Naim = bright?
- Thread starter zarniwoop
- Start date
- Status
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
Magic Foo.
Arrogance too? Because this so-called testing of yours, that you're slamming Dave's opinion with, is garbage. Pseudo-science that is so dumb it's laughable. That a tap with you finger proves something! Oh yeah, you've taught Dave a thing or two eh?
Firstly, the only question your test address is whether or not a single slight impact causes an electronic device to output signal. Unfortunately, that's got nothing to do with what you want to know. An analogy might be to say:
I sat my TV remote control in a sealed lead box, did not press any buttons, and it did not emit a signal. Therefore, putting the remote in the box does not cause distortion in the signal!
All you have done is establish that a single impact does not cause the amplifier to emit signal. What you want to know is does multi-frequency vibration effects the performance of the amplifier when it is in the processes of passing signal.
As your test does not encompass either of the two real world realities relevant to the issue, the nature of the vibration or the type of effect you're trying to emulate, it is utterly worthless. Of course, being a know all, you won't concede this and will probably come back ranting on with accusations and diversionary excuses. Fair enough, knock yourself out.
NB: Please note I have not taken a side on the argument. I am merely pointing out the shortcomings of your test.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Nonsense. The tapping test is perfectly valid. A tapping will stress any mechanical microphony far more than any amount of audio vibration. Consequently, if tapping valves or other components results in no sound from the loudspeakers, there is no way at all that audio from the loudspeakers will. Consequently, any thought that mounting of the amplifier concerned will have any effect on the sound is totally fanciful.
S.
Dinovector
pfm Member
I have tried the tapping test and heard nothing but there most definitely was a difference when we changed stands, even my missus heard it. There must be more to this than you are testing for
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
That's an odd post considering you're not bothered about the sound made by loudspeakers. Soon you'll be claiming this ridiculous tapping test should be performed when music is playing.
My loudspeakers sound better with the crossovers mounted externally. What are the measurements that would show the reason why this is? Just curious...
The amount of mechanical energy transferred to the component is not the issue, the type is.
If you stand a tuning fork upright in a block of wood it will vibrate in sympathy with even a relatively low-level audio signal at the right frequency. If you hit the top of the fork one sharp blow with a sledgehammer it won't!
You guys are so desperate to prove your theories that any old evidence will do. Even if it's irrelevant. The funny thing is that you call it scientific when it's the opposite.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Distortion is where I would look to see what the improvement actually was. I would also look at the crossover frequencies although I think that unlikely. If the crossover frequencies haven't changed and distortion isn't changed, then I would put it down to imagination, although I can see a reason for an improvement in distortion with crossovers removed from the cabinet.
S.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Nonsense. Hit a tuning fork with a sledgehammer and it will resonate, at the same frequency it would with a light tap, only it will do it louder.
If an amplifier isn't affected by tapping with a hard object, it won;t be affected by whatever support it's on. No ifs or buts.
S.
russel
./_dazed_and_confused
Not necessarily true, if you hit it hard enough it will vibrate non sinusoidally.
http://www.ikhebeenvraag.be/mediastorage/FSDocument/138/Tuning+Fork+Rossing+AJP.pdf
Or if you hit it in the wrong place, on the top rather than the side.
Besides, it's only an illustration. The point is that you can't extrapolate one conclusion from a test which can only possibly confirm another.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
It will vibrate with additional harmonics, but based on the same fundamental. Of course if one hits it hard enough, it will bend out of shape.
S.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
This particular test, that of tapping the component with a hard object, tests that component's susceptibility to microphony. It is a very severe test, far more severe than that component would ever be subjected to with audio. Consequently, if it passes the tapping test, it will pass any amount of audio energy falling on the component.
It is therefore a sensible test to check whether microphony can even be considered an issue.
S.
Yip, that's what you keep saying. Just repeat the same thing over and over and ignore the facts you don't like. I understand that it's utterly impossible to win an argument with someone who knows everything but I'm sure that there will be some people who get what I'm saying and maybe think a little more openly than you.
You guys can think, believe and do what you like, it's a free-ish country. Some of us know that you are not always right, even if you don't.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
If "you guys" refers to me, I don't believe anything. All views I hold are as a result of reasoning, knowledge and experience. It takes all three before I accept anything as likely until better information is available.
S.
err no.. actually all you've proved there is that all 21 amplifiers are audibly indistinguishable from each other. Transparency means something completely different from this. At least technically it does. Technically it means introduces zero.. as in absolutely no distortion.. to this extent no amplifier is transparent. At best they are only audibly indistinguishable from each other. So if you want to continue using the term transparent then qualify it by stating "audibly transparent". So the scenario above doesn't demonstrate transparency beyond a reasonable doubt, only that they are all audibly indistinguishable beyond a reasonable doubt.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Transparency is generally recognised, at least amongst those who I've dealt with professionally in audio, as passing, or being able to pass a straight-wire bypass test. I agree it does not mean zero distortion, and if one wants to be pedantic (or precise, depending on your viewpoint) it should be qualified as "audibly" transparent. However, in this thread, I don't think there is any doubt as to the meaning of "transparent" in this context.
S.
- Status