[OzarkTom]

No, that's not what this is all about.

 

[*Scotty*]

A good first step, based on the posted listening impressions of the NC1200, would be to install into the NC400, as many of the passive parts used in the NC1200 as practically possible. Starting with the 12ga. wiring harness used in the NC1200.
Scotty

[Folsom]

Humans appear to be able to differentiate music with different types of noise/distortion that on an analyzing device have such a low volume that we are baffled as to why.

I can only offer speculation. Like we don't know we hear it, but it affects us subconsciously and we need ques to know it, some association. Perhaps it is a mechanical affect that occurs with speakers and feedback or something. I don't know. But I know the lower the noise/distortion seems to pay off. That's why I care about power conditioning so much, no matter how good you think your mains are (not the only source of noise).

[cab]

A good first step, based on the posted listening impressions of the NC1200, would be to install into the NC400, as many of the passive parts used in the NC1200 as practically possible. Starting with the 12ga. wiring harness used in the NC1200.
Scotty

So you are certain that these listening "impressions" are objective fact that resulted from the differences in passive parts, and have nothing to do with subjective factors on the part of the listeners, the room, the speakers, the other components, or the amp-system interactions?

[cab]

But I know the lower the noise/distortion seems to pay off.

Well you better ask OzarkTom about that as he knows that the low distortion debate was settled in the '70's....

[*Scotty*]

Quote from cab at 06:51PM

Debating subjective parameters is even more pointless.

Discussing subjective impressions of an amplifier is not pointless. See link: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105310.0
Ironic, considering that most people chose audio equipment based on how it sounds to them.
Quote from cab at  07:32 pm

So you are certain that these listening "impressions" are objective fact that resulted from the differences in passive parts, and have nothing to do with subjective factors on the part of the listeners, the room, the speakers, the other components, or the amp-system interactions?

Yes.
Scotty

[Folsom]

Well you better ask OzarkTom about that as he knows that the low distortion debate was settled in the '70's....

It's not either or, Tom is saying you have to find something you like the sound of first, and it may not be the lowest in distortion. That doesn't mean taking your not lowest distortion device and plugging it into a conditioner or modifying it is invaluable.

Also if 90% of people subjectively prefer something, you might want to think about it.

Subjectivity is just objectivity we can't define.

[cab]

Quote from cab at 06:51PMDiscussing subjective impressions of an amplifier is not pointless. See link: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105310.0
Ironic, considering that most people chose audio equipment based on how it sounds to them.
Quote from cab at  07:32 pmYes.
Scotty

Subjective impressions I take with a grain of salt.

I won't even attempt to ask for any evidence of this.....there is no arguing religion.

[OzarkTom]

Well you better ask OzarkTom about that as he knows that the low distortion debate was settled in the '70's....

The only conclusion anyone could make back then was a highly distorted stock Dynaco ST-70 sounded much better and a Frank Van Alstine modded ST-70 sounded tons better. Unfortunately, I never bought a ST-70 in the 70's.

[cab]

It's not either or, Tom is saying you have to find something you like the sound of first, and it may not be the lowest in distortion. That doesn't mean taking your not lowest distortion device and plugging it into a conditioner or modifying it is invaluable.

Also if 90% of people subjectively prefer something, you might want to think about it.

Subjectivity is just objectivity we can't define.

My argument is first about the validity of subjective listening impressions- do they necessarily imply an objective improvement in amp performance, or as I have asserted, can people think something sounds "better" when in fact, it simply sounds different. You can't tell me with a straight face that without measurements you can make this distinction.

Secondly, if you can't define it, you can't measure it. See the first part of the argument.

Thirdly,  it is indeed about personal preferences- if one, or a thousand people think something "sounds better", does than mean that I will? No. That means that when someone tells me that this cap tweak improved the ncore, unless they can show me an objective improvement, it means nothing to me because odds are, it just sounds different. Maybe I will like it, maybe not. You can't call it an improvement, all you can say is it's a modification that was found preferable to stock. And, as I have said repeatedly, there is nothing wrong with that.

[jtwrace]

My argument is first about the validity of subjective listening impressions- do they necessarily imply an objective improvement in amp performance, or as I have asserted, can people think something sounds "better" when in fact, it simply sounds different. You can't tell me with a straight face that without measurements you can make this distinction.

Secondly, if you can't define it, you can't measure it. See the first part of the argument.

Thirdly,  it is indeed about personal preferences- if one, or a thousand people think something "sounds better", does than mean that I will? No. That means that when someone tells me that this cap tweak improved the ncore, unless they can show me an objective improvement, it means nothing to me because odds are, it just sounds different. Maybe I will like it, maybe not. You can't call it an improvement, all you can say is it's a modification that was found preferable to stock. And, as I have said repeatedly, there is nothing wrong with that.

According to my measurement, this is truly the perfect post.   

[Folsom]

From a perspective of goals for an amplifier, it is an objective improvement if you increase the amount of capacitors. That isn't in question. The question is, does it matter to the ear, and could the ear measure it.

Objectively, from purely an engineering perspective that had the goal to have low noise/distortion, it is an improvement. You don't need to even bother to measure it because point blank as Occam put it, it's simple algebra.

You need to separate out the different things you that thinking about. You keep creating linear points that don't work with each other.

[cab]

You need to separate theory from practice....In theory yes, adding caps might add up to better measured performance. in a class d amp trace lengths, paths, and lead lengths can have a huge effect. Bruno has said that changes that can have a serious impact are measured in millimeters. How can you tell me that piggybacking caps on top of each other with the long leads, like in this mod, have not had any such effect on performance without measurements? Simply saying, "because it sounds better" is meaningless- there are amps with large amounts of distortion that some people find enjoyable, so that is no indication you have improved the objective performance.

And let's say that yes, these additional caps have been implemented in a benign way such that they actually do improve the objective performance in some way. How can you say that this improvement is large enough to be audible without measurement? How can you say this improvement is audible if the performance is already at the point where measured distortion is below the limits of human hearing? If you say, "there are things we can't measure", then I will say again, if you can't measure it then you can't know if it is an objective improvement or a mod you find subjectively pleasing.

[cab]

Again seems to me that logically this is a pretty cheap upgrade, yet not that critical to go this deep.

I have seen debates on several other types of upgrades that cost hundreds or thousands, at least this unit is virtually nothing to do the change and find the results.

I bet it would void the warranty. I wouldn't call that cheap if you need repair/replacement at some point.

[Folsom]

Doubling the capacitors changes the ESR/ESL value of the filter's capacitance. It's not subjective, and it is measurable. And it does increase a goal of the amplifier. Is it worth it, that's the question since all know physics to humans tells us exactly what I said. It's not disputed information, like said people have been doing it forever.

[Julf]

given the massive amount of information (terabytes) we might hear

As you have mentioned the "terabytes" multiple times, I can't help wondering what that is based on.

[Julf]

Doubling the capacitors changes the ESR/ESL value of the filter's capacitance. It's not subjective, and it is measurable. And it does increase a goal of the amplifier. Is it worth it, that's the question since all know physics to humans tells us exactly what I said. It's not disputed information, like said people have been doing it forever.

As cab mentioned, doubling the capacitors also changes the parasitic effects, and increasing the length of the leads definitely change things in a negative direction. How do you know that the supposed benefits of doubling the caps aren't dwarfed by negative effects?

[cab]

Doubling the capacitors changes the ESR/ESL value of the filter's capacitance. It's not subjective, and it is measurable. And it does increase a goal of the amplifier. Is it worth it, that's the question since all know physics to humans tells us exactly what I said. It's not disputed information, like said people have been doing it forever.

What Julf said....Do you understand parasitics and their effects in class d? RFI/EMI issues and layout in class d? I think you missed the point I made above about theory and practice. And you have ignored the point about the possible improvements being potentially inaudible.

[Folsom]

You are propsoing that a filter that includes the frequency range of possible mentioned interferance, and yet  halfs the noise to the output, could be a concern? Maybe if the leads could increase RFI three times.

Given that there is no concer for integrity of signal within this filter the differences of milimeters means so very little. Within the rest of the amplifier and characteristics of parts that carry signal, I am sure it is a huge concern.

[cab]

Again, this is all speculation and opinion. Like I and others have said, end the speculation and ask Bruno yourself. There is nothing more to say.