How much difference does it make?

[jabbr]

12 hours ago, PeterSt said:

But please be informed that we produce 100% of the whole audio chain (apart from power cords), so I should be able to know. 

 

Wait, do you grow those mushrooms?! Can I get some?

[jabbr]

On 6/22/2019 at 5:18 AM, marce said:

Speakers/Room biggest effect.

Cables should have no discernible affect on an analogue signal or digital signal transmission.

I have perceived some difference in sources when I had CD players and with DAC's, but never blind tested so I can't exclude bias. With digital sources feeding the same DAC I have never noticed any difference.

 

Cables shouldn’t matter but they sometimes do. I wonder if the shielding around USB cables act as waveguides for transmitted EMI. Shielding also seems to be a problem Ethernet but for >= 10g, foil around each twisted pair reduces crosstalk. Suggest that twisting isn’t perfect 😉

[jabbr]

@marce I’ve experienced popping noises and static from some DACs but not others supplied by some power supplies or SBCs (via USB) but not others... presumably some USB interfaces emit gunk, so some cables might modulate the gunk ... of course the solution is to fix the USB interface but folks here mostly can’t measure gunk on the USB interface ... they can easily swap cables or add widgets though...

 

the problem really is that one person heard something once under one circumstance and then tries to make it an eternal and universal truth ...

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, shtf said:

Roughly speaking, real performance can be broken down as follows:

•  60% Not your typical vibration mgmt.
• 25% Not your typical electrical mgmt
• 15% Components, speakers, cables, etc
• 00% room acoustics and/or treatments

 

Choke. 

 

I’ve spent a great deal of time looking into and implementing vibration management — NFW it’s even close to 60% nor is electrical management 25 % 

— to suggest that room correction is 0% is equally absurd

— source is #1,  transducers are #2 components #3

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, shtf said:

BTW, since when does spending a great deal of time looking into something make one an expert in anything? 

 

You claimed vibration management makes up 60% of the SQ of an audio system. Now you claim that you’ve got something better than what I’ve implemented (and done comparative listening test on). My views and techniques are well documented on this site so no need to repeat. 60% is absurd for any system. There is also vast literature of vibration mitigation in physics eg graviton detection. So let’s see measurements. Vibrations are eminently measurable. 

 

You also use this bizarre terminology of a “bi-directional” line filter ... get a grip of some basic electronics. Circuits are circular, bidirectional ... all of it. Noise floor is also trivial to measure — or just listen — no need for bizarro terminology.

 

Let me say it again: the only rational reason for you to hold these views is if you are trying to peddle snake oil — what is your agenda? Do you have an industry affiliation? Are you in the business of selling products? What?

[jabbr]

8 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Here's vibration management:

Runs even on batteries.

It has been well experimented with either.

Speaking about sales & disco balls ... there’s really good $$$ here in the states running sex toy parties — a friend makes 50% commission on “pure romance”! 

 

Just thinking, this could open up a whole new market  for the Lush! 

[jabbr]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Shortest is 40cm. Nobody wants it shorter. I have head no requests for pink yet.

 

But we better quit this subject quickly.

 

But it will lift veils, remove layers & heighten awareness — the sensation of being there in a live situation!

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

"Yeah, sure !" our son said. "Tell that Santa !".

He knows what a vibrating DAC is for ... sorry 😐 

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, shtf said:

Think of it this way.  A given recording contains exactly 100% of the music info we’re potentially able to hear through our playback systems.  From our computer experiences with backups and restores, we already know that reading and processing at or near 100% accuracy is old technology.  But of that roughly 100% music info read and processed, that with a typical SOTA level playback system, I venture only 55-65% of that music info remains above the much raised noise flloor and hence, audible at the speaker.   

 

If you aren’t comfortable with measurements then don’t use numbers — You “venture” that a SOTA playback system only maintains 55-65% of the music info — this is a testable claim that has been tested many times and is wrong. 

 

I’m sure @esldude has done this test. I’d guess that >99% of the information remains (assuming a CD source). All these raging debates we have are over this last 1%. Psychologically 0.01% may be important, that said it’s still 0.01%. 

 

The effects of vibrations on electronics are real and measurable and have have been measured. They are known to be small. A tweak for those of us fooling around with that last 1%. 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, rando said:

So where do you conceive advancements?  

 

You, like many others, could fill pages with equations depicting how oversimplified assigning a percentage or any other absolute sounding number is.  Stabbing a finger towards one field lagging behind may lead to more insightful debate. 

 

Advancement as in science? I'm not claiming to have all the answers 

 

That said there are techniques that have been shown for centuries to have success leading toward advancements.

1) define the problem

2) generate a hypothesis

3) test the hypothesis in a repeatable fashion

 

My own completely subjective opinion is that room correction and new perhaps multitrack transducers are more likely to lead to substantial advancements than reducing noise from -120 dB to -150 dB (phase or voltage). I am willing to learn and willing to look at any reasonable technique described in a fashion that can be reasonably evaluated (i.e. no snake oil)

 

We have debated the vibration issues here in a substantial fashion, and have discussed many ways people can create or obtain vibration reduction equipment, and then they can listen and draw their own conclusions. There is no reason to think that the methods we have offered here (e.g.  Barry Diament's method) are inadequate or don't work. Someone claiming so should provide measurements. That's easy.

 

Quote

 

I intend this in the physical realm where USB devices can be made to quiver and, as a for instance, sizeable appliances cannot behave similar to smaller ones.  The space they fill is required to produce more impactful results.

 

Sure, and I've widely implemented vibration platforms -- even under my NAS, and under my 90 lb transformers -- that said, 100 Gbe Ethernet switches with high powered noisy fans and in noisy server environments seem to work rather well and still hit their eye patterns -- despite the fact that you can measure increased phase noise when crystal oscillators are in a vibratory environment.

http://www.wenzel.com/documents/vibration.html

http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snaa296/snaa296.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ebe/814dbe61c8cd51515552d1da100c6bf95f51.pdf

https://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_view/137210-101662-101-oscillator-datasheet

 

This issue has been extensively studied.

 

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

For analog electronics (amps), we may see further reductions in Xover distortion (after the Benchmark exclusive license runs out), as Ga makes its way down to Earth from satellites, and etc.

 

With a direct digital input amp, best to crossover digitally and then bi/tri/quad amp the speakers 

[jabbr]

8 hours ago, shtf said:

 

Yeah, I’d say 60% is a pretty safe conservative estimate.

...

 

You wanna see measurements?  Answer me this.  Do you even know what to measure, much less properly interpret any findings?  Is it not true that every electrical wire and internal electrical component vibrates when current is flowing through them?  How are you going to measure all that?

 

What do you mean by vibration? Mechanical or electrical? This is physics. The methods to measure vibration are well known. 

 

I can't interpret your language, let alone your "findings" ... have you presented them? I am not sure we are using the same language? That said the field of electromagnetism has been well studied and deflection in ferromagnetic coils such as in certain transformers is also well known. 

 

Pick one of the well accepted ways to measure vibrations.

 

8 hours ago, shtf said:

 

If we’re talking air-borne vibrations, is not the chassis impacted first by that unwanted energy but then every internal object directly or indirectly impacted secondarily?

 

If we’re talking floor-borne vibrations, wouldn’t that impact be quite similar to air-borne vibrations?

 

The two are different but both are examples of mechanical vibrations that can be mitigated using different techniques. If you want to look at state of the art techniques, such as non-linear springs, they are published --- I am not trying to promote a single technique nor a single product, rather providing information.

 

8 hours ago, shtf said:

As former NASA contractors / scientists I’m sure they’d love to get your thoughts.  One of them also worked on the Voyager 1 project where many parts of the Voyager 1 were cryogenically treated via the full immersion method and they carried that cryo-treatment into their high-end audio business and have been cryo-treating many of their products for the past 30 years.  I’m sure you’ll have some insights to share with them on that subject too.

...

With such diametrically opposed findings would that not make one of us a false prophet?

 

Speaking of the Voyager project. It is perhaps one of the finest examples of Physics at work, both conceptually and in implementation.

 

NASA essentially subcontracted the Voyager project to Caltech and its JPL, or should I say, that NASA funded and helped manage the Voyager project for the Caltech JPL. Let's just say that iff I am a prophet, then I spread the word of Ed Stone. (I hold him in special regard). Caltech (and MIT) also led to Fairchild semi, and then Intel, so clearly the spinoffs from Physics research have affected our everyday lives.

 

In any case since you invoked the Voyager project, let's step back and learn the larger lesson: It was based on solid physics, using great deal of planning and outstanding engineering, in order to make measurements that have never been made before. The Voyager project is a testament to the use of  mathematical physics to create an instrument providing measurements that in turn enable the validation of yet more mathematical physics. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

8 hours ago, shtf said:

 

No product to sell.  Well, not for the past 8 years anyway.  But considering your findings vs my findings on vibrations and perhaps your findings vs Jena Labs’ finding on line conditioners, bi-directional noise, cryo-treating, etc, what exactly is your definition of snake oil?   If I should feel the need to use that term, I just wanna make sure I use it in a context that’s understandable.

 

 

Fair enough, if you aren't selling anything nor have an industry affiliation then my apologies for accusing you of peddling snake oil. At the moment we have different definitions for basic terms such as "information" and "vibration", and you don't seem to agree on an objective way to decide on a % (i.e. a measurement), we are off by one or two orders of magnitude so further debate is pointless.

[jabbr]