Capacitor upgrade in crossover - You CAN'T handle the TRUTH! - Part 3

[MechEngVic]

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes and No. If sound is defined as the air pressure disturbances caused by mass in motion in the atmosphere, then Yes. If you define sound as the picking up of said disturbances by the ear of a creature with ears, then No.

This is the difference between objective and subjective sound quality evaluations. AXB testing is science's attempt at bridging the gap. And for those of us who've done it, it's like being physically forced through an electrical circuit. So at one point, a signal becomes a sound. They are not the same thing to an ear like they are to a microphone. Hence the tight controls in ABX testing, trying to make a subjective ear an objective instrument.

Components don't "sound". Circuits don't "sound". Drivers "sound". The sound signature comes from the driver. The crossover circuit "massages" the signal to affect the driver's response. The sound signature doesn't change, but the frequency response of the driver does. The driver is the bridge between signal and sound. That's why it's the hardest thing to get right, almost impossible.

I like building crossovers. I like using the film and foils or the PIO's, not the crazy expensive ones, but not too cheap either. It does nothing to improve the signal, but it does improve the sound. Just like in the tree falling example, one definition is the signal, the other definition is the sound. And by sound I mean my subjective, bias, component aware opinion. And by signal I mean what we can measure.

But I can't change that. None of us can. Not a single one of us can unhear a difference in sound quality once we've heard it. No matter how many times they show you the frequency response graphs. That's the problem with every subjective vs objective discussion. Hearing is a biased process. Then you do AXB testing and everything but the most obvious things sound the same and you want to rip your ears out. It's hard to make subjective ears hear objectively.

I've been building crossovers for 30 years and I've never measured a difference with cheap vs fancy caps, resistors, or inductors, it always took a circuit change for that to happen. But I like having fancier crossovers in my speakers, it makes me "feel" like it sounds better.

It's such a simple distinction if we would all just recognize it.

 

[restorer-john]

Sea lions are delightful creatures.

Don't forget about Koalas.

 

[chych7]

Sorry for being a troll, my inputs here so far have not been positive. Honestly I am on the side of objective truth - I would like there to exist real measurements that correlate with perceived sound. However, human perception of sound is so subjective that we are influenced by things that shouldn't have any bearing on the sound. If one puts nicer caps in a speaker and believes it is improving the sound, then one is actually receiving more pleasure, which in itself is attaining a goal. It would also be nice if those caps really did improve the sound, and if measurements were comprehensive enough to not leave any doubt (which I am not convinced of).

I took a stab at analyzing the ~30 sec GR research audio clip in a different fashion (wrote some Matlab code). If one does a FFT over the track in smaller time window slices (0.25 sec ), and plot the average of the top three dominant frequencies over time, you can extract measurable differences in freq response, with significant deviations during a few parts of the track (but for most of the track, the two samples are well matched). You could apply all sorts of different signal processing algorithms and find such differences. Now, I tried real hard to hear any differences at the times where the deviation is the greatest, and I could not hear a difference (and I was looking for one). This would lead me to disagree with GR that their better crossover is improving sound. Nevertheless, I'm still going to spend the extra $30-$50 for better mid-range components, because it's not much $$, and it removes any possible doubt that cheap components negatively affecting sound quality. Psychologically, I will enjoy the audio more just because of this, even if it's irrational (humans are irrational, our hearing is easily fooled).

I do admit that I have difficulty in perceiving differences in sound quality generally; compressed MP3s sound the same as originals, as one example. Another example, I have a headphone amp that's well reviewed on this website (JDS lab atom), and a 20 yr old vac tube amp that would probably get horrible measurements. With music, I can't tell the difference between the two, or even against my iPhone's output. But you know what? I still enjoy the music more on nicer equipment; it's part of the overall experience.

 

[Killingbeans]

Please explain to me what I'm missing here...

It should be obvious. You took "you can find" and replaced it with "100%". Deliberate or not, it's clearly baiting.

EDIT: Nevermind

Sorry for being a troll

 

[Tks]

I certainly don't claim that, just asking for a clarification of your statement "fancy and expensive parts are inferior to mass-produced".

Id say many are especially in audio. Look at DAPs for example and then look at a smartphone. Or look at botique DACs and an iPhone dongle. The sort of validation testing that goes into products destined to be sold in the millions are far more rigorously put through tests than luxury products for example.

Obviously you understand why (a fuck up on a product ready to be going out in the millions of units range rarely exhibit the sorts of things you see from luxury companies). Luxury car market for instsnce is plagued with electronics and engine issues (McLaren). This sort of stuff could never fly in the frequency of issues you see from luxury car companies.

Look at headphone cables for example. Every single paracord braided and nicely woven cable is pure garbage compared to something like the stock cable on an HD650. The stock cable has no microphoics, is supple, feels smooth, very bendable, and properly sleeved where it doesnt feel like the internal bare wire is floating in a tube.

So while its not necessarily the case that less expensive products are superior. I would argue it is generally the case mainstream large corporate backed products are far superior than some botique products in the more usual and practical senses. Things like ICs and electronics parts, this is doubly true especially considering most of these parts serve the entire global industry. Having a small time company coming in and trying to tell you they are doing it better is something I'm highly skeptical of, but not totally discounting in principle, but would pragmatically.

Currently I have a 789 amp with a pot that is super scratchy only after a few months while a throwaway pair of desktop Bose active speakers ive had for close to a decade doesnt have a hint of such. Likewise with my RME DAC (yeah even RME blundered here a bit) has two out of three encoders slowly failing. By that I mean theyre jumping in volume randomly a few steps in both directions whenever I rotate it for volume up or down. Its an achknowledged issue it seems based on the forum discussion. But this sort of stuff shouldnt really be happening as would would hope to expect in such a price bracket (no solution other than sending it overseas for conplete encoder replacements).

 

[Doodski]

Id say many are especially in audio. Look at DAPs for example and then look at a smartphone. Or look at botique DACs and an iPhone dongle. The sort of validation testing that goes into products destined to be sold in the millions are far more rigorously put through tests than luxury products for example.

Obviously you understand why (a fuck up on a product ready to be going out in the millions of units range rarely exhibit the sorts of things you see from luxury companies). Luxury car market for instsnce is plagued with electronics and engine issues (McLaren). This sort of stuff could never fly in the frequency of issues you see from luxury car companies.

Look at headphone cables for example. Every single paracord braided and nicely woven cable is pure garbage compared to something like the stock cable on an HD650. The stock cable has no microphoics, is supple, feels smooth, very bendable, and properly sleeved where it doesnt feel like the internal bare wire is floating in a tube.

So while its not necessarily the case that less expensive products are superior. I would argue it is generally the case mainstream large corporate backed products are far superior than some botique products in the more usual and practical senses. Things like ICs and electronics parts, this is doubly true especially considering most of these parts serve the entire global industry. Having a small time company coming in and trying to tell you they are doing it better is something I'm highly skeptical of, but not totally discounting in principle, but would pragmatically.

Currently I have a 789 amp with a pot that is super scratchy only after a few months while a throwaway pair of desktop Bose active speakers ive had for close to a decade doesnt have a hint of such. Likewise with my RME DAC (yeah even RME blundered here a bit) has two out of three encoders slowly failing. By that I mean theyre jumping in volume randomly a few steps in both directions whenever I rotate it for volume up or down. Its an achknowledged issue it seems based on the forum discussion. But this sort of stuff shouldnt really be happening as would would hope to expect in such a price bracket (no solution other than sending it overseas for conplete encoder replacements).

Send it in... If the encoder is wonky then have it repaired or replaced. There's probably a proper repair person sitting there waiting for it.

 

[richard12511]

Then you do AXB testing and everything but the most obvious things sound the same and you want to rip your ears out. It's hard to make subjective ears hear objectively.

To me, this just highlights the fact that much of the differences we hear between different audio gears has more to do with our brains than it does the pressure waves entering our ears. It gets back to your initial question, somewhat. Is a sound the thing that one hears, after the brain has done its processing; or, is a sound the pressure waves traveling through the air? I think @ctrl has done a good job of showing that these crossover changes don't really change the latter, but they may still affect the former. The human brain may still hear a better sound from more expensive crossover components if it knows it is listening to more expensive crossover components. The question is, is that "better sound" real?

 

[KaiserSoze]

Id say many are especially in audio. Look at DAPs for example and then look at a smartphone. Or look at botique DACs and an iPhone dongle. The sort of validation testing that goes into products destined to be sold in the millions are far more rigorously put through tests than luxury products for example.

Obviously you understand why (a fuck up on a product ready to be going out in the millions of units range rarely exhibit the sorts of things you see from luxury companies). Luxury car market for instsnce is plagued with electronics and engine issues (McLaren). This sort of stuff could never fly in the frequency of issues you see from luxury car companies.

Look at headphone cables for example. Every single paracord braided and nicely woven cable is pure garbage compared to something like the stock cable on an HD650. The stock cable has no microphoics, is supple, feels smooth, very bendable, and properly sleeved where it doesnt feel like the internal bare wire is floating in a tube.

So while its not necessarily the case that less expensive products are superior. I would argue it is generally the case mainstream large corporate backed products are far superior than some botique products in the more usual and practical senses. Things like ICs and electronics parts, this is doubly true especially considering most of these parts serve the entire global industry. Having a small time company coming in and trying to tell you they are doing it better is something I'm highly skeptical of, but not totally discounting in principle, but would pragmatically.

Currently I have a 789 amp with a pot that is super scratchy only after a few months while a throwaway pair of desktop Bose active speakers ive had for close to a decade doesnt have a hint of such. Likewise with my RME DAC (yeah even RME blundered here a bit) has two out of three encoders slowly failing. By that I mean theyre jumping in volume randomly a few steps in both directions whenever I rotate it for volume up or down. Its an achknowledged issue it seems based on the forum discussion. But this sort of stuff shouldnt really be happening as would would hope to expect in such a price bracket (no solution other than sending it overseas for conplete encoder replacements).

This is a very good post, discussing a phenomenon that is very real and significant but that does not get discussed as much as it probably should. Paying more in the expectation of receiving superior quality very often proves to be a vain expectation. The best way to avoid getting burned when buying a costly, exclusive product is to avoid buying costly, exclusive products.

In the audio realm there is a somewhat different phenomenon: quackery plagues the expensive tier of audio products to an extent that is very much greater than the extent to which mass-produced products are plagued by quackery. People who like to spend their trust fund on audio gear are much more likely to spend it on quackery than are people who pay close attention to value. I don't much care about how trust-fund people spend their hard-inherited money, but I simply am bothered whenever anyone intentionally lies in order to take other people's money. The people who go on YouTube and tell you that you need to upgrade your crossover capacitors, so they can sell you expensive capacitors at high profit, are the same people who tell you that you need to upgrade your power cords, so they can sell you power cords at ridiculous profit. Audiophiles should stop and think, "But this is the same guy who wants to sell me those silly power cords for a ridiculous amount of money. Is he the kind of person I should believe, when he tells me that I need to upgrade my crossover capacitors?"

 

[Killingbeans]

Is a sound the thing that one hears, after the brain has done its processing; or, is a sound the pressure waves traveling through the air?

It's the latter. The first thing you mention is not sound, but perception of sound.

The human brain may still hear a better sound from more expensive crossover components if it knows it is listening to more expensive crossover components. The question is, is that "better sound" real?

It doesn't exist, but it feels real to the person listening... but so does also a vivid dream, or a magician doing his/her tricks. I guess this could lead to all kinds of weird philosophical discussions about the definition of reality.

The most important thing, IMO, is to have awareness of what is causing the perceptions and what is not.

 

[KaiserSoze]

It's the latter. The first thing you mention is not sound, but perception of sound.

It doesn't exist, but it feels real to the person listening... but so does also a vivid dream, or a magician doing his/her tricks. I guess this could lead to all kinds of weird philosophical discussions about the definition of reality.

The most important thing, IMO, is to have awareness of what is causing the perceptions and what is not.

I'm glad that someone clarified what you clarified in the latter part of that. It is all too easy to manipulate the meaning of words, but to what end?

Suppose someone "upgrades" crossover components and is unable to demonstrate that they can hear the difference when asked to identify which is which when double-blind protocol is followed. If "sound" is defined independently of hearing and perception, i.e., as the fluctuation in air pressure, then with this definition of sound, the sound may actually have changed by a slight amount that was insufficient to be heard. Human hearing is a phenomenon concerned expressly with sound, no matter if you define sound as fluctuations in air pressure or as the related fluctuations within the inner ear or as the related nerve impulses transmitted to the brain. Setting aside silly and contrived ways to define "hearing", hearing is concerned expressly with sound, where sound has one of these specific, non-contrived definitions. As such, psychological effects by which people say that they hear things that they do not hear are not effects that influence sound or hearing. In order for it to be correct to say that some phenomenon has influenced sound or hearing, the phenomenon would need to have influenced either the fluctuation in air pressure that we perceive as sound, or else the way in which the biological transducers in our inner ear translate fluctuations in pressure to nerve impulses transmitted to the brain. Psychological effects are not these kinds of effects, therefore it is incorrect to regard them as effects upon sound or hearing.

 

[Mnyb]

The derailing of this tread shows that no good deed goes unpunished .
Ctrl did great work actual work not just venting uncontrollable opinions like many others.

It’s a great service when someone really does the hard work to figure it out .

I take this with me.

Tolerances between capacitors is of such magnitude that you will alter the crossover if just swapping caps with the “same” value .

And this is the dominant factor if there is an audible difference .

Hence if you argue against ctrl findings with the argument “I heard it when I swapped capacitors “ without the same rigorous selection process and a good testing protocol, I’m sorry you are not even wrong .

 

[maverickronin]

Look at headphone cables for example. Every single paracord braided and nicely woven cable is pure garbage compared to something like the stock cable on an HD650. The stock cable has no microphoics, is supple, feels smooth, very bendable, and properly sleeved where it doesnt feel like the internal bare wire is floating in a tube.

Definitely. I reterminated an HD650 cable with Hirose connectors for my Aeon 2 Closed.

 

[pogo]

CTRL,
The microphone categorization was taken from the sources indicated in my previous post and I'm assuming that these values come from experience. I was not able to find measurement diagrams why one microphone is more precise (including results in phase, time, impulse transmission, delay, etc.) than another. The manufacturers only speak of the different constructions, materials and mass of the moving parts. That means there is always a certain sluggishness to follow the original signal. We already know this difference in a more serious form between dynamic and condenser microphones. This difference seems to persist among different condenser microphones.
A mass-less measuring method could help here. An optical microphone would be an option because it no longer has any mechanical moving parts. It is a laser-based measurement method for sound waves and beyond.

 

[pogo]

CTRL,
I found something interesting about a possible measurement method:

3D Step Response Measurement - The sound quality of the reproduction made visible!?

The 3D Step Response measurement shows the behaviours of the sound reproduction in the non swung-in state. This measurement is very important to judge the reproduction of impulses. As testsignale preferably half sinus oscillations of different frequencies at the same time are used, since acoustic events are essentially based on these modes of motion.

The frequency response is totally inadequate for the judgement of sound quality. The frequency response is measured with non-changing (Static) signals such as sinus waves or calculated noise signals. Against that, a music signal consists of changing (Dynamic) signals. The study of music signals shows that the sound quality of a musical instrument is determined by impulses. Especially the first impulse, the stroke of a guitar string, the impact of a piano cord, the hit on a drum and the blow of an organ pipe or brass instrument is important for the sound. In the Step-Response, all acoustic parameter information of the sound reproduction is contained. This consists of the frequency response, phase response and swing-in behaviour. There for the display is so complex, that the sound quality judgement based on the measurement is not possible. That is why the 3D Step-Response measurement was developed. By the measurement, the Step-Response is analysed and displayed in a 3D graph. The 3D measurement shows the impulse reproduction for each single frequency with use of an additional frequency axis. The measurement makes it for the first time possible to analyse the sound quality through measurement technology.

(Source: Kirchner elektronik)

„Testing is not incorrect in what it measures, but in what it does not measure. You have to swim against the stream to reach its source.“

 

[Killingbeans]

(Source: Kirchner elektronik)

Link?

 

[pogo]

The information was extracted from https://kirchner-elektronik.de/en/home/

 

[Killingbeans]

Okay, but where on the site exactly? I looked, but couldn't find it. Would like some context.

 

[pogo]

Sorry,
switch to the german language and you can download different PDFs

 

[Killingbeans]

All right, still couldn't find the text anywhere (and I still don't understand why you can't point to it directly), but I found the picture in an article about baffles and tweeter waveguides. From what little I can tell, the text is about measuring the step-response of a speaker driver, and has nothing to do with crossovers or electrical signals?

 

[pogo]

https://kirchner-elektronik.de/wp-c...5522386-Loudspeaker-MeasurementTechnology.pdf