Bypassing the power supply electrolytic capacitor with a small poly capacitor will not solve the sonic problems
of a truly high fidelity audio amplifier, especially as the frequency drops through the audio range to low frequencies.
That is just one of the reasons why a solid state amplifier will never be perceptually perfectly accurate, no matter
what others assume.

cheers
pos

Hi again,

I am aware of the low frequency issues I stated that a couple times now I think, but I do have a couple questions for you here.

1. What do you mean by "perceptually perfectly accurate", how do we measure that?
I ask because it sounds like a catch 22 statement where we are mixing "perfectly accurate" with some sort of "perception", which I do not think mix very well. It sounds like "illusory perception" to me which I had mentioned a little before this. If you are setting some sort of standard (perfectly reasonable to do) then you really have to set it with a qualitative measurement of some sort.
I run into this when talking about the effect of premium gas on a combustion engine automobile with people from various walks of life. This could be different though so I'd like to hear about your take on this.

2. Why are you saying that a solid state amplifier will never achieve this assumed (for now) goal. Is there another type of amplifier that can reach your intended goal?
I ask this now because we know that feedback is a marvelous invention when used for correcting all sorts of errors.

 

Hi,

That's great, no problem, and I am not trying to be funny here but what you are saying is that the ESR is no more than 'k' Ohms (make 'k' whatever) but then that ESR is not an issue. If ESR was not an issue, then why did you have to mention it at all? To redirect this so it does not sound personal, why do 'we' even have to talk about it at all? What does anyone have to talk about it at all?
If we say that ESR should be no more than 1 Ohm, 0.1 Ohm, 0.010 Ohms, that means we must have had to consider the ESR.

Because ESR and Internal Inductance does make a sonic difference in high end audio components.
It does make a musical quality difference. You can get away with it in other fields but not high end
audio.

When testing which brand polypropylene capacitors, as decoupling capacitors, we found that the
capacitors with the entire edge of every winding turn that was sprayed/deposited to the lead wire
were the most accurate sounding not only vs a 6N pure copper wire but also when placed as
a decoupling capacitor. There was greater tonal accuracy, less smearing, more clarity etc.

We found that other, inaccurate sounding brand capacitors either had the lead wire connected to
a single point or just several points on the entire foil, not connected to the entire edge of every
winding turn.

We also found that placement of a connection point or points determined if the cap caused bright,
too full sound, this vs a 6N pure wire, which again showed up when used as a decoupling capacitor.

One can learn just how touchy capacitors are, from low DAs to high DAs found in
poly to electrolytic capacitors, from phd chemist Mr. Carl Weber. I think you will
find the article quite educational as he delves into the molecular world.

https://audience-av.com/oem-diy-parts/axo_description/a_chemistview-html/

cheers
pos

 

Hi again,

I am aware of the low frequency issues I stated that a couple times now I think, but I do have a couple questions for you here.

1. What do you mean by "perceptually perfectly accurate", how do we measure that?
I ask because it sounds like a catch 22 statement where we are mixing "perfectly accurate" with some sort of "perception", which I do not think mix very well. It sounds like "illusory perception" to me which I had mentioned a little before this. If you are setting some sort of standard (perfectly reasonable to do) then you really have to set it with a qualitative measurement of some sort.
I run into this when talking about the effect of premium gas on a combustion engine automobile with people from various walks of life. This could be different though so I'd like to hear about your take on this.

2. Why are you saying that a solid state amplifier will never achieve this assumed (for now) goal. Is there another type of amplifier that can reach your intended goal?
I ask this now because we know that feedback is a marvelous invention when used for correcting all sorts of errors.

Hi Al,

1. Because the ear has a sensitivity limit.
Although incredibly sensitive, it is not infinitely sensitive. That and Ai "corrected" me using the phrase,
so I thought I would cover my bases.


2. Because virtually all analog audio components use electrolytic capacitors as decoupling caps.
Both tube and solid state.
That one criteria alone will cause the audio component to be inaccurate from the source.
Large +/-% accuracy, so ufd varies wildly, so sound quality varies, which is a no no.

cheers
pos

 

When testing which brand polypropylene capacitors, as decoupling capacitors, we found that the
capacitors with the entire edge of every winding turn that was sprayed/deposited to the lead wire
were the most accurate sounding not only vs a 6N pure copper wire but also when placed as
a decoupling capacitor. There was greater tonal accuracy, less smearing, more clarity etc.

Were these very subjective observations backed up by A-B blind testing?

. Because virtually all analog audio components use electrolytic capacitors as decoupling caps.
Both tube and solid state.
That one criteria alone will cause the audio component to be inaccurate from the source.
Large +/-% accuracy, so ufd varies wildly, so sound quality varies, which is a no no.

Again a bunch of hooey.
In a well designed amp. the decoupling capacitors are specified so that the minimum capacitance due to their tolerance is well above what's needed so that any variations in the supply voltage are negligible with the maximum audio output, thus the accuracy of that capacitance is not a factor in the sound.

 

Were these very subjective observations backed up by A-B blind testing?
Again a bunch of hooey.
In a well designed amp. the decoupling capacitors are specified so that the minimum capacitance due to their tolerance is well above what's needed so that any variations in the supply voltage are negligible with the maximum audio output, thus the accuracy of that capacitance is not a factor in the sound.

And which confound variables do you/others address in the blind test besides sight?
Provide the confound variables you have addressed IF you have performed any testing
audio listening testing at all.
Have you contacted any medical communities, say Harvard Medical School?
Have you contacted any friends in the scientific community such as Jneutron (Fermilab,
CERN, Brookhaven National Laboratory etc)?

I see once again you dodged any scientific evidence to back your position, except "hooey". lol
Provide actual scientific evidence that you claim to know in your next reply.

Wrong again. The decoupling capacitance/resistance(s) provides a time constant,
and RC network, a filter, and affects the frequency response, this besides the DA, ESR, and
Internal Inductance.

You might wish to try wildly varying ufds yourself instead of hooey.
You see, the ESR and Internal inductance affects the sound just as
the DA does as I posted earlier.

Once again, you could not present any scientific information to back your opinion, except "hooey".

cheers
pos

 

And which confound variables do you/others address in the blind test besides sight?
Provide the confound variables you have addressed IF you have performed any testing
audio listening testing at all.

You are the one making off-the-wall statements like, the type of copper wire affects the sound, so I was asking you what blind tests have verified this.
I don't need tests to know that 6N copper wire has no significant affect on the signal going through it as compared to standard copper wire (other than perhaps there being a slight reduction in its resistance, which can be easily compensated by using a larger standard copper wire if necessary).

(Do you also think the type of AC power cord to an amplifier affects the sound?)

you could not present any scientific information to back your opinion, except "hooey".

The scientific evidence is calculating the effect of the decoupling capacitor on the output signal, and you have done nothing but claim that is a problem without calculations, just a lot of arm waving about red herrings, such as Thevenin equivalent circuits and such, along with completely subjective things like "tonal accuracy, less smearing, more clarity etc." so it's still hooey.

And since Harvard Medical School, Jneutron (Fermilab, CERN, Brookhaven National Laboratory etc) " are not audio amplifier designers, I don't see how they enter into the discussion.
Subjective opinions about audio sound have little credence in determining how to design such an amp.

But if you have designed your own expensive amps for sale, then I understand your promotion of all the "Golden Ear" pseudo-technical audio nonsense, since you have skin in the game.

 

You are the one making off-the-wall statements like, the type of copper wire affects the sound, so I was asking you what blind tests have verified this.
I don't need tests to know that 6N copper wire has no significant affect on the signal going through it as compared to standard copper wire (other than perhaps there being a slight reduction in its resistance, which can be easily compensated by using a larger standard copper wire if necessary).

(Do you also think the type of AC power cord to an amplifier affects the sound?)
The scientific evidence is calculating the effect of the decoupling capacitor on the output signal, and you have done nothing but claim that is a problem without calculations, just a lot of arm waving about red herrings, such as Thevenin equivalent circuits and such, along with completely subjective things like "tonal accuracy, less smearing, more clarity etc." so it's still hooey.

And since Harvard Medical School, Jneutron (Fermilab, CERN, Brookhaven National Laboratory etc) " are not audio amplifier designers, I don't see how they enter into the discussion.
Subjective opinions about audio sound have little credence in determining how to design such an amp.

But if you have designed your own expensive amps for sale, then I understand your promotion of all the "Golden Ear" pseudo-technical audio nonsense, since you have skin in the game.

Crut,

Please don't try making this personal crut. The rest of us are trying to discuss high end audio and you
continue to attack without providing one single piece of scientific evidence, just "hooey" and
"I don't need tests" and your magic science.

Fact is I have an electronics engineering degree, graduating number 1 in my
class, plus many other accomplishments.

You said: "I don't need tests to know that 6N copper wire has no significant affect on the signal going
through it as compared to standard copper wire (other than perhaps there being a slight reduction in
its resistance, which can be easily compensated by using a larger standard copper wire if necessary)."

I see you have not studied Material Sciences nor physics, as wire is more than simply
"resistance". And this: "no significant affect on the signal"; again claiming fact while you
just admitted you have not performed any tests nor experience.
Once again, a fabricated position, by your own admission.

You claim that decoupling capacitor C and RL do Not degrade the musical signal at "A",
while a much better quality C1 poly cap does. Interesting since one has to break Ohm's law
and Kirkoff's law to achieve such.
First, the DA of a capacitor can be measured by a simple volt meter, and CLR meter
can measure the ESR and Internal inductance, so C's problems exist.

Next, for your false claim to be true, no musical signal current through nor voltage at exists
at C RL, so No musical signal voltage at "A" exists either. (If no musical signal voltage exists at C,
then C's problems do not exist.)

For your beliefs to occur, Ohms law and Kirkoffs laws do not exist.
E =I x R does not exist. I =E/R does not exist, R = E/I does not exist.
Kirkoff's laws of current and voltage do not exist.

But musical current through and voltage at C RL do exist.
E = I x R does exist, I = E/R does exist, R = E/I does exist.
Kirkoff's laws do exist.

As poor as your understanding is of a Thevenin Equivalent Circuit, your misguided attempt to
negate and destroy basic Ohms law and Kirkoffs laws to push your own pseudo science/agenda
is even worse.

"And since Harvard Medical School, Jneutron (Fermilab, CERN, Brookhaven National Laboratory etc) "
are not audio amplifier designers, I don't see how they enter into the discussion."

Harvard Medical School deals with audio perception, the ear, structures, how to perform listening
tests etc. Why would you not go to the medical community experts first, instead of the audio marketers,
who have conflicts of interest.

As mentioned above, Jneutron has worked with audio electronics for decades. He is an electrical
engineer plus, who has instructed other scientists in the classroom as well as worked in Fermilab,
CERN, and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

"But if you have designed your own expensive amps for sale, then I understand your promotion
of all the "Golden Ear" pseudo-technical audio nonsense, since you have skin in the game.

It is called science, from the lab, and I have mentioned several college and RCA texts for you and
others to study. The texts, especially RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, by 26 engineers mentions
many listening tests and the results.
I see you refused to address your ab listening tests, what confound variables you have addressed, if any,
and answering other foundational testing questions.

We are here to have a civilized, scientific discussion, the subject of the phono preamplifier, and
analog electronics in general. Others have posted points and questions.

Constant attacks, by you, without evidence are not conducive to a healthy or honest discussion.

Now, will you allow the rest of us the opportunity to discuss the subject at hand without your attacks?

cheers
pos

 

through specialized listening tests (not the scam dbt/abx tests being propagated on
audio forums for marketing purposes.)

From your first post.

Please explain what this specialized testing is and why double blind ABX tests are not valid. I wrote you off when I read this. You have done nothing since to redeem yourself. This is the kind of argument people who know they are wrong use to justify their non-scientific beliefs.

 

From your first post.

Please explain what this specialized testing is and why double blind ABX tests are not valid. I wrote you off when I read this. You have done nothing since to redeem yourself. This is the kind of argument people who know they are wrong use to justify their non-scientific beliefs.

I am sorry you had such a preconceived concept. But then how does anyone know if one
has been manipulated by a marketer? See if you can find the article by Martin DeWulf,
criminal defense attorney, former publisher of BFS, titled "Truth be Told" on how these
marketers work behind the scenes, attempting to bribe, and their work on audio forums.

The typical double blind ABX test mentioned by "audio experts" only addresses sight and maybe
a very few other confound variables, if that. Individuals are certainly encouraged to perform their
own listening tests not knowing they will perform the test incorrectly every single time.

In fact, failing to setup the listening test properly automatically skews the test 100%
of the time towards no sonic difference.
Interestingly, 100% skewing is just as bad as sighted, and probably worse as dbt/abx
tests are designed to fail, whereas sighted is not purposely designed to fail.
But of course the marketers won't admit it.


Unfortunately, you have been suckered, through no fault of your own, by marketers and scam artists.
We would all like to believe that what we are told is science and truth, but unfortunately not so by any
stretch of the imagination. Just look at this string and the fabricated anti science nonsense fostered.

Dr. Kunchur performed research, went to numerous universities, 3 national medical organizations etc,
the real experts, and after 5 years, produced findings published in journals. Immediately he was
attacked on audio forums by the so called "audio experts".

As indicated by Dr. Kunchur, ittakes a long time to produce a proper result, addressing the real experts,
the medical field (who would laugh at the "audio experts") and address many many confound variables,
not just sight that the marketers foster off on the public.

Your post/position is quite anti science. I hope you change your mind and leave the dark side
into the light.

cheers
pos

 

Please don't try making this personal crut

That's rich coming from you.
That ship has sailed, sas, with your frequent dissing of my engineering knowledge.

Your opinions are quite different than scientific evidence and facts that I have presented in detail from
my engineering textbooks, the classroom, and labs.

What evidence and facts in detail?
You've thrown a shitload of references at me, but I see none that deal with the particular issues of audio amplifier design that you claim are important.
If you could point to a specific reference that shows that, I will gladly read it.

According to your own analysis/comments, you believe Ohms law does not exist.

Typical BS and misrepresentation from you.
I never said or implied any of those things don't exist, just that your application of them does not show the degree of effects you claim (but you have not shown in detail other then in generalities).

see you have not studied Material Sciences nor physics, as wire is more than simply
"resistance". And this: "no significant affect on the signal"; again claiming fact while you
just admitted you have not performed any tests.

Of course wire is more than "resistance", but I don't need tests to disprove your claims that are obviously bogus.
But okay, you claim to be big on tests.
Show me one scientific test that indicates the type of copper wire significantly affects an audio signal.

Harvard Medical School deals with audio perception, the ear, structures, how to perform listening
tests etc.

Again, nothing to do with the design particulars of audio amplifiers, which is what we are discussing here (despite you efforts to detour it into other areas of audio perception).

especially RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, by 26 engineers mentions
many listening tests and the results.

I looked at that.
I see no mention of the specific issues in amplifier design, such as electrolytic capacitors for decoupling. that you claim affects the music quality.

You have thrown in a ton or red herring material about hearing and audio perception, which has nothing to do with designing an audio system that accurately reproduces sound.
So if you can stick to that, then this discussion can rationally continue, otherwise it just a lot extraneous material from you that obfuscates the subject, (which lawyers, not engineers, do).

 

Hi Al,

1. Because the ear has a sensitivity limit.
Although incredibly sensitive, it is not infinitely sensitive. That and Ai "corrected" me using the phrase,
so I thought I would cover my bases.


2. Because virtually all analog audio components use electrolytic capacitors as decoupling caps.
Both tube and solid state.
That one criteria alone will cause the audio component to be inaccurate from the source.
Large +/-% accuracy, so ufd varies wildly, so sound quality varies, which is a no no.

cheers
pos

and your previous post:

Bypassing the power supply electrolytic capacitor with a small poly capacitor will not solve the sonic problems
of a truly high fidelity audio amplifier, especially as the frequency drops through the audio range to low frequencies.
That is just one of the reasons why a solid state amplifier will never be perceptually perfectly accurate, no matter
what others assume.

In this last one you seemed to be focusing on a solid state amplifier, that it could not be "perceptually perfectly accurate" but then in #2 above you seem to include both tube and solid state amplifiers. When you said "solid state" alone it sounded like the typical audio junky claim that solid state amplifiers will never be any good or something.

It also seems that you are talking about less-than-optimum amplifier designs. Is this true?
I ask this now because it seems that you do not think that a good designer can design a really good amplifier. We know in theory there will never be a perfect amplifier, but why talk about that, and is that what you are saying too?
Let me try to define some things here:
Note 3. No ideal amplifier. This means that all amplifiers will have SOME distortion. The distortion can be mitigated down to a very small level, but never eliminated completely.
I don't think we should have to consider this view because we know that even op amps themselves are not perfect amplifiers. We accept that with feedback we get very good rendition of the input signal though through the use of negative feedback. This is enough to create some really high end and powerful audio amplifiers.
Note 4. For "perceptually perfectly accurate", I'd like to hear you define that phrase because I can't be sure if you mean a theoretical perfection or just a human perfection of some kind. We should understand that nobody expects a theoretically perfect amplifier. Maybe if we ever get into quantum audio amplifiers we may be able to do that or something just closer than what we have now. I think we'd have to have control over every single electron (or something similar) to do that, which we don't expect to be able to do today.

We know that ESR affects audio both in the capacitances and the inductances, and that the inductances in various places like an electrolytic capacitor also affects the output. Both the series resistance and series inductance play a part in creating a time delay of sorts for the filtering action. The question is, how bad is it? If it really is bad, don't we think that some designer would know about that and do something about it?

 

We are going to put a temporary pause on this discussion to let heads cool for awhile.
When we resume, let's hope that the conversation remains on the topic of RIAA equalization.

 

Let's stay on the topic of RIAA equalization.
Any bickering or ad hominem argument will be deleted and the poster will be given a warning.

 

OK, well this is all interesting chatter but the bottom line is that I have purchased and installed the Pyle 444 and it seems fine. That's pretty much the extent of the testing it will receive, as anything more would be difficult for me to pull off. I MIGHT be able to compare vinyl-Pyle preamp versus a digital source but even that's never easy because the volume needs to be so carefully controlled.

Anyway, I have a question about the cheap 12V adapter that powers the device. According to this review:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/pyle-pro-pp444-phono-preamp-reviewed.9412/

the cheap adapter causes a bit of 60 cycle hum to come through and this can be mitigated with a better supply.

I did not notice any hum in my very limited testing. I'm thinking of cranking up my volume with nothing playing, to see if I can detect anything. Having been a musician at one time I am very well tuned into what 60-cycle sounds like! (And feels like, if you place your lips on the wrong microphone.)

Is there a cheap and easy way to put this concern to rest?

 

Is there a cheap and easy way to put this concern to rest?

The simple test you proposed of turning up the volume with nothing playing, should tell you the degree of hum you have.
If it's not noticeable at normal listening levels, then I would think it's not a problem.

If you need to go to a lower noise power supply, then look for a low noise type, likely linear one.
Do you have a low-noise bench supply you can use to test that?

 

Let's stay on the topic of RIAA equalization.
Any bickering or ad hominem argument will be deleted and the poster will be given a warning.

Hi there,

Just to note, I for one was not arguing with anyone or mad at anyone or anything like that, I was just after some solid information so I could make a better judgement on what was being said.
I didn't realize we got so far off topic though, I guess because a post I followed up on had already gone that route. This happens from time to time because we forget to check the title or first post before we reply to the current last post.

 

Just a reminder that Private Messaging is available on AAC.
If you a want to carry on a conversation with another member you have that avenue.