Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site


In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: It’s mad, mad, mad... electricity.
Post Subject: The Devil's AdvocatePosted by oxric on: 3/21/2010
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Rakesh,

I think you’ve missed the accent of my battery post.  We do not argue abstract topologies but we argue the validity of topology in respect to sonic results.  I hope we all agree that we do not exactly know WHY affects electricity sound. We do know that deformation of sinusoid or not good, high distortions are not good but we do not necessarily know what is good for sound. PS Audio give a truly perfect sinusoid but and no distortion but has no sound. Dima’s Avicenna corrector gives absolutely perfect sinusoid and no distortions but has absolutely no effect to sound. So, what we do is invent to ourselves a panacea we call “battery”. However, if you talk to people who use buttery in fix bias then the claim the ALL batteries sound very different. So, the point that I made is that I do not need any anecdote of accidental successes of using battery, even if it is my own experience. What I do need is a methodologically legitimate method of assessments of sonic result caused by electricity.  From this perspective ANY SINGLE PERSON I heard who advocate battery was wrong in my view, let me to explain why.

Pretend you use battery and get better result. I do not doubt your finding BUT you got better result compare to bad electricity that you had before. So, you result is irrelevant be it proves that good electricity is better than bad electricity – very useful! What I would like instead is you to get good electricity and good sound and THEN introduce batteries. I have VERY high doubts that the result will be as dramatic as the battery-advocate love to claim.

The Cat
 


Romy:

It is not the first and certainly not the last time you think I have misunderstood your post, or the point of it, or that I misunderstood your stance on methodology when it comes to sonic matters . Actually I do not think it is any of these things. You Romy, on the other hand, misapprehend my specific personal, to some extent selfish, concerns and did not see where I stand on the subject of batteries.

The first point I wish to correct, and which I thought was clear as a result of explicitly saying so, is that I do not advocate batteries as an alternative to good electricity and never will. The hassle is simply not worth it. There are other reasons but they overlap with the ones you list to some extent so I will not go over these here as there are a number of issues I wish to address first.

Even in cases where batteries might be used as an improvement to problems with poor mains electricity, I think one ought to consider batteries as a last resort and see if easier solutions might not address the problems more cost effectively and with less impact on practical considerations. I hate when it happens sometimes but I may have forgotten to charge a set of batteries, my 2 and 3-year olds demand that I play some music and I must explain that the batteries need recharging, and because these are special gel  batteries that it will be many hours before I can do so (and I don't want to connect a stand-by amplifier which is there for precisely this eventuality because i am feeling lazy but they don't need to know that!).

So Romy there you have it. I hate batteries with a vengeance!

But I take issue with your often used accusation that other audiophiles are using faulty methodology and their conclusions are null and void. I do not think anyone has ever questioned this stance of yours and the more you make this accusation uncorrected, the more you will perpetuate the myth that there is only ONE valid methodology and everything else is invalid. First of all the issue of correct methodology is only ever assessed with respect to the objectives one is striving for, and  for many audiophiles, that necessarily entails achieving an improvement in terms of sonic results. Unless someone is blatantly violating some basic tenet, such as examining the results on an oscilloscope but not switching on and listening  to the equipment, I think most people with a modicum  of intelligence will use the methodology you advocate although they will see  no need to spell it out for all and sunder. Secondly, irrespective of what you claim, methodology, as you well know coming from an engineering or scientific background, can have different objectives at different stages of a project. If you are  building a bridge, you will probably select in the early stages materials on the basis of generic principles rather than investigating how they will perform in the specific application. With electricity that makes even more sense. we try to make sure the evils we know about are addressed first before worrying  about the varying and specific issues of different batteries and implementations.

The last point I make also addresses in part the point you raise about different batteries sounding different. Yes Romy, and a fixed bias set-up may be even more susceptible to these variations, true I agree. And in the set-up which I will use where I will be using a total of 26 batteries, I may not have the inclination to try different brands...Still we need to start somewhere and address the evils we  know.

With regard to anecdotal evidence and how this it is contrary to a 'legitimate method of assessment', well let me say that I never claimed to have carried out such an experiment or my post would have been very different, as maybe you would have guessed by now. I would set up my goals, explain my methodology, justify the different choices made, explain my results, conduct control tests, repeat the results, have an independent panel of evaluators and then make a claim. Then I would brook little disagreement not based on a rigorous evaluation of my findings. But I am not there and make no such claim.

You also claim that my results are irrelevant because I may have only replaced bad electricity with batteries. I take your point and will only add that I don't look at my random grappling in the dark so to speak as  'results' as they do not follow a rigorous methodology which would make some real findings of universal significance. They work in this instance and I am aiming for better results with my next experimentation but will be no closer to a valid finding of fact of much value to anyone but myself in my circumstances.

This then brings me finally to the point I  thought I had made clearly in my last post, but not clearly enough obviously. Your conclusion that you have 'VERY high doubts that the result will be as dramatic as the battery-advocate love to claim' is mere speculation, based on the anecdotal evidence that you yourself question vehemently. It is empty speculation and does not help understand the contribution batteries might or might not make, and what role if any they should be given in a given set-up. A few years ago, when you were thinking more clearly about the subject, without prejudice and pre-conceptions, you mentioned that batteries worked well in some instances, for example in a DAC and step-up/phonostage. Paul also offered some anecdotal evidence to this effect. You warned that you thought you would not be investigating that path, and eventually you started posting with pictures of 10 tonnes  power generators on wheels. This is not of use to 99.99999% of people interested in this hobby Romy (although one day I might look into it as part of my interest in having a 'green' house and generating my own electricity from photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, or tapping into a geothermal source). On the other hand, maybe just maybe, chances are batteries might provide a tangible and cost-effective benefit to 1% of all audiophiles out there. You clearly are most unlikely to enjoy these benefits should they materialise but then I imagine you will have your own nuclear reactor onboard the decommissioned Russian aircraft carrier you will have converted to serve your own audio needs.

Lastly, to the relief of many I fear, is a point I wish to make about comparing batteries with good electricity. I understand where you are coming from and believe it is worth thinking of what we might learn from it. The results are reminiscent of game theory and rather humorous. Let's say the results are worse than using good electricity (it's not important how much worse for the present purpose) the conclusion: still use batteries since I presumably tried batteries because they must be better that the bad electricity that my system is suffering from in the first place. Or say the results are better than good electricity, well the conclusion is still clearly to use batteries.

Those who are still with me will understand that my concern is that we should not out of hand dismiss a solution which has not been tried, tested and found wanting by anyone who has contributed to this sure never-to-end thread.

Regards
Rakesh

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site