|
What's
Wrong with High End Audio? It's a Mess, Let's Clean it Up
Using Science to
be a Better High End Audio Consumer:
For
decades, the audio world has been taken over by people who perpetuate
mumbo jumbo and non-sense that have stunted the development of
reproduced music. High End Audio must get out of the spell of these
people to become critical, informed, and scientific. The most damaging
to the prestige of High End Audio is the success of the propaganda about
wires by the audio media. But it is more and more difficult to ignore
facts debunking such "reviewers lies" about wires. Now it is
time to use more scientific methods to advance reproduced music.
For
centuries, the scientific method has proven capable of creating wonders
for people life, now it's
only smart to use it for the advancement of reproduced music.
Performing
science is collecting true statements (or facts, or knowledge) and
using reasoning to expand knowledge (such as theories leading to new
true statements). Truth is
in the mind of the beholder but to
get useful results, truth is
best defined as the imitation of nature. Nature is truth. Reality is
the interpretation of nature by each individual person. In the audio
world, reality is the
ability to scientifically recognize sound quality (i.e. good/bad
reproduced music). The name of the audio game is SOUND QUALITY.
Scientifically
true statements are rigid enough to remain true
under critical twisting of the meaning of the vocabulary used in the
statements. Therefore vocabulary used in science is rigidly defined and
has only one way for the interpretation. Unscientific
statements can be true or false depending on the twisting of the words
used.
Instrument
measurement of variables is not science unless the measured variables
are scientifically observed to relate to the statement of the problem.
“Pushers” often use this
misinformation to discredit science in favor of propaganda: they invoke
stupid measurements then they say that science is stupid.
Only science can improve sound quality. But the scientific method
demands exact meaning and rigidity in reasoning. Education is obviously
required to master the scientific method, but
for the moment, if people only insist on exact vocabulary, the bad
people already lose credibility. To judge the scientific quality of a
statement, the first step is to question the rigidity of vocabulary
used. If the vocabulary is not rigid enough, it is useless to carry the
discussion any further for the discussion has already become a food
fight.
INTRODUCING
BIAS, PLACEBO, WISHY-WASHY, MUMBO JUMBO INTO THE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF AUDIO IS DELUSIONAL. R&D BASED ON UNDEFINABLE SOUND
CHARACTERISTICS (such as live, sound stage, neutral, silky, extended…
) IS ALSO DELUSIONAL.
THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS RIGID, EXACT AND IT WON’T WORK IN ANY OTHER WAY.
ONLY SCIENCE CAN IMPROVE SOUND QUALITY. THE FIRST STEP IS A STANDARDIZED
TEST TO COMPARE/DEFINE SCIENTIFICALLY "THE SOUND QUALITY" OR
WHAT IS "GOOD/BAD REPRODUCED MUSIC"?
If
good/bad reproduced music cannot be defined scientifically as High End Audio
claims, under the spell of audio media propaganda, that it’s all mumbo
jumbo, then High End Audio
is dead. Only music lovers
remain and DAKIOM is here to serve music lovers for they know exactly,
precisely, scientifically what is good reproduced music. Ultimately,
music lovers will simply seek what sounds good to them over the long
term. No amount of marketing or hype can replace an audio system that is
enjoyable and entertaining over the long term.
How
many of us own expensive systems that were said to be the among the very
best, but that over time we simply got bored of and now rarely listen
to?
Breaking Down Myths:
[DakiOm, Jan 18, 2007]
An obvious problem is the BS
permeating audio media. Audio media are paid for by advertisement. This
is OK. Propaganda is an acceptable tool for advertisers, but when the
hypes and the exaggerations start rolling down hill toward outright
deceptions, misinformation and lies, people must speak out. It is
natural that "pushers of snake oil" will trick people. But
people must make the effort to learn and educate themselves in order to
get better products or at least to avoid useless products.
The subject of
wires is the best example of a successful brainwashing propaganda that
paradoxically kills High End Audio. Is this another example of "a
lie too far"?
For the sake of a
healthy and exciting audio world, everybody involved must care:
- Stupidity,
“voodooism” must be bashed,
- misinformation must be cleansed, and
- BS, “out-of-thin-air” opinions must be exposed as such.
Ignorance, false
pride, snobbism are the best friends of "pushers". Knowledge,
wisdom and passion are required to get good reproduced music. Good
reproduced music will arrive and will expose all previous BS from
"trusted reviewers" and "forum buddies". They will
run and hide. Particularly, what will be exposed are lies and propaganda
about "wires", "sighted tests", "burn-in",
"purity", "expensive". This bad media ruins High End Audio,
but people are also responsible for the mess because they fall for the
propaganda.
Especially experts
and professional people must speak out clearly, simply, and
scientifically. To distinguish themselves from the bad guys (i.e.
pushers of snake oil and their hired-guns who shoot indiscriminately to
create confusion), the good guys should not shoot more smoke into the
discussion. The good guys should insist on a clear definition of the
vocabulary used and on a clear statement of the problem. Only bad guys
involve in food fights because food fights are perfect to sell snake
oil.
If
the discussion becomes a food fight, the good guys must stop arguing,
leave the scene or demand a return to the clarification of vocabulary
and to a more precise statement of the problem. It is the scientific
method that wins the day, not the food fight that only benefits the
pushers of snake oil. The value of a discussion is the quality of
reasoning based on well-defined vocabulary.
Places
that offer food fight but devoid of good reasoning are definitely
sponsored by pushers of snake oil (even if the place claims to be
financed by [hired] users). Places that limit discussion are also bogus
forums? Places having both jerks and good reasoning members are good
forums. Remember that "delusional subjectivists who insist on
sighted tests" and "tin-eared objectivists who insist only
narrowly measured specifications" are all hired guns shooting smoke
into the field. Scientific people demand the definition of sound quality
before any discussion concerning sound quality. Definition can be in the
form of a standardized comparative listening-test.
WHAT
IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
Very
simple, doing science is collecting true statements (also called facts,
knowledge).
Who
or what makes the judgment of truth? Any intelligence using the
statements, including human. In the end, true statements must be
obtained by direct observations and by clear definitions. But logic can
help in constructing predictions or theories or hypotheses from observed
facts. These temporarily true statements must be eventually verified by
direct observations to become scientific facts. The combined set of
facts and theories constitute scientific knowledge.
The procedures, rules for collecting and presenting true statements
constitute the scientific method. Logic is a way to ensure the
definition of truth and to expand knowledge from limited previous facts.
Intelligence can be seen as the capability to use logic (or reasoning)
and to expand knowledge. For example an intelligent person makes good
guesses from minimum facts. A dumb person follows others without making
his/her own decision.
A
scientific method is the logical presentation that ties together
observed facts. Logical means no double meaning (the statements must be
consistently true either by direct observation or by reasoning from
observed facts). A logical interpretation (or description) of a fact is
the one that does not contradict previous interpretation of related
facts. To avoid double talk and contradictions, the facts must be
described clearly and solidly enough. In critical cases, every word
describing the facts must be uniquely defined such that there is only
one way to identify the meaning of the word.
In
audio the most important word is quality,
such as in ”sound quality” or in “X sounds better/same/worse than
Y”. It must be defined rigidly before any discussion is meaningful. We
propose that quality be defined or measured in a standardized
comparative listening-test. Comparison is measurement
such as one meter is measured by comparison to “a standard meter”.
The method of comparison (or test) of the meter is also standardized.
But since we don’t yet have a way to quantify sound quality, relative
measurement is sufficient for now.
To put this in simple terms, since the name of the (audio) game is
better reproduced music, there must be a standard test that reveals
better/same/worse. In other words, it is pure BS if
"reviewers" demand better sound but refuse to use a
standardized listening-test. The only explanation for the lack of a
standardized listening-test is the voodooism practiced by the
advertising media to sell snake oil. Gurus (AKA trusted reviewers) are
created to sell fake unverifiable "golden ears" badges (AKA
megabuck components). Voodooism ensures no fake badges are exposed. But
people must also be smart enough to refuse buying things based on phony
badges.
The pushers of
snake oil win if the audio world cannot come up with a scientific
listening test. Listening-test already exists in conventional A/B tests
either blind or sighted. They work well for large differences in sound
quality, the only next step is to refine it for much smaller differences
in sound quality. Dakiom already proposed such refined test, now it is
up to the audio world to endorse a standard. While
waiting, all Dakiom’s statements imply the definition of sound quality
using our comparative listening test.
Scientific
statements are rigidly true and cannot be twisted to make them false.
An unscientific
fact is the one that can be contradicted either by twisting the
definition of variables or by twisting the description of the facts.
For
example, the statement: "Solid state amplifiers sound better with
DakiOm MA253’s than without" is scientifically true, it is a
fact. It is very tough to twist the definition of amplifiers, system
set-up, blind tests or sighted tests to make this untrue (only lies can
make it false). The expression "sound better" is scientific
because it has only 3 states worse, same, better. These states can be
clearly chosen by the listener in a standardized comparative
listening-test. Lies can be dealt with in the science of psychology
(human behavior), this is a human problem such that when science is used
by human, psychology, politics must be applied. However, lies can be
eliminated if people speak out and punishment is an effective deterrent.
But
the statement "The best silver speaker wires sound better than the
best aluminum speaker wires" is unscientific because wires can be
made to sound the same, worst or better just by manipulating the
location of the wires, either on top of speakers or hanging up in the
air. Even adding the restriction: "if both are hung up in the
air", it is still unscientific because it is true only in some
biased sighted tests but false (they sound the same) in all blind tests.
More examples: The
description "this wire is one meter long" is scientific but
the description "this wire is more transparent than the other
wire" is 100% mumbo jumbo- it can never be scientific. There is
only one way to get a meter long. But transparent is undefined. No one
knows what transparent means so therefore no one can make a transparent
wire. The statement "This wire sounds better than the other
wire" can be scientific because better can be defined precisely by
a standardized test and wires can be made badly such that differences in
sound quality can be heard.
To improve
reproduced music, only scientifically defined "musicality"
should be used. If a manufacturer describes the improvement in mumbo
jumbo, then you can be sure that no scientific research is possible and
the claim is bogus. Only observation of rigid truth can be true. Any
double talk, wishy-washy, mumbo jumbo cannot be observed at all, let
alone being true.
Clear definition of vocabulary and clear statement of the problem are
part of the scientific method, followed by logic, reasoning that ties
together the observed facts, and the prediction of consequences to be
observed later. The whole process represents a scientific investigation
of the relationships between the variables involved in the context of
the problem. Clearly defined vocabulary is the list of the studied
variables and the context of the problem frames the scope of the
variables involved.
Wandering
outside of the context of the problem is not scientific either because
this may involve unknown variables. If the variables are unknown, the
investigation is meaningless. Such as asking what happens before the big
bang. Well, this will be another scientific investigation when some
unknown variable becomes known (or discovered), but what ever future
knowledge about pre-big-bang will reveal, the facts (relating known
variables) after the big bang are still valid (or at least very close to
the truth to be practically good and useful). But theories can be proven
inadequate. For sure, we will know what happens before the big bang
later, when some discovery occurs (for new variables allowing the
investigation of a pre-big-bang).
Math
and science are of the same image. X, Y, Z are variables (in numbers for
math) (and, in precise set of descriptions for science (can be
translated by logic to numbers). For example the translation of hot and
cold feeling to numbers via logical inference to the length of a mercury
column. A hand feeling hot and cold is same thing as a long mercury
column in hot water getting shorter in ice.
The
math function Z = F(X, Y) is the equivalent of a set of observed facts
relating the variables X, Y, Z described precisely enough by the
scientific investigation. The context of the investigation is limited to
the variables X, Y, Z. Now, if F is not true in some future experimental
observation, then the set of variables is either incomplete or
inadequately described. New investigation will produce a more
scientifically true function Z = G(X,Y,U) that includes Z = F(X,Y) when
U is set to appropriate values (i.e. a more precise description of X,Y,Z,
limiting to a special U). Or, F is declared an approximation of G.
By
the way, science and truth are also the same image if the following
axiom is accepted:
1.
Nature is truth
and nature never contradicts it self. Until the day somebody discovers
that there is double talk in one natural event, this axiom seem to be
fine. Quantum fluctuation is not self-contradictory, even though
unpredictable on smallest scale.
2.
Science is an
approximation of nature, and it will get better in the interpretation of
nature. In a sense, it is difficult to know where is the starting point
for the concept of truth. Is it from the imitation of the reliability
and consistency of nature that humans construct the concept of truth or
is it an idealistic thought that is applicable to nature?
3.
Only when truth
is nature that useful consequences such as advanced technology can be
developed.
As you can see,
only scientific methods and truth are the same. Up to now, no other
concept of truth can lead to the wonderful technology in the present
world. So, be scientific if you want TRUE good reproduced music.
Scientific knowledge and the practice of logic are vast and complicated.
The need for education is obvious. So learn and you won’t be victims
of pushers of snake oil again. Let’s
apply the scientific method to the most stupid, controversial, and most
harmful thing to the prestige of High End Audio. High End Audio remains
a joke unless the subject of WIRES is scientifically investigated and
audiophiles can wake-up from the spell of pushers, to a new direction
for good reproduced music.
STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM:
Do
wires (interconnects, speaker cables, power cords) have sound of their
own? Can a wire influence the sound of an audio system?
DEFINITION
OF VOCABULARY USED: What is sound? What are wires?
The
scientific definition of sounds are the pressure waves in a medium such
as air.
Some
sounds are audible by humans, but some are not. In the context of an
audio system for human use, sound is defined here in the audible range
of any human. When a whistle for dogs is blown upon, sound is produced
but no human can hear it. When a tree falls in a forest where no human
exists, sound is definitely produced but no human hears it. But these
sounds are irrelevant to the context of the present problem.
Amplitude,
frequency, and phase define precisely an elementary sound. Complex sound
is the combination of elementary sound.
The
ability of people to hear elementary sound is precisely determined in
hearing tests. Different people hear different ranges of elementary
sound.
Now
we can talk about MORE OR LESS restrictive statement of the problem:
1.
CAN WIRES
INFLUENCE ELEMENTARY SOUND OF AN AUDIO SYSTEM?
2.
CAN WIRES
INFLUENCE HUMAN VOICE IDENTITY RECOGNITION?
3.
CAN WIRES
INFLUENCE MORE COMPLEX SOUND?
4.
….
5.
CAN WIRES
INFLUENCE EVEN MORE COMPLEX SOUND?
Answers:
1.
Definitely NOT
2.
Definitely NOT,
even the lowly telephone allows the recognition of a friend’s voice.
3.
Don’t know, to
be investigated as to the level of complexity such that wires have
influence.
Here
lays the fundamental garbage with any discussion about wires (and other
similar mumbo jumbo):
1.
How to describe
the complexity of a sound that is difficult for wires to reproduce such
that only "expensive" wires can reproduce it more correctly?
What is it that the audio media claims to hear with different wires?
"Huge sound stage?", "More transparent?",
"Extended highs?" What is it? Nobody can or wants to answer.
2.
What are the
variables of the wires contributing to the better reproduction of
complex sound? Inductance? Capacitance? Resistance? Electron speed?
Quantum fluctuation? Golden Ratio Geometry? Method of construction? How
can you measure (define) this wonderful wire characteristics? If it is a
trade secret, then the manufacturer much at least produce a scientific
procedure for the identification of the wire's performance.
Definitely
this smells like snake oil. Wherever you hear unscientific mumbo jumbo,
there is 100% snake oil. Basically where all variables are undefined and
no scientific observation is possible. Until a scientific procedure is
proposed, fancy wires are snake oil. How to hear the difference? What
reference wire to be compared to? How to set up the system? How to
set-up the wires? on the floor? hung up in the air? There must be a
complete statement of the problem, otherwise (DakiOm has established
this) lamp cords can surely sound same or better, with the right
tweaking and set-up.
Same conclusion is applicable for expensive systems. Comparison of any
system to any other system must be fully described as to how the systems
are set-up, what tweaks are used. Because science has discovered new
tweaks, new variables, new facts that can render old facts obsolete or
inadequately described. (Refer to the functions F and G discussed
above). If the old facts are really scientific, then they won’t need
to be redefined, but a lot of BS happened in the past, many old
“facts” are BS to start with.
IN
SUMMARY
High
End Audio
is a joke until the problems of hearing wires is settled, such that the
grip of pushers of snake oil is broken. Then High End Audio can be
scientific and advancing.
The
influence of wires on audio systems can only be investigated
scientifically. No voodoo mumbo jumbo will satisfy the critics of the
audio media. Presently enough knowledge concerning wires has been
discovered to confirm wires are wires, just as electrical engineering
predicted, for audio signals. For higher frequencies, electrical
engineering also provides more than enough knowledge to
calculate/measure and compare characteristics of wires. The
calculated/measured (static) electrical data of fancy wires can very
well be used to correlate to sound quality. Apparently these static data
prove no correlation to sound quality, any lamp cord will do. Therefore,
anything special about fancy wires must be compared scientifically to a
lamp cord hung up in the air.
DakiOm
Theory on Static Wires:
(For experiments on wires see further down)
Using
electrical engineering knowledge, DakiOm can theorize that static wires
have sound of their own, possibly detectable by some extraordinary
people. But for ordinary people, it may be very difficult to pass blind
listening tests identifying static wires.
Here
is Dakiom theory:
A
set of wires connecting amplifying circuits has combined LCR that
contribute to the regime of the amplification of high frequency noises.
Different LCR of wires create different high frequency compensation
characteristics of audio circuits (circuits using negative feedback).
Therefore different kinds of instabilities can create different garbage
injected into the audio signals. Garbage mimics music because different
music can create different instabilities.
Some
people with kin ears may hear the different garbage and they may confuse
changes
in the garbage with music such
as:
“more
resolution” can be more
low level garbage mimicking “more
resolution” can be more
low level garbage mimicking a
particular section of music,
“more
sound stage” can be different “resolution” on the left and on the
right or more garbage accentuating some musical instruments
and their locations.
If
compensation values need readjusting, for better interaction between
audio components, then discrete trimmers are more versatile than
haphazard designs of wires. Designs
of wires for “better conduction of audio signals” is pure snake oil
mumbo jumbo. Any ordinary wire is already perfect conductor of audio
signals. Wire LCR can only affect high frequency signals
that affect amplifier compensation.
Dakiom
idea on wires: wires can be used to block high frequency noises
conducted between components, as explained below:
Dakiom has determined experimentally that wires can be used to separate
components from influencing each other. The influence come from sharing
high frequency noises and from cross component impedance shifting.
Impedance changes due to vibration of one component surely influence
noise amplification of other components. Dakiom uses
wires to insert large inductive impedance to reduce interference of high
frequencies, between components. This simple idea works only if the
impedance is kept static, using flexible wires or other vibration
control schemes.
See
DakiOm DIY Projects
for using inserted inductors to control component cross-talks in noises
and in impedance fluctuations. Particularly using inductors in power
cords to reduce the influence of impedance fluctuation of house wiring
due to vibration.
HERE
IS DAKIOM’S VERSION OF THE INVESTIGATION OF WIRES:
Observed
facts:
1
Wires do sound
different. Some wires sound more pleasant. The difference is difficult
to described but it is there and definitely worth an investigation.
2
According to
established electrical engineering, wires can be described by L, C, R
(lumped parameters are accurate enough in the audio frequency range).
RFI is also well taken care of by shielding. But somehow the length of
the wire is also influential. Short wires with same LCR sound better. It
turns out that it is the mechanical position of wires affecting the
sound, not the wire length. Therefore it is the LCR of the extra length
put in a wrong location that matter.
3
Putting a coil of
long speaker wires on top of a vibrating speaker makes the music clearly
bad sounding. Taking this coil off the speaker top and hanging it by
strings improves music noticeably (strings tied to the amp and to the
speaker top).
4
Putting a coil of
long power cord on top of speakers makes music clearly crappy. Taking
this coil off the speaker top and hanging it by strings improves music
noticeably (strings tied to the amp and to speaker top).
5
Plugging a free
(not powering anything) coiled extension cord into the same power strip
as the amplifier under operation and putting this coil on top of a
speaker make the music really crappy. Taking this coil off speaker top
and hanging it by strings improves music noticeably (strings tied to the
amp and to speaker top).
6
Attach extra
speaker cables to the amplifier’s posts. The other ends of cables are
free, not attached to anything. Coiling this free cable on top of
speakers really makes the music crappy. Taking this coil off speaker top
and hanging it by strings improve music noticeably (strings tied to the
amp and to speaker top).
7
When hanging all
wires up in the air (cheap or expensive wires), the difference in
musical like/dislike disappears or is very hard to detect for a very
large variation of wires.
CONCLUSION
From
the above observations, it is an exercise for the reader to use logic
and make all kinds of theories.
Our conclusion:
Wire
is important for good music but only because of mechanical vibration
affecting the wires.
When
vibration is well controlled, the LCR of wires can vary by quite a large
amount without detectable changes in music quality. It is hard to detect
changes in musical quality when wire LCR are variable within the ranges
of regular interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords (from 5 to 40
ft). Lamp cords, regular wires are as good as any other wires. There is
no need for fancy wire, just a need to control vibration. Maybe the
influence of wires LCR on the frequency compensation of the amplifier
can be heard by some kin ears, but the effect is very uncertain. The
effects of vibration on wires are audible, by an order of magnitude
larger.
(Proposed Evaluation Procedure For
DakiOm Products)
Because our products
are new, and because they reveal potentially unfamiliar aspects of good
sounding music, we wish to propose the following evaluation procedure for our
products (and other products as well).
The common practice of
AB’ing an audio product is to listen to A then to B. Then the listener
judges the sound quality based on the perceived sound. The perceived
sound can be: bass definition, smoothness of the mid-range,
brightness/darkness of the treble, size of the sound stage, how a
specific note or musical passage sounds, etc.
We believe that our
products enhance the above perceived sound and more. When relying on
specific perceived aspects of the sound to determine if an audio system
under test is better or not, one may miss the "big picture" of
how the music is improved; or one may overlook how some other aspects of
the sound are improved... It is also hard to compare specific perceived sounds when the equipment under test
seems equally good at reproducing those sounds; in this case the user
may come to false conclusion that the sound is the same when in fact
there is an improvement that takes time to recognize. Therefore we propose that the listener goes
beyond specific aspects of the sound quality and explores deeper into
the emotion of the music. Basically, try to merge with the musical flow instead.
Our products (or any
good products) reveal details undetected by regular listening tests that
emphasize specific aspects of the sound. Such details involve the flow,
the harmony, the rhythm, the emotion, and possibly there are more
unknown characteristics of good music. Therefore we propose a listening
test that involves the totality of the listening experience. Definitely,
our products (or any good products) will produce a better musical
experience, but you will need to evaluate them in depth before deciding
to keep them in your system or not.
This requires
REPETITION and LEARNING. At the onset, you may not know how good your
music has become, until you take time to really hear it and learn about
it. Then, if the music is improved and better fits your taste, you will
feel more in-tune with it, otherwise you will reject it. Your degree of
acceptance of the new music is your true measure of the quality of the
audio set-up under test. Most program material is usually good;
"bad" music likely comes from the equipment.
Our Comparative
Listening Test
1. Select a musical
track of about 4-6 minute long (for example, jazz is good for testing)
2. Put it on repeat
3. Listen to the same
track (on repeat) with our products on for about ½ hour
4. Take a five minute
break
5. Take our products
off, listen for about ½ hour of the same track (on repeat)
6. If you already hear
clearly (must be clearly) the improvement, #5 above can be terminated
any time
7. If not, you can
repeat #1 to 6 above a few times to be sure if you hear an improvement
or not. These repeated tests can be performed at any time convenient for you.
The reason we recommend
repeating the above test is because some people take more time to decide
which is the better music. Remember that it is the feeling of being
"in-tune" with the music that is most important, not just how
some specific individual sounds are perceived per se. Of course, the
individual sounds are necessary for "musicality" but it is not
sufficient. There are sonic details that DakiOm Feedback Stabilizers
bring-out and initially the improvement is best recognized with
repetitive listening. But once the listener recognizes the good music,
he/she will clearly reject the lesser music of the unstabilized system.
This explains why our proposed test is very accurate.
After much testing
(using the above listening test) DakiOm concluded that audio components
are to some degree susceptible to vibration transmitted from speakers,
either through floor, walls, or air.
To further enhance your
listening experience, we recommend the following tweak: Try the
following tweak to verify for yourself that vibration isolation of all
equipment is important (using our listening test above), then explore
other commercially available vibration-isolators.
OUR PROPOSED
NO-COST, SERIOUS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR AUDIO SYSTEM:
1. Take 20 sheets of
normal length newspaper and cut the width of the paper to equal the
distance between the feet of your component. Roll (tightly, 0.3 inch
inner diameter) the 20 sheets of newspaper into a roll of about 1.3 inch
diameter. Then cover the roll with one layer of packing tape.
2. Make two rolls for
each component. Insert these two rolls under each of your speakers,
isolating them from the floor.
3. Repeat #1 and #2 for under the feet of amplifiers, receivers, players, pre-amps, etc…
4. Hang all wiring
(interconnects, power cords, speaker cables…) away from contacting
vibrating surfaces.
5. Evaluate this tweak
using the DakiOm Comparative
Listening Test procedures.
6. Listen and enjoy,
then decorate the rolls for nice presentation.
7. You may consider
adding two more rolls under each component. Place the two new rolls
under the previous two rolls at right angles to make a stacked
four-sided construction.
8. Please look at our Do-It-Yourself
(DIY) page for more sound improvement projects.
Please send us an email
and let us know what you found.
First, our policy is not to engage in the controversy of component review or
critique. Therefore, we will try to avoid mentioning or discussing any specific
brand names / types of accessories or audio components. We will say though that
we have listened to many audio components and found them to be unsatisfactory.
We've also seen too many accessories that are simply not worth their cost. For
example, the difference in sound quality between a $4 cable and a $200 cable is
uncertain and elusive - therefore it is negligible (Note: Premium
cables may offer better aesthetics, more rugged construction, greater ease of
making connections, etc - This discussion focuses on the sound quality of
properly connected cables). We also say that
passive speakers are the components we recommend as potentially
the most cost-effective upgrade.
And of course, we recommend the best upgrade of all, our DakiOm
Feedback Stabilizers. Upgrade your systems by adding DakiOm stabilizers
first, before considering upgrading other components. The order of upgrading
should be passive speakers, power amplifiers then audio players. Cables and
connectors usually need no upgrading. Do not be hyped by the glossy advertisements of
expensive items. Check it out first- if you don’t hear an obvious improvement
or you have to concentrate your mind very hard to discern an improvement, just don’t
buy it.
The reason for our reluctance to review specific components is that our
opinion is just another opinion. And opinions can be influenced or contradicted
by a conflict of interest. In the end, it is you the consumer that has to
evaluate and decide for yourself what sounds good to you. Our experience always
confirms that regular people can indeed decide for themselves. People do not
need to rely on opinion, especially when the improvement is real. We
believe in this so strongly that we encourage you to take advantage of our 30 day money back guarantee to
take time and listen for yourself and form your own opinion of our products.
We will discuss below the methods we use to evaluate accessories and
components, including our DakiOm products. We believe that our experience can
help others avoid falling into the hype created by advertisements and marketing
campaigns. We realize that good sound is easily discernable once people know how
to avoid the hype.
At DakiOm, we have played with many gadgets and specialty audio accessories
that promise better sound but deliver only some initial excitement that then
fades away into the sameness of before. This first impression of sound
improvement often doesn’t last beyond the first song.
It is difficult to explain why an item under evaluation sounds good only
when first put on, then settles down to practically no improvement at all.
We think that it is mostly imagination and that a strong desire to hear good
sound can cloud the senses. After a while, the reality of our ears hearing the
same irritating sounds sets in and our true senses eventually come out.
Therefore, any evaluation should be at least 15 minutes (hours for items
offering small improvements). Just trust your senses. If you don’t feel more
excitement or more emotional than before, don’t buy it. In the case when you
can afford the money to buy a tiny improvement, then switch back and forth
between the old and the new component, then evaluate your feeling at the end
of the 15 minutes. The time pause between switching is not important, it can
be a few minutes to a few hours. It is your feelings (boredom, tension,
uptightness, excitement, relaxation, etc.) that matters, not the mental
analysis of each note.
Later, after the auditioning, you may try to describe the listening
experience using terms such as tight bass, silky mid range, deep soundstage,
stunning dynamics, etc. But the real evaluation is not the choice of adjectives
but it is your truly personal emotional experience. Only you know what you want
so don’t be influenced by the adjectives chosen by others.
Our preferred method of evaluation is to listen
to the new component under test for many songs, until we get irritated or
bored and we don’t want to listen to it any more. After a pause of about
20 minutes to 2 hours, we repeat the same songs with the old component and
compare the length of time of enjoyable music. The superior component is the
component that allows the longest enjoyable listening time. In the case of a
close competition, the procedure can be repeated many times (over many days) to
average out variations in personal mood or state of mind.
We can only say that we believe in our products and we will be happy if you
take the time to fully evaluate our DakiOm Feedback Stabilizers. If you
like DakiOm, please support and encourage us by telling all of your friends
about us. Your help will allow us to pursue our company mission to improve
your enjoyment of music.
Cables connecting audio components have the simple purpose of passing along
an electrical signal.
However, in the view of many designers, cables are very mysterious and
deserve careful, tedious, exotic and expensive constructions. The theory is that
cables are really transmission lines that must be "pure" and immune to
interferences.
We don’t think so. We agree that cables present some impedance (frequency
dependent resistance) to the paths of signals. We also know that cables can
pass along more than the intended signal. The large physical dimensions of
cables will pick up radiated noises (similar to the way an antenna
picks up a radio signal). However, these problems are minor and have been
solved already.
For RCA audio cables, our experiments (inserting inductors and resistors to
vary impedance) show that cable impedance can be neglected. However, many
designers would disagree. We believe that a couple of dB down in amplitude
and a few tens of degrees phase shift in the upper treble range will not alter
very much the rendition of music. Compared to the impedance variations and phase
shifts created by the dynamics of speakers, cable impedance is rather
insignificant. Compared to the excessively imperfect characteristics of the
components that make up an audio circuit (capacitors, resistors, transistors,
tubes, etc.), cable impedance is also insignificant.
For cables carrying low-level electrical signals, such as RCA cables, noise
pickup can be serious and should be minimized. The good news is that in our
experience, conventional cable shielding is already sufficient to reduce
radiated noise pickup to levels lower than noise created internally by the
electronic circuits. Electronic noises come mostly from the reverse recovery of
rectifiers, including transistor switching. Fancy cables that reduce radiated
noise pickup far below the internal noise level of the audio circuits do not
help any more. Again, many designers would disagree.
Our theory is that cables are really high frequency output loading
elements belonging to the frequency compensation network that affects the
open loop gain of the circuit. (The feedback mechanism present in audio
circuits require "compensation" components be included at the output
to help control the circuit at high frequencies). Adding different cables
only change the nature of the frequency compensation. This leads to different
modes of instabilities that just pollute the audio output in different ways,
therefore creating different bad sounds.
Experimentally, different cables do make different sounds, but in the end
they don't really perform any magic to your stereo system. They simply shift the
characteristics of the circuit. In the end a bad sounding stereo will be of
equally low quality- you'll just hear different aspects of bad sounds. The sound
will still wind up feeling either boring or irritating or some combination
thereof. Seemingly initial excitement always degrades into irritation. Seemingly
initial smoothness always degrades into boredom.
DakiOm Feedback Stabilizers are also high frequency output loading elements.
But they can automatically modify their configurations to suppress
instability. Cables can not change their configurations.
Once the audio circuit outputs are equipped with DakiOm Feedback
Stabilizers, the influence of cables disappears.
We recommend no more than double shielding for RCA cables.
RCA cables
can be as long as needed; however, the capacitance of long cables must be less
than 25 picofarad per foot. Remember that DakiOm stabilizers should be plugged
directly to the player outputs, not to the amplifier inputs at the other end of
the cables.
Speaker cables need not be complex. Again, many designers would
disagree. Our experiments show that common #18 to #14 parallel wires are
sufficient. Larger wires can reduce ohmic resistance, but wire resistance is
usually not a factor in most situations. Using thicker wires is often futile
because anything much smaller than 10% of the nominal speaker impedance will not
result in audibly improved accuracy. The effect of such small wire resistance on
audio signals can be neglected. Wire inductance and capacitance are discussed
below.
Experimentally, the best speaker wire length is 20 feet. Speaker cable length of 10 to 40 feet is fine, but 20 ft is
the best sounding length. An explanation is that the
wire inductance forms with the speaker capacitance a high frequency resonant
circuit that tends to work well with our stabilizer circuitry. In any case, only
extensive listening can reveal the small difference in sound quality caused by
speaker wire length.
Put your money in speakers rather than in speaker wires. We recommend
plain, regular parallel speaker wires: 20 feet of #16 gauge to a maximum 40 feet
of #14. Larger wire doesn’t hurt; it is just a waste. For longer distances (40
ft to 80 ft), we recommend using two (2) sets of #14 parallel wires, connected
in parallel (kind of like "bi-wiring" to the same speaker terminals).
For even longer distances, use 3, 4, or more parallel wires in parallel.
Connecting parallel wires in parallel reduces inductance and ohmic resistance.
(Note: using larger wire only reduces ohmic resistance, but does not reduce
inductance very much)
As noted above,
Premium cables may offer better aesthetics, more rugged construction, greater
ease of making connections, etc. From purely a sound quality perspective,
regular wires are usually sufficient. However, premium cables may offer other
qualities of interest than sound alone.
It is recommended that the audio player
and amplifier outputs always wear feedback stabilizers (Figure
1). If only the amplifier wears the stabilizers, then only half of the
system’s sound quality will improve. Therefore do not use receivers
having internal (unreachable) D/A (Digital to Analog) processors
connected to a digital program source (See Figure
2). The program source should be analog
audio, ready to wear feedback stabilizers. The stabilized outputs can now be fed
to the amplifier's analog inputs. If a preamplifier is used, then the outputs of
the preamplifier should also wear feedback stabilizers. In principle, any
analog audio outputs along the component chain should be stabilized.
However, some receivers have "preamp outs" such as
the Pioneer
VSX-D812. On these receivers you can use digital connections to the receiver and
you can still stabilize the analog output stage. Just connect the DakiOm audio
player Feedback Stabilizer to all the "PRE OUT" RCA jacks (See Figure
3). (For
more information, see How to Install Page,
Audio Player Example 2: Installation of Audio Player Feedback Stabilizer into a Receiver Having Preamp Outputs).
DakiOm Feedback Stabilizers are meticulously designed to work with typical
conventional amplifier frequency compensation networks. The exact nature of a
given amplifier's internal compensation circuit may affect the performance of
the stabilizers. Therefore, DakiOm Feedback Stabilizers may sound better on
some amplifiers than others. As a rule of thumb, amplifiers that deviate
substantially from conventional feedback circuitry (very rarely) may not
work well with DakiOm Feedback Stabilizers.
Therefore do not add any more parts to the outputs, for this is
equivalent to changing the compensation network. Also, be sure that any special
speaker cables you may be using have about the same or less inductance and
capacitance as 20 ft of normal parallel wire. If you already have special speaker
cables, check if you need to replace them with regular parallel wires.
As mentioned above, noises created internally by switching diodes and
transistors in the amplifier are significant and should be minimized. Adding to
these, there is also conducted noise coming from the house electrical outlets.
We think clean power is great. But the excessive cost of a power conditioner is
probably a waste. It is up to the consumer to find out whether or not he/she
needs (and can afford) a power line filter- it may depend on the location. Some
locations are noisier than others are. If power line noise is already less
than the internal amplifier noise then there is no need for a line filter (this
may be the case for most locations). In any case, a simple inexpensive EMI
filter should be tried first.
The subject of powered subwoofer frequently comes up. We recommend two
approaches:
Approach 1: Have someone qualified (or do it yourself if you qualify)
open up the subwoofer box. Find the speaker wires, then tap one pair of
red/black wires from a DakiOm stabilizer box to the speaker wires. The tap
location must be as close to the amplifier's output transistors as possible.
Insulation displacement connectors (provided upon request) should be used for this purpose (see
Subwoofer
Section of Installation
page). Sound quality will increase dramatically.
Approach 2: Trade-in your powered subwoofer for a passive subwoofer that
will be connected directly to your main amplifier. The passive subwoofer should
include a crossover network and an extra set of speaker terminals to connect to
the main speakers. Generally, the passive subwoofer connects directly to both
speaker terminals (left & right) of the amplifier. You can save the cost of
an extra DakiOm stabilizer because the main amplifier already has stabilizers
and these stabilizers are shared by the passive subwoofer and your main
speakers. (But you may lose the value of your old powered subwoofer in the
trade-in). If your main amplifier is of higher quality and your new passive
subwoofer is also of higher quality, approach 2 results in better sound quality
than approach 1.
[
Top ]
Please make an effort to try the
following test. This experiment will help in your understanding of
"musicality".
1. Copy a favorite track from your
favorite CD onto a first blank disc.
2. Play that track on a CD Player.
Connect the CD player's analog audio output to the audio input on a PC
soundcard. Use the soundcard to record the song. Note that this
recording should be degraded from the original because the song was
converted from digital to analog (CD Player) and reconverted from analog
to digital (PC Soundcard).
3. Take the recording you just made and
burn it onto a second blank disc. The two disks should look identical,
but one disc has the original song and the second disc has a second
generation recording.
3. Try to identify the discs by playing
both of them on your audio system.
4. If you cannot distinguish between
the original and the second generation copy, then either you have a poor
audio playback system or you don't have a good methodology for listening
to music and evaluating its sound quality. Even with a top notch CD
player and PC soundcard, the difference in sound quality should be
clearly noticeable to an audio enthusiast or a "music lover"
as we call it.
If your audio system or listening
method could use improvement, first try to upgrade your system using our
DIY projects and our Feedback
Stabilizers. Then try our comparative
listening test. Remember that you need both a good listening
method and good audio system.
If you can easily discern the
difference in sound quality between the two discs then congratulations,
you have an understanding of what is "musicality". DakiOm is
for people like you!
[
Top ]
Please contact us anytime. We welcome you to
express your ideas, comments, and opinions. |
