thorsten wrote:

Designers like Kondo San spend many hundred hours "voicing" their Amplifiers, allowing a blending of a variety of colorations together in such a way that the overall sonic impact is quite small. For many others (amateur or professional alike) such extended working is not an option and hence circuits with a strong character and inherent substantial sonic problems are best avoided.

drdna wrote:

After seeing the variation in the sound of the TU-X1 to the quality of electricity, and thinking about recent discussions about the Direct Heated Triode, I would like to start a compendium of anecdotal observations of the idiosyncratic nature of component placements in the circuit. If we can make a large group of observations, we would have the potential to analyze the physical properties of the discrete components to uncover what types of noise and signal effects are important. I hope all our members here will contribute some observations.

Hm, I have very many doubts about success of this direction. Surly all passive components in the circuit have influence but I see a desire to catalog and to organize them as some kind of freakish self-serving objective. But is my general attitude toward voicing, if one search the site with word “voicing” then it would be well understood.

I think instead of looking at the generic anecdotal observations that have no references to objectives of observer, to the location of element in circuit and the way HOW this specific element was used it has more since to look at the performance of the very specific elements in context of very specific audio element or circuit. This gives a certain framework and a certain frame of references. I for instance would like to hear what people might say about Sound (or more precisely to say “the sounds” and I feel passive elements operate at First Listening level on my Listening Scale) of a coupling capacitor between first and second stage of Yamamoto’s AD1 amp, or the differences in OPT’s core in some kind of Shindo amp, or sonic differences using a different type of cartridge loading resistor with Aesthetix phonostage, or the need a quality cap between the TU-X1’s detector and decoder.  My interests on all of it are much applied and very specific..

I might be interesting to hear from different people their list of recommended passive elements they prefer to use in different locations, and we have seen it a lot including from me. However, I do not think that it has a lot of practical meaning for others. I would admit that my “list” is not something that strictly my discovery but it was very much influenced by others, still I always question my own observations and conclusions, so how much value would be in the conclusions of others.

As far as “analyze the physical properties of the discrete components to uncover what types …are important”. Well, I do not know. We do not do the discrete components, we use whatever is there. How much values would be if we recognized that tubes with filaments made from thoriated tungsten do not suffers from cathode poisoning? So, what will we do, to covert the oxide cathode to tungsten and to build in our home thoriating bathtubs? I do not think so.

Well, I do not know what I am saying. I need to degree with someone this morning and you were the first one…

Romy the Cat wrote:

drdna wrote: I would like to start a compendium of anecdotal observations of the idiosyncratic nature of COMPONENT PLACEMENTS in the circuit. Surely all passive components in the circuit have influence, but I think instead of looking at the generic anecdotal observations that have no references to the location of element in circuit and HOW this specific element was used it has more since to look at the performance of the very specific elements in context of very specific audio element or circuit. This gives a certain framework and a certain frame of references. I for instance would like to hear what people might say about Sound (or more precisely to say “the sounds” and I feel passive elements operate at First Listening level on my Listening Scale) of a coupling capacitor between first and second stage of Yamamoto’s AD1 amp, or the differences in OPT’s core in some kind of Shindo amp, or sonic differences using a different type of cartridge loading resistor with Aesthetix phonostage, or the need a quality cap between the TU-X1’s detector and decoder. My interests on all of it are much applied and very specific..

Romy the Cat wrote:

Take an element, or the collection of the elements, that do NOT indicate any expressiveness in their own. Then place them into a topological application and you receive Sound. As the result, the only you specific topology will be fully responsible for the Sound, BUT the actions and efforts of the given components. I can give many examples but for instance the aforementioned Cube 950 has no own expressiveness and completely neutral in all application where I ever used it. As far as I concern if the Cube 950 was used and something does not sound correct then the problems are somewhere else or in the topological application.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I might be interesting to hear from different people their list of recommended passive elements they prefer to use in different locations, and we have seen it a lot including from me.

Paul S wrote:

Well, I thought there was a lot of this going on all along, but that we just haven't come up with much that is "universal"

Paul S wrote:

As an offhand example, I wonder if the Cu PIO coupler would "work just as well" in the same circuit but with a 300B instead of a 2A3?

Paul S wrote:

And maybe this is why forums like this tend to fragment into "sections" that address more-specific (and putatively better-defined)

Paul S wrote:

As somewhat of a romantic, I also wonder if what we need is already "out there", spread out here and among the various OCD sites, like some wild, gigantic "Encyclopedia of Hi-Fi"? Shades of Jorge Borges!

Paul S wrote:

So, again, any thoughts on just how better to compile and use such a "raw" database?

drdna wrote:

Paul S wrote: Well, I thought there was a lot of this going on all along, but that we just haven't come up with much that is "universal" Yes, my thought is that there is NOTHING universal, but that these choices must be observed in CONTEXT of topology to be useful. An example:  Paul S wrote: As an offhand example, I wonder if the Cu PIO coupler would "work just as well" in the same circuit but with a 300B instead of a 2A3? Yes, this is a good example. Maybe it DOESN'T, and we have that in our "library." Then suddenly we have something POWERFUL! We can think: what is the physical and electrical difference between the 2A3 and 300B and what is the physical and electrical difference between the PIO and the Teflon cap. From this we can begin to extract some useful ideas about the needs of topology for proper function. I am going back to the car analogy: the Honda Civic and the Ford F-150. Initially we just classified them by the properties: wheels (yes/no), and engine (yes/no). So they seemed the same for a drive to the store. Then we added a new topology: a long distance trip, which only the Civic could do, so we discover a new property: gas mileage (high/low). And we formulate a hypothesis: for long distance trips, a high gas mileage car should be used. In audio, we might say something like: (just an example) in DHT circuits, a capacitor with lower inductance should be used. Then we can begin to think why this would be the case.  Paul S wrote: And maybe this is why forums like this tend to fragment into "sections" that address more-specific (and putatively better-defined) I think it is actually because it is done in a non-systematic way, without much thought given to figure out the scientific basis of observations.  Paul S wrote: As somewhat of a romantic, I also wonder if what we need is already "out there", spread out here and among the various OCD sites, like some wild, gigantic "Encyclopedia of Hi-Fi"? Shades of Jorge Borges! I am sure it is, but it can only be used if it is compiled coherently in one place.  Paul S wrote: So, again, any thoughts on just how better to compile and use such a "raw" database? Well, just as I said above. I would hope we can get some examples like: Component: capacitors Types: Teflon, PIO Application: coupling between 6SN7 and 2A3. Topology: DHT power amplifier stages Observation: PIO is better This would be a positive example (where we hear a difference) BUT also important would be NEGATIVE examples, to borrow from Romy's note on the Sansui thread: Component: diodes Types: FRED, Schottky Application: DC power supply Observation: no difference That is what I mean. Adrian

serenechaos wrote:

I don't think the above file system would be adequate. I have built a few amps, have notes, and many pages of such information from a friend who's built many hundreds, over many years, and will tell you off the top of his head the difference in Sounds of different brands & types of components, in different locations, but only in context with many other contributing factors.

Serenechaos,

You did not mention one another ugly fact the all recommendations about the “quality” of components have any validity in a relatively short distance. It might be no true if we are taking about vintage element but the contemporary production is very vibrant. I do not want to generally but it is highly possible that a contemporary company that produces a very good product with a few years surreptitiously turns this very product into a very bad product. I have vitals it myself. For instance the gold plated metal film Holco resistors a few year back were very good and then the quality went down and down and down. I know a few products hat used Holco at critical location and those products from 1997 and 2007 are so different in sound that you would never believe that they are the same products.

Adrian,

I think you are trying to get is not fruitful. You see the sonic contribution of some kind of specific element in the specific location is possible to assess only in context of the whole “philosophy of sound” that a person expects, to get from a given audio devise. I am not taking about synergy of balancing the thighs out but rather about having an evaluating scale upon which all judgments are reflected.  Collecting opinions is educational but not truly useful. There somewhere at my site a link to many pages of detail observation about different caps.   I never was able to read it through and did not found it useful for myself. But my own perception of those thighs is kind of bizarre and I always try to address my very specific need in DIY audio. I so much do not like it that I would like to believe that I never will be doing DIY audio again.  So, if I found something that “works” then I truly would like to forget and do not temp myself to use it in future. Strange but it is what it is….

Thanx Romy,

Yes, fitting "time produced" into the matrix is an important piece of the puzzle, don't think I mentioned that one. 

Holco resistors are a great example, are in my notes, along with other resistors, and caps, that have changed. 
But how to keep up with it? 
Without building amps everyday?
Staying in touch with someone who has, for their entire life is the only way I know... 

And  recommendations changing, due to something being "the best I know of" one week, then "hey this other thing works better with that thing" the next week... 

Or how do you list something like "silver?" 
Wire, or in caps, whatever, effects Sound, not just electrical flow, magnetics, corrosion... 
Despite the advertising hype, Sound effect is not always good, silver can ruin sound, make things too bright, thin, brittle, sharp...
But, I sure wouldn't put it in a "bad" column... 
Oil caps can make Sound sluggish, thick, blah, blah, if blah, blah... 
Mundorf Silver & Oil caps -- are they going to be the best or worst of both, or even worth trying?  In what position? 
(I love them, they make great, slightly warm, coupling caps for SETs, almost as detailed as the best teflons, but smoother, not harsh, glaring. 
Oil damps & smooths & silver is fast. Rich harmonics, very nice). 

Maybe useful to make some kind of look-up chart, but I can't think of how to organize it in a useful way yet, or I'd better organize my notes. 
I'm not done building, still have a way to go addressing my specific needs in DIY audio. 
Need to finish the horns, "teach them to sing,"  build individual amps for each... 
It seems like a long road from here... 

Robert

Romy the Cat wrote:

For instance the gold plated metal film Holco resistors a few year back were very good and then the quality went down and down and down. I know a few products hat used Holco at critical location and those products from 1007 and 2007 are so different in sound that you would never believe that they are the same products.

Paul S wrote:

Adrian, as a purely practical observation, I just re-read your examples of the format you suggest, and I have to say I would need a good deal more information than that before I could figure out enough of what was going on with the components in question to be able to make useful decisions for my own applications.

Paul S wrote:

I find out that the tester either did not notice or he glossed over traits that I find important with respect to my own final decisions. So, I followed up on what I read, paid my money, did the damned DIY, and now I hear pretty much what he heard, only I hear other stuff, too, and/or I come to different conclusions about the relative weighting of the tester's observations.

If possible, please explain the difference. 
In DIY odor
And odor of whatever it is you're doing with this site? 

I sometimes think part of it is ego (of course how could one not have a sense of pride in accomplishment, that is a good thing), doesn't matter one way or another. --   

I associate Romy and "GoodSoundClub" with "Advanced Audio and Evolved Music Reproduction Techniques." 

From my experience, "Advanced Audio and Evolved Music Reproduction Techniques," and/or good Sound, seem to require quite a LOT of DIY, (whether I like it or not, does not matter).  
It just isn't available at any price commercially above a certian level.  

What I see being done with this site is one mans methodical, pursuit of "Advanced Audio and Evolved Music Reproduction Techniques," which can be very educational, saving readers much time and frustration in their own experiments.  
Of course it's not a "cookbook" with exact "recipie" to get Sound I want in my room, but it is what it is. 
It documents success and failures, in context, seemingly unabridged (or, should I say less sensored by moderators BS).  
Very useful, not available elsewhere. 

Maybe I define DIY wrongly? 

Robert

drdna wrote:

Again, the goal is to simply have observations....

I just put a few lines of code together with the interface for the “Index of Components”. Let see where it goes. I did not test it well but it shell be stable. Feel free to upload valuable data as well as any test garbage you wish. I will clean it before end of testing. In future I will add the anti-robot security and reporting service. At this point I keep the posting right open to public. Contact me if you have any problems, complains, or comments. The hierarchy of the elements is very flexible and I can put in there whatever I wish...

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Components.aspx