Those sand cast resistors are not normally "non-inductively wound". They can be special-ordered that way, although for analog audio use, it's pretty much a nothingburger anyway, since the inductance is tiny and with all of the resistance associated with it, there's not much in the way of Q to worry about. I have used ordinary ('inductively wound') 40K plate load wirewound resistors in vacuum tube audio circuits and have seen no problems in the audio range at all, and square wave behavior was not impacted. If you start getting into RF, then the resistors will present problems-no question there.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Replace resistor by low-inductance resistor - Is it audible?
kristiansen
Member
Agree, but that is not what the discussion is about, nor about the inflated prices.
But about measurement tells everything with 100% certainty.
I do not mean that, but I understand the logic and the ease of saying, that is how it is and it can't be different, I struggle myself with knowing that we can't measure everything, and I can demonstrate it at any time.
You can not accuse me of being ignorant and therefore I think I can say that everything is not 100% clarified.
Among other things. The sound of carbon composition , why do they sound so different from other resistors. and absolutely not in a bad way. As I said, it can be demonstrated so that no one is in doubt.
I know I'm tightening the bow here, but you can't prove that you're 100% right and I know it and can prove it.
I'm a member here because I'm looking for the explanation of why this is so and I recognize this forum's ability to measure is better than mine.
Then should I come up with a measurement that can clarify something unknown, I would of course suggest it.
With electronics, there is indeed 100% certainty. Where the slippage is involves trying to explain claimed phenomena where there is NO actual evidence of it being real. If a carbon resistor changes the sound in a particular circuit position in a particular circuit, it is trivially measurable.
kristiansen
Member
D
Deleted member 65
Guest
@kristiansen , Only way to prove difference is to put to test on the Swedish AES F/E device, I’m willing to bet whatever amount there wont be any ... ;-)
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-purifi-1et400a-amplifier.7984/post-350861
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-of-purifi-1et400a-amplifier.7984/post-350861
Audible thresholds are several orders of magnitude higher than any measurement error.
kristiansen
Member
It looks nice, but it's not me who needs to be convinced of sound differences.
I seek the explanation for them, it will probably always be possible to measure differences as in this thread and several other threads, but the conclusion that I agree with is that it's insignificant differences that will not be heard.
The measurements give no connection to the rather large sound differences that can be experienced on components of the same value and with the same electrical function.
I have a few places in my setup where I can insert components and switch between them via relay control, that is not a problem.
I'm not talking about whole hi-fi devices but as here in the thread two components with the same value and the same electrical function.
Have you tried the box and found out something ??
D
Deleted member 65
Guest
The F/E device is intended to be used for determining audible differences between two DUT’s i.e not a measuring device.
Wirewound resistors can exhibit the same pros and cons as others. They are certainly not always lowest noise or lowest distortion; sometimes completely opposite. For example, dynamic temperature variation in wirewound resistors in steady-state operation can lead to much higher distortion than stable film resistors exhibit. And generally two resistors of the same value will have comparable noise, at least for some components. There are too many variables in resistor (or any) component design to issue a blanket statement that one type is always better or worse.
IME audible differences in changing passive components, especially in speaker crossovers, could always be readily measured. Most of the time it was due to things like values and tolerances (two components of the same stated value do not usually measure the same), sometimes changing something like the ESR of a coil or ESL of a capacitor caused audible changes even when the value on the label was the same, etc.
FWIWFM/IME/IMO/YMMV/etc. - Don
IME audible differences in changing passive components, especially in speaker crossovers, could always be readily measured. Most of the time it was due to things like values and tolerances (two components of the same stated value do not usually measure the same), sometimes changing something like the ESR of a coil or ESL of a capacitor caused audible changes even when the value on the label was the same, etc.
FWIWFM/IME/IMO/YMMV/etc. - Don
Those Vishay bulk metal film resistors are the champions of low noise (small signal applications). Wirewound comes very close. All resistors have a tempco, for sure. Thing is, I highly doubt that the temperature of a large (10 watts, say) WW resistor changes in tempo with the music so that the resistor could dynamically distort the sound. The resistors do have thermal bulk, and their temperature changes slowly compared to the music signal. I can see the resistor slowly changing resistance over time as the music plays and the resistor slowly heats up, and this might alter the frequency response characteristics of the crossover; it would not change in tempo to the music and add any kind of audible harmonic distortion.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
When something can easily be demonstrated can it also be recorded or only observed by a human knowing what is used ?
Vishay and others offer zero-Tc resistors. Very nice, albeit pricey. I used them to trim in a 16-bit DAC many years ago. Different films and constructions offer lower noise but all this is pretty esoteric for audio.
Tempco effects... Not necessarily at audio rates (cycle-to-cycle, in tempo with the music) but over time (long-term, not real long) as the signal amplitude (envelope) changes. The actual distortion increase is usually tiny (look up passive intermodulation distortion, PIM), but the slow shift in amplitude heating the resistors causes the frequency response to vary with amplitude. Whether you call that distortion or not is debatable but it's real -- and quite measurable.
Doubt you can hear that in a speaker, however. Again, these are real but minor changes that I suspect are well below the audible threshold, especially considering the intrinsic distortion of the cones, voice coils, etc.
It just occurred to me that curiously one might prefer a tweeter pad resistor(s) that exhibits significant temperature/power related issues, as if you get it right , it could balance the dynamic resistance change of the voice coil. Virtually impossible to design from first principles, but I could imagine situations where this could be a real effect, and choice of exact resistor specification, coupled with its physical environment in the speaker cabinet could affect the dynamic frequency response.
If you talk to the guitar tube amp guys, they actually prefer carbon composition resistors. There is much argument, much Mojo, most of it that the older amplifiers all were built with them, and thus to get the vintage sound you need vintage parts. Most old amps were built with the cheapest parts the manufactures could get a way with, which isn't always a god start. Guitar amplifiers can have a sound that is partly dependant upon poor design practices or underspecified parts. But there is also known physics, carbon composition resistors have lots of contact noise, and this noise is modulated by the signal across the resistor. Link. They also have very a poor temperature coefficient, and generally poor long term stability. Link.
As above, signal related changes in value can create intermodulation distortion.
If you talk to the guitar tube amp guys, they actually prefer carbon composition resistors. There is much argument, much Mojo, most of it that the older amplifiers all were built with them, and thus to get the vintage sound you need vintage parts. Most old amps were built with the cheapest parts the manufactures could get a way with, which isn't always a god start. Guitar amplifiers can have a sound that is partly dependant upon poor design practices or underspecified parts. But there is also known physics, carbon composition resistors have lots of contact noise, and this noise is modulated by the signal across the resistor. Link. They also have very a poor temperature coefficient, and generally poor long term stability. Link.
As above, signal related changes in value can create intermodulation distortion.
kristiansen
Member
One can always find an explanation or measurement that explains the audible sound difference in the individual case.
As here where it is claimed that the explanation i.a. Is intermodulation distortion.
But what is so the explanation of Vishay Bulk also has a clear sound signature, not like carbon composition 'organic natural sound' but a more 'technically accurate' sound.
A Tantalum resistor has a third and again its very own sound signature, that's how one can go on.
The common denominator is that you have to draw on your experience through listening tests. It cannot be measured.
The same can be said about cables and other components, "non-believers" always start with Speaker cables and arrive at audible sound differences due to the difference in ohmic resistance.
But what about line cables or mains cables or spdif or USB cables what is due to sound differences here ?.
Again, I must say that if you have gained your experience via listening test combined with measurement and not behind a screen and a keyboard, then the only probable explanation /common denominator of sound signature is the materials used in the cables / components.
The materials emit their sound signature regardless of electrical function and regardless of where and in what contexts the component is used, it is my experience.
Everyone will use this phenomenon it can be used proven with listening tests as a guide to improve the sound.
The phenomenon can be used unconsciously and one will get a random sound signature depending on whether the component is selected based on data or price and one will probably never discover the sound improvement a choice made based on listening tests can provide.
One requirement, of course, is that the cables are sensibly designed so that parasitic components do not play a crucial role. And impedance must of course be correct with spdif cables so this will have no significance.
You read this which at some point will be proven first here on ASR.
Evidence?
Seriously, this is getting far past tiresome. Evidence. Put up or shut up.
kristiansen
Member
solderdude
Grand Contributor
The observations are the issue. Sighted observations (which yours all seem to be) are provable unreliable.
To use observations these must be done under controlled conditions without knowledge of what is being used.
This is what you need to tackle before you come here looking for answers in the technical realm.
Consider that most folks on here that reply to you already have found out or learned this is what causes the discrepancy between sighted observations and technical aspects. To understand why most here have another view on this you need to dabble in the controlled testing (not knowing what is changed and under a 'level playing field'). Otherwise this discussion remains the same...
Last edited:
Similar threads
