Replace resistor by low-inductance resistor - Is it audible?

[ctrl]

wdym?

By exchanging a crossover resistor the thermal noise does not change.

(Take in account, I'm not familiar with electrical engineering) ...and the share of the "total noise" of the system does not matter with crossovers - as you can calculate here:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-noise.htm

 

[JohnYang1997]

By exchanging a crossover resistor the thermal noise does not change.

(Take in account, I'm not familiar with electrical engineering) ...and the share of the "total noise" of the system does not matter with crossovers - as you can calculate here:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-noise.htm

For the same value resistor then yes. Thermal noise doesn't change.

 

[kach22i]

From the paper I posted, does it read like an advertisement for Z-Foil's?

The quote below does not seen right to me, will explain.

Quote:
Resistors are among the principal noise sources in the amplifiers
End Quote.

Resistors are passive, right?

Would not capacitors, op-amps and transformers and or active components in general be more likely noise sources?

What are the principal noise sources in the amplifiers?

Sequential ranking of most suspect or important is favored.

I'm sure resistors are important, but unless really selected poorly and of faulty quality they might be down on the list, but still in the top five, right?

 

[KaiserSoze]

It can be folly to try to disprove bogus notions in this manner, the reason being that you put yourself in the position of having to debunk myriad counterarguments. It is preferable to keep the shoe on the foot where it rightfully belongs, by asking people who expound bogus beliefs to provide their proof and then showing the fallacies in their supposed proofs.

I only recently became aware of the belief that capacitors need to be broken in before they will perform optimally. My immediate reaction was naturally skeptical, and remains skeptical. But were I tempted to try and prove that capacitors generally do not break in, I would resist this temptation, because all this would accomplish would be to put myself in the position of needing to refute all the counterarguments that people would dream up. (Of course specific types of capacitors are subject to specific types of aging after years of prolonged use, but this is not the same notion as the break-in notion. Any attempt on the part of anyone to justify the break-in notion, by using the known fact of aging, should be resisted vigorously.)

I spent a short while reading an extended discussion on an audiophile forum. The discussion was more than a decade old, but what I found moderately irritating about it is that no one participating in the discussion ever suggested tested the capacitor's basic electrical properties, i.e., outside of the passive crossover and by doing something other than taking microphone measurements of the speaker. To me, it is a no-brainer that to test the claim that the capacitor had somehow changed, you would take it out of the circuit and test it as you would ordinarily test a capacitor. For reasons that I do not understand in the least, the people who participated in this discussion all seemed to have implicitly assumed that the right way to test the theory was by measuring the acoustic output of the speaker. It did not seem to have occurred to any of them that if the capacitor had changed, it should be possible to measure the change in the capacitor itself, outside of the speaker. If the capacitance is supposed to have changed, then measure its capacitance before and after the break-in period. If it isn't its capacitance that has supposedly changed, then what exactly is it? It just boggles my mind that a bunch of audiophiles gathered around a web forum had this long debate on this belief and that it evidently did not occur to any of them to ask what property of the capacitor has supposedly changed and why it wouldn't make more sense to take the capacitor out of the circuit and measure that property directly.

 

[mjwin]

From the paper I posted, does it read like an advertisement for Z-Foil's?

The quote below does not seen right to me, will explain.

Quote:
Resistors are among the principal noise sources in the amplifiers
End Quote.

Resistors are passive, right?
Would not capacitors, op-amps and transformers and or active components in general be more likely noise sources?
What are the principal noise sources in the amplifiers?

That's a gem of marketing blurb! And like all these "true but misplaced" statements, designed to con you out of your $$.

All modern resistors are as low noise as you need. Some older types, consisting of carbon granules pressed together, can exhibit additional noise, simply due to their haphazard construction. But don't worry & save your cash!

Technically, & trying to keep things simple, there are really 2 kinds of noise sources in electronics. Thermal noise, which is related to resistance, and absolute temperature, and semiconductor junction noise in transistors, op-amps, amplifier chips, etc. Semiconductors have resistance too, so they also exhibit thermal noise.

As always, it's down to the skill of the engineer in designing a product to fulfill a function, to minimise noise & distortion in the design. As you can see, thermal noise is related to resistance value. Keep the resistor values low and you minimise noise. Designs which use low impedance (= low resistance) circuitry, such as modern transistor and op-amp based circuits, exhibit less noise than old tube designs.

As for other components, capacitors are remarkably low noise by design. As are transformers, they're just copper wire. (In fact, if you play LPs and have a moving-coil cartridge, a transformer coupler will offer you the lowest noise solution!)

Noise comes from either bad design, a fault, or simply using a piece of equipment outside its designated operating range. IMO, it's really not a problem in 21st century audio!

 

[KaiserSoze]

That's a gem of marketing blurb! And like all these "true but misplaced" statements, designed to con you out of your $$.

All modern resistors are as low noise as you need. Some older types, consisting of carbon granules pressed together, can exhibit additional noise, simply due to their haphazard construction. But don't worry & save your cash!

Technically, & trying to keep things simple, there are really 2 kinds of noise sources in electronics. Thermal noise, which is related to resistance, and absolute temperature, and semiconductor junction noise in transistors, op-amps, amplifier chips, etc. Semiconductors have resistance too, so they also exhibit thermal noise.

As always, it's down to the skill of the engineer in designing a product to fulfill a function, to minimise noise & distortion in the design. As you can see, thermal noise is related to resistance value. Keep the resistor values low and you minimise noise. Designs which use low impedance (= low resistance) circuitry, such as modern transistor and op-amp based circuits, exhibit less noise than old tube designs.

As for other components, capacitors are remarkably low noise by design. As are transformers, they're just copper wire. (In fact, if you play LPs and have a moving-coil cartridge, a transformer coupler will offer you the lowest noise solution!)

Noise comes from either bad design, a fault, or simply using a piece of equipment outside its designated operating range. IMO, it's really not a problem in 21st century audio!

All of these years that negative feedback has been employed in amplifying circuits to reduce random noise, this strategy has been misplaced, or so it would seem anyway, because where this strategy ought to have been used, all along, is to randomize the noise introduced in resistors. Yes, all resistors should ideally have negative feedback circuits. The feedback circuits need to use resistors to control the feedback level in manner indifferent to frequency. These auxiliary resistors in turn require their own feedback circuits, with the recursive nature of the beast continuing until eventually the auxiliary resistor is for intents and purposes an infinitely great resistance, i.e., an open circuit.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

Speaker binding posts with a bit of iron in them(slightly magnetic) I saw on a YouTube video by GR-Research will adversely affect the sound of speakers. Would that be from extra inductance the signal passing through these binding posts sees? Would they act like ferrite beads or is this more hooey? Probably the extra inductance would be as insignificant as the resistors being discussed in this thread eh? Or do I need better binding posts? Haha!

 

[KaiserSoze]

Speaker binding posts with a bit of iron in them(slightly magnetic) I saw on a YouTube video by GR-Research will adversely affect the sound of speakers. Would that be from extra inductance the signal passing through these binding posts sees? Would they act like ferrite beads or is this more hooey? Probably the extra inductance would be as insignificant as the resistors being discussed in this thread eh? Or do I need better binding posts? Haha!

If there is no detailed technical writeup of the sort that would be peer reviewed and potentially pass muster, then it is simply another bottle of audiophile snake oil. A good con always includes a vague allusion to one or more effects that are genuine, which is needed to achieve what the motion picture industry refers to as "suspension of disbelief". By the way, is this the same outfit that sells preposterously expensive power cables for connecting electrical components to the wall outlets that supply AC at 60 Hz and about 120 V? Is it the same outfit that promotes the idea that capacitors need a break-in period?

 

[ctrl]

Would that be from extra inductance the signal passing through these binding posts sees? Would they act like ferrite beads or is this more hooey? Probably the extra inductance would be as insignificant as the resistors being discussed in this thread eh? Or do I need better binding posts? Haha!

Not sure you even expect an answer - Ha Ha!

I don't know which binding posts GR-Research uses, if you want to find out the exact influence on the sound, just repeat my experiment with different binding posts.

If somebody sends me such a thing, I like to compare it with the cheap binding posts I have in stock and my favourite "binding posts". These are pure horror for every Hifi fan!

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Speaker binding posts with a bit of iron in them(slightly magnetic) I saw on a YouTube video by GR-Research will adversely affect the sound of speakers. Would that be from extra inductance the signal passing through these binding posts sees? Would they act like ferrite beads or is this more hooey? Probably the extra inductance would be as insignificant as the resistors being discussed in this thread eh? Or do I need better binding posts? Haha!

Danny Richie is an impressively accomplished speaker system designer who inexplicably -- or perhaps in this particular instance because he sells his proprietary 'tube connectors" for about $60 for two sets to solve what amounts to a made-up "problem" -- purports to buy into a few silly audiophool fictions. Nobody can hear the difference between correctly installed, firmly tightened, slightly ferromagnetic binding posts and his connectors -- or even directly soldered connections -- unless thev're been psychologically conditioned to believe they will. Even the dreaded spring-loaded connectors of yesteryear -- which are still used on some of today's cheaper speakers -- work fine as long they're in good condition and used properly.

 

[iakovis]

Great job!

 

[ctrl]

I saw on a YouTube video by GR-Research will adversely affect the sound of speakers. Would that be from extra inductance the signal passing through these binding posts sees? Would they act like ferrite beads or is this more hooey? Probably the extra inductance would be as insignificant as the resistors being discussed in this thread eh? Or do I need better binding posts? Haha!

Since this thread shows new life, here is the link to an "study" (by me) of the influence of binding posts:

Different Binding Posts - is it audible?

Perhaps this "study" will help to put possible questions about the tonal influence of binding posts on loudspeakers, after the consumption of YouTube videos with commercial interests, back on a realistic basis.

 

[JimmyBuckets]

I don't think the point is that the binding posts will ruin the sound or that they aren't going to work. But if you are going to go through the effort of having a nice system then why have junk in the signal path? Danny's point IMO is that the effect of a bunch of cheap parts tend to compound in to less than ideal performance. I don't think he is suggesting that you will notice a night and day difference if you swap the binding posts.

 

[ctrl]

I don't think he is suggesting that you will notice a night and day difference if you swap the binding posts.

Unfortunately, however, that is exactly what Danny claims.

For example see here in this video.
... and that's the reason why I had to write about f..ing binding posts (almost forgot the smiley)
.

 

[Francis Vaughan]

why have junk in the signal path? Danny's point IMO is that the effect of a bunch of cheap parts tend to compound in to less than ideal performance.

There is also a fundamental issue here. What the heck is "junk"? This is just psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. There is absolutely no reason at all the ascribe any problem, even in the tiniest of margins to normal connections. Cheap parts might be made cheaply, perhaps they are not polished as nicely, don't have quite the beauty of handcrafted goodness, don't have the advertising budget behind them. But unless there is a fundamental design flaw, or they are corroded, physically broken, or actually the wrong specification, there is zero reason to ascribe any degradation whatsoever to them. None.
What is worse is that there is an element of marketing trying to convince buyers that some components have the ability to improve the sound. "Lifting veils" and similar idiocy. No end of pseudo-scientific terminology is used. (Hint, if you ever see the word "quantum" you can be 100% sure it is snake oil. The word 'align" is another good one.)
The entire half century of audiophoolery has been built on these ridiculous notions. Many people have become quite rich pandering to the conceit of purchasers that they are somehow incrementally improving their systems by buying into this stupidity.

 

[JimmyBuckets]

Unfortunately, however, that is exactly what Danny claims.

For example see here in this video.
... and that's the reason why I had to write about f..ing binding posts (almost forgot the smiley)
.

I can tell you I have always been somewhat of a skeptic on the voodoo stuff in hifi...but...about 10 or 15 years ago, I was running a benchmark dac1 to a Pass Volksamp Aleph 30. I decided I wanted to see if interconnects could actually make a difference. I found a recipe for some DIY silver wire interconnects. It cost me about $90 to make a half meter pair. Without a doubt the sound became more detailed. I heard micro details that I had never heard before. It was not what I was expecting. I'm not looking for anyone to believe me. It changed my perspective is all I'm saying. I'm sure the truth of the whole debate lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[BDWoody]

I'm not looking for anyone to believe me.

Whew...
Actually, I believe you heard what you describe. Without any listening controls, it's almost guaranteed.

I'm sure the truth of the whole debate lies somewhere in the middle.

Why?

Science isn't negotiated to a compromise.

 

[Killingbeans]

It was not what I was expecting.

That's the thing about expectation bias. It's a purely subconscious mechanism(?). It doesn't respond well to any conscious attempts at negating it.

If you go and have a look at some reviews of the most obvious snake oil products, like magical beer coasters or crystals you are supposed to place on your gear, you will see that just about every single one of them use the phrase: "I wasn't expecting a difference, but..." or something similar.

That should tell you something about how ineffective the conscious control of expectation is

 

[JimmyBuckets]

Hahaha. You are correct, science is not in debate. I don't doubt there is a way to quantify the difference between a 1m copper interconnect cable set bought for $30 at a retail hifi shop, and a half meter home made cable silver set that cost $90 just in parts.
I also agree that you will hear to some degree what you want to hear. Those components in that system were chosen because I wanted the highest resolution I could afford at the time. That is my listening preference. I enjoy being able to hear the obscure things in the records that can be lost on a less resolving system. It might not always be the most musical to listen to, but I'm willing to make that compromise. This is a great site!
Edit: And btw...the parts for those cables were not bought from a diy hifi supplier. Everything except for the connectors were bought from a medical supplier. Point being it wasn't made from something like Cardas or Kimber cable. Basically bare silver wire wrapped around teflon tube with a layer of teflon tape wrapped over then the ground wrapped over than with more teflon tape holding it together.

 

[Killingbeans]

I don't doubt there is a way to quantify the difference between a 1m copper interconnect cable set bought for $30 at a retail hifi shop, and a half meter home made cable silver set that cost $90 just in parts.

There's no doubt that you can measure differences in impedance characteristics, but they'll have zero practical impact on any audible frequencies. Both because the frequencies are so low, and because the cables connect to high impedance inputs. You'll often hear the cable quacks talk about transmission line and/or skin effects, but those belong in the realm of RF engineering. I once heard someone mention an EE working with RF electronics saying that everything below 50MHz was DC to him. It's a completely different world

I guess there's no real harm in using cognitive bias to add a bit of "spice" to an audio setup, as long as you have a healthy relationship with it and don't spend silly amounts of money. After all, there's no way of avoiding it completely. Suggestions through aesthetics is the oldest trick in the book.