either end of the spectrum even when the Output Z is already quite low.. This even applies where a Capacitance Multiplier circuit is used, where you can still clearly hear the difference where low ESR or Audio type capacitors (e.g.  Elna for Audio) of the same value are used, and that's with a simulated capacitance of a couple of FARADS !!!..

 

 

Alex, this is electrical engineering - what you like me to point some material on this, or could you find it yourself?

 

How it makes a difference to how some component sounds is an entirely different matter - there are almost never simple answers.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Alex, this is electrical engineering - what you like me to point some material on this, or could you find it yourself?

 This is an Audiophile Forum where we also use our ears, not just rely on yellowing old textbooks.

We have learned a great deal more in this area than when you were at Uni.😋

 And yes, I have also read material from Ben Duncan and others such as Walt Jung, who BTW ":He's suggesting, and I agree, that we try the Nichicon Golds or bipolar MUSE series for audio "  (This was from some correspondence between an E.E. friend and Walt last year where I was also involved in the testing) 

  I will remove the pdf in about 10 minutes, so grab it if you want it.;

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 This is an Audiophile Forum where we also use our ears, not just rely on yellowing old textbooks.

We have learned a great deal more in this area than when you were at Uni.😋

 And yes, I have also read the material from Ben Duncan and others such as Walt Jung, who BTW ":He's suggesting, and I agree, that we try the Nichicon Golds or bipolar MUSE series for audio "  (This was from some correspondence between an E.E. friend and Walt last year where I was also involved in the testing) 

  

 

Yes, on the business on what we do with a component, to improve its subjective performance - all bets are off, 😉. People hear with different ears - so if they prefer a certain configuration of capacitors, "because it sounds better, to them" ... no quibbles ...

Link to comment
15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

@kumakuma has already spelt them out - here,

 

The rig I had 30 years ago had a power supply problem in the amplifier - poor choice of smoothing caps - fixed by assembling a far more effective array of smaller caps, having much lower parastic resistance, better construction.

 

The current active speakers have a sensitivity to mains noise - which I'm currently working out a solution for.

 

This is known as: Find a Problem; Fix the Problem - very obscure approach, usually taught only to car mechanics and similar ...

 

Frank, a car person who wants to become a mechanic can get step-by-step instructions from mechanic’s vocational schools, books, high school shop classes, etc. When a mechanic tries to start a car, and nothing happens, he knows that either the ignition switch, the starter button, the battery, the solenoid, or the starter motor itself is faulty. Books and teachers or more experienced mechanics can tell him and show him where to start to find the fault. But you tell people nothing! You just assert that your method achieves miracles. But unlike a mechanic or a mechanic’s teacher, you are silent on the “mechanics” of this fabulous “method” of yours..

I guess what’s frustrating for most people here, is that you should be able to list each fault you find and then list the fix. Like this:

Audible line noise - Added isolation transformer to mains supply.

Found hum being induced to phono system - moved turntable line cord away from phono lead.

Poor bass - Redesigned  power supply with stiffer capacitors, replaced resistor in pi filter with 400 milliHenry choke (show schematic).

Etc. But you’ve never given us a step by step breakdown of symptom/resolution. If what you are doing is, as you assert, analogous to a automobile mechanic’s troubleshooting steps, then like the mechanic, you should be able to list the steps in your “method” to fix each problem area. ...And not with such vague explanations as “replaced RCA interconnects by soldering various audio components together” Either. For instance, what perceived fault did you think such an action would address? What were the actual results as opposed to what you thought they would be?
Seems to me that rather than prattle-on for thousands of posts about what you are trying to accomplish, that you would WANT to give us a step-by-step primer about how your “method” works and how you go about applying it. What steps do you take to ascertain the level of “surgery” required to fix what perceived faults, and how efficacious are these specific fixes. Finally give us the methods you use to continue to tweak a system when all of the obvious steps (that most audiophiles already know) have been applied and their benefits noted.
It is also apparent to me why most folks here question your veracity when you are not forthcoming with the above step-by-step outline of your “method“. You’ve posted enough verbiage about what you’re “trying to do“ to have written “War And Peace” and you could have avoided most of it just by “coming clean” years ago with the info I outlined above.

It’s called credibility, Frank, and I’m afraid you’ve painted yourself into a corner by having practically no credibility.

 

George

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

 Deleted

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

so if they prefer a certain configuration of capacitors, "because it sounds better, to them" .

 

 Sensitive measurements are also capable of explaining these preferences. These days it is more commonly accepted that we can hear much smaller differences in levels than previously believed possible. In fact, as low as a little over 0.1dB 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, the same delusional results that @ray-dude gets, is it? Shame that he spent so much money, using his individual way to fool himself, don't you think?

As I predicted you tend to align yourself with @ray-dude to try and establish some sort of credibility, presumably the nature of the endgame, best quality sound. Ironically, it only serves to highlight how absurd your claims are, to achieve like quality with such low end gear.

 

You wax lyrically about what good sound is. You always conveniently ignore the fact that your non-existent method applied to low end gear cannot produce such sound quality, and that it cannot be better than 99% of the high-end gear owned by the members in this forum.

 

This is insulting to the members of this forum and I believe that you are well aware of this. You play them for fools. When asked for evidence you can't produce it because it doesn't exist. This is why you will not produce photographs of your magic handiwork. You just produce another episode in "Frank's Fables" which really is just another way of insulting people.

 

It is extraordinarily highly likely that the vast majority of members in this forum have greatly superior sound quality than you have ever achieved in your entire lifetime of tweaking low end gear. It is extraordinarily highly likely that the vast majority of members in this forum have already got much closer to your very own descriptions of what is good sound quality.

 

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, a car person who wants to become a mechanic can get step-by-step instructions from mechanic’s vocational schools, books, high school shop classes, etc. When a mechanic tries to start a car, and nothing happens, he knows that either the ignition switch, the starter button, the battery, the solenoid, or the starter motor itself is faulty. Books and teachers or more experienced mechanics can tell him and show him where to start to find the fault. But you tell people nothing! You just assert that your method achieves miracles. But unlike a mechanic or a mechanic’s teacher, you are silent on the “mechanics” of this fabulous “method” of yours..

I guess what’s frustrating for most people here, is that you should be able to list each fault you find and then list the fix. Like this:

Audible line noise - Added isolation transformer to mains supply.

Found hum being induced to phono system - moved turntable line cord away from phono lead.

Poor bass - Redesigned  power supply with stiffer capacitors, replaced resistor in pi filter with 400 milliHenry choke (show schematic).

Etc. But you’ve never given us a step by step breakdown of symptom/resolution. If what you are doing is, as you assert, analogous to a automobile mechanic’s troubleshooting steps, then like the mechanic, you should be able to list the steps in your “method” to fix each problem area. ...And not with such vague explanations as “replaced RCA interconnects by soldering various audio components together” Either. For instance, what perceived fault did you think such an action would address? What were the actual results as opposed to what you thought they would be?
Seems to me that rather than prattle-on for thousands of posts about what you are trying to accomplish, that you would WANT to give us a step-by-step primer about how your “method” works and how you go about applying it. What steps do you take to ascertain the level of “surgery” required to fix what perceived faults, and how efficacious are these specific fixes. Finally give us the methods you use to continue to tweak a system when all of the obvious steps (that most audiophiles already know) have been applied and their benefits noted.
It is also apparent to me why most folks here question your veracity when you are not forthcoming with the above step-by-step outline of your “method“. You’ve posted enough verbiage about what you’re “trying to do“ to have written “War And Peace” and you could have avoided most of it just by “coming clean” years ago with the info I outlined above.

It’s called credibility, Frank, and I’m afraid you’ve painted yourself into a corner by having practically no credibility.

 

 

This forum software, plus my Firefox browser really pisses me off at times - halfway through responding to this post, and it suddenly decided to run off to some advertising crap, at Amazon - and lost my input ... Not Happy !!! .. give me a moment ...

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

As I predicted you tend to align yourself with @ray-dude to try and establish some sort of credibility, presumably the nature of the endgame, best quality sound. Ironically, it only serves to highlight how absurd your claims are, to achieve like quality with such low end gear.

 

Note the snob coming out - only "good stuff" enables quality listening.

 

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

You wax lyrically about what good sound is. You always conveniently ignore the fact that your non-existent method applied to low end gear cannot produce such sound quality, and that it cannot be better than 99% of the high-end gear owned by the members in this forum.

 

What it does is eliminate the disturbing audio anomalies that instantly identify the sound you listen to, as being that coming from an audio rig. Irrespective of the latter's cost.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This forum software, plus my Firefox browser really pisses me off at times - halfway through responding to this post, and it suddenly decided to run off to some advertising crap, at Amazon - and lost my input ... Not Happy !!! .. give me a moment ...

 

Chris doesn't host that kind of advertising. Sounds like your computer/browser needs to be sorted out.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Sensitive measurements are also capable of explaining these preferences. These days it is more commonly accepted that we can hear much smaller differences in levels than previously believed possible. In fact, as low as a little over 0.1dB 

 

I'm sure it all can be measurable ...I work by getting the system to an acceptable subjective level, what any measurements would show would be interesting - but I'm plain tuckered out by that point, 😁.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 You just assert that your method achieves miracles. But unlike a mechanic or a mechanic’s teacher, you are silent on the “mechanics” of this fabulous “method” of yours..

 

Right, try again 🙂.

 

What "miracle"?

 

Quote

I guess what’s frustrating for most people here, is that you should be able to list each fault you find and then list the fix. Like this:

Audible line noise - Added isolation transformer to mains supply.

 

I use what does the job. If an isolation transformer is handy, and I try it; and it does the job - that's the end of the story ... a fix is a fix. Every system I've fiddled with has used a different batch of ideas, for mains noise - I don't stand still, unfortunately 😝.

 

Quote

Found hum being induced to phono system - moved turntable line cord away from phono lead.

Poor bass - Redesigned  power supply with stiffer capacitors, replaced resistor in pi filter with 400 milliHenry choke (show schematic).

Etc. But you’ve never given us a step by step breakdown of symptom/resolution. If what you are doing is, as you assert, analogous to a automobile mechanic’s troubleshooting steps, then like the mechanic, you should be able to list the steps in your “method” to fix each problem area. ...And not with such vague explanations as “replaced RCA interconnects by soldering various audio components together” Either. For instance, what perceived fault did you think such an action would address? What were the actual results as opposed to what you thought they would be?

 

There's a post a day or so ago by me, that spells it out - I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find it, 😉.

 

Quote

 


Seems to me that rather than prattle-on for thousands of posts about what you are trying to accomplish, that you would WANT to give us a step-by-step primer about how your “method” works and how you go about applying it. What steps do you take to ascertain the level of “surgery” required to fix what perceived faults, and how efficacious are these specific fixes.

 

That's what the Edifying Journey thread is all about - have you read any of this?

 

Quote

 

Finally give us the methods you use to continue to tweak a system when all of the obvious steps (that most audiophiles already know) have been applied and their benefits noted.

 

The most important method is that I don't stop. If the obvious ones don't do the job, then I look to further tweaks. The only real thing that matters is one keeps working on it, so long as you keep hearing problems in the sound ... the car is not running right until you are unaware of any issues, when you try to drive in a certain way - the gearbox may only play up when a certain downshift pattern occurs; that tells you you haven't got it fully sorted.

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...