When high-end audio manufacturers publicly profess the practice of aging the lead and silver components used in their products, is this a sign that there is truth about radioactivity – especially alpha particles – can affect sound quality?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since Audio Note publicly announced during the 1990’s that they practice aging the silver used in their most expensive tube-based power amplifier for 20 years, almost everyone keeping up with the trends in the hi-fi world instantly showed their skepticism. Especially when all of the silver that was mined during the previous 5,000 years or so was formed countless millions of years before – probably in the nuclear processes of the interior of our present Sun’s predecessor. But a “fortunate few” hi-fi enthusiasts who have a working knowledge of nuclear physics have also voiced their concerns whether the Weinberg - Salam Theory of Weak Interactions has an audible effect on an audio component’s sound quality in a negative way.
Given that the main purpose of aging silver and other metals is to wait out for the unstable radioisotopes present in this metals to decay into something more stable. And since these unstable radioisotopes emit alpha particles when they decay, thus causing interference with the electron flow that makes electronic devices function. Sometimes I wonder though if precious metal mining firms ever used nuclear devices to mine silver inadvertently contaminating the silver with strontium 90, which has a half-life of 29 years.
A case in point is Audio Note’s Ongaku Amplifier – famed for being one of the most expensive tube-based audio power amplifier in the world – is also famous for using silver that has been aged for 20 or more years in the critical components (audio signal processing paths) in it’s construction. Given that this particular amplifier’s price (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) has managed to stay within 250,000 US dollars for the past 13 years can be considered a “sensible” purchase compared to items of it’s ilk.
Pertaining to the silver used in the Audio Note Ongaku Amplifier, it is made up of medically pure silver. Using silver prices back in October 20, 2008 – the last time I checked – at US$ 9.50 an ounce (Troy ounce) or 9.50 dollars per 31.1035 grams in metric. The 9.3 kilograms of silver used in the amplifier costs US$ 2,850. Given that Audio Note aged the silver used in construction of the amp – probably to reduce stray alpha particles since our planet’s interior is naturally radioactive. And given this particular amplifier’s very, very excellent sound quality, the amp’s quarter of a million price tag seems that more reasonable – if you can afford it. Maybe alpha particles and other ionizing radiation can really affect the sound quality of your audio components.
But basing on what is currently known – in reality based on studies done in the 1990’s – vacuum tubes are not easily affected by ionizing radiation. This is the reason why during the Cold War that the Soviet Union seems cavalier when it comes to concerns about the electromagnetic pulse – or EMP – produced by a nuclear explosion “frying” transistorized / solid-state electronic equipment many miles away from the point of detonation. This is so since the Soviets still used vacuum tube-based technology until their collapse in 1991. Vacuum tubes are resistant to EMP onslaught and can be reset if they manage to shut down when an H – Bomb explodes near its vicinity.
So is the use of “aged” silver in vacuum tube-based amplifiers merely just “gilding the lily”? Well, it depends. Given the Audio Note Ongaku’s 250,000 dollar price tag, using 3 grand’s worth of 20 year old (or older) silver – probably sourced from the Hunt Brother’s silver hoard back in 1980 – can serve as a unique selling point for such a luxury item. But since vacuum tubes – especially ones designed during the 1920’s like the 300B – handle very robust signals compared to their transistor / solid-state counterparts, the engineering merits of such design considerations can become controversial. Since good engineering is based on the principle of doing something for a dollar when another person is doing the same thing for five.
Currently, the largest users of silver in the manufacture of “modern” electronic components are digital camera manufacturers. In practice though, audio components using silver tend to have a bright sound – i.e. boosted toward the high frequencies. Since vacuum tube-based amplifiers tend to sound warm in nature, then the use of silver – especially aged ones for consistency and just to be sure – tend to make tube amps sound more natural or balanced.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sounds Above 20,000 Hz: Are They Important to Audiophiles?
Even though a disparagingly large number of people say that only dogs or bats care about sounds about 20,000 Hertz, but is there any truth in this? Does ultrasonic sound belong in hi-fi?
By: Vanessa Uy
Dogs, bats, and those “10-year old Classical Music wünderkinder” are probably the least-explored and exploited high-end audio market on Earth. And yet nobody ever – not even the multinational consumer electronic manufacturers – admit on the mainstream press about how difficult it is to digitally record sound waves with frequencies above 20,000 Hertz. Despite of over 15 years worth of anecdotal evidence among the hi-fi community that sounds above the “supposedly 20 thousand Hertz human audibility limit” or ultrasonic frequency sounds indeed has a bearing on sound quality.
Despite of a widely publicized (or is that declassified?) during the 1990’s US Army research on psycho-acoustics that identified parts of the inner ear capable of detecting airborne sound waves at 80,000 Hertz (four times the oft accepted 20,000 Hertz limit). Many of the biggest sound-equipment manufacturers still kept assuring their customers that sounds with frequencies above our threshold of hearing is of no consequence to their product’s sound quality. But we the audiophile community soldiered on. We even experimented with piezoelectric supertweeters capable of producing airborne sound waves above 20,000 Hertz.
Technically, the problem of digitally recording sound waves with a degree of faithfulness to the original sound or fidelity is no way much easier than the analog recording systems of yore that digital recording intends to replace. Even standard compact discs whose highest frequencies reach only 22,050 Hertz and yet it requires almost 800 megabytes of storage space to save 80 minutes worth of music. SACD s and other high-resolution audio formats whose frequency bandwidth are twice to five times that of redbook CD requires four times the data space, which necessitates the use of a visible-light red laser for playback. Despite the state-of-the-art sound quality and technical tour de force most high-resolution digital music formats have been relegated to the curiosity museum; Either due to lack of promotion or fear of music piracy. Isn’t the cause of music piracy is that the non-audiophiles – i.e. 99.9999% of the population – has wholeheartedly adopted the good enough mentality when it comes to sound quality?
Another problem of the quality improvement in wide-bandwidth digital audio is that most of the sound quality improvement occurs far from the frequency of interest, like SACD s and DVD-Audio recordings of purist acoustic Classical and Jazz music are often praised by audiophiles for their grain-free midrange frequencies and tight bass. Only on music that contains strongly struck cymbals like Heavy Metal Rock Music reissues is the improvement on high-frequency reproduction is noted during listening sessions.
To me, the hi-fi industry today – especially those that are just mere subsidiaries of gigantic consumer electronic companies – will forever be reluctant to promote the concept of audio systems. Especially those capable of faithfully reproducing sounds above 20,000 Hertz because kids, teen-age girls, dogs, bats or anyone with ultrasonic hearing are not so willing to pay the seven digit telephone-number price tags these high-ticket items are likely to be priced. It is one of Mother Nature’s ultimate act of cruelty, by the time you can afford the audio system of your dreams the onset of age-related hearing loss starts to manifest itself. So say goodbye to ultrasonic hearing. Especially once you’ve reached the wrong side of thirty, and no your Veruca Salt CD s are not getting worn down or getting to sound duller.
By: Vanessa Uy
Dogs, bats, and those “10-year old Classical Music wünderkinder” are probably the least-explored and exploited high-end audio market on Earth. And yet nobody ever – not even the multinational consumer electronic manufacturers – admit on the mainstream press about how difficult it is to digitally record sound waves with frequencies above 20,000 Hertz. Despite of over 15 years worth of anecdotal evidence among the hi-fi community that sounds above the “supposedly 20 thousand Hertz human audibility limit” or ultrasonic frequency sounds indeed has a bearing on sound quality.
Despite of a widely publicized (or is that declassified?) during the 1990’s US Army research on psycho-acoustics that identified parts of the inner ear capable of detecting airborne sound waves at 80,000 Hertz (four times the oft accepted 20,000 Hertz limit). Many of the biggest sound-equipment manufacturers still kept assuring their customers that sounds with frequencies above our threshold of hearing is of no consequence to their product’s sound quality. But we the audiophile community soldiered on. We even experimented with piezoelectric supertweeters capable of producing airborne sound waves above 20,000 Hertz.
Technically, the problem of digitally recording sound waves with a degree of faithfulness to the original sound or fidelity is no way much easier than the analog recording systems of yore that digital recording intends to replace. Even standard compact discs whose highest frequencies reach only 22,050 Hertz and yet it requires almost 800 megabytes of storage space to save 80 minutes worth of music. SACD s and other high-resolution audio formats whose frequency bandwidth are twice to five times that of redbook CD requires four times the data space, which necessitates the use of a visible-light red laser for playback. Despite the state-of-the-art sound quality and technical tour de force most high-resolution digital music formats have been relegated to the curiosity museum; Either due to lack of promotion or fear of music piracy. Isn’t the cause of music piracy is that the non-audiophiles – i.e. 99.9999% of the population – has wholeheartedly adopted the good enough mentality when it comes to sound quality?
Another problem of the quality improvement in wide-bandwidth digital audio is that most of the sound quality improvement occurs far from the frequency of interest, like SACD s and DVD-Audio recordings of purist acoustic Classical and Jazz music are often praised by audiophiles for their grain-free midrange frequencies and tight bass. Only on music that contains strongly struck cymbals like Heavy Metal Rock Music reissues is the improvement on high-frequency reproduction is noted during listening sessions.
To me, the hi-fi industry today – especially those that are just mere subsidiaries of gigantic consumer electronic companies – will forever be reluctant to promote the concept of audio systems. Especially those capable of faithfully reproducing sounds above 20,000 Hertz because kids, teen-age girls, dogs, bats or anyone with ultrasonic hearing are not so willing to pay the seven digit telephone-number price tags these high-ticket items are likely to be priced. It is one of Mother Nature’s ultimate act of cruelty, by the time you can afford the audio system of your dreams the onset of age-related hearing loss starts to manifest itself. So say goodbye to ultrasonic hearing. Especially once you’ve reached the wrong side of thirty, and no your Veruca Salt CD s are not getting worn down or getting to sound duller.
Friday, May 16, 2008
The Demystification of Peter W. Belt
He used to be frowned upon by the audio mainstream for his “left field” views during the late 1980’s, Peter Belt’s theories were later proven to be fact as the 1990’s wore on. Will his more “radical views” be proven otherwise with time?
By: Vanessa Uy
Though being labeled as a mystic has its pros and cons, Peter W. Belt could would past muster being called a rock star – albeit the most unconventional one to date. If DJ s were already passing themselves off as rock stars in the 21st Century, shouldn’t people who make listening to recorded music more enjoyable be considered as rock stars too? Anyway, you can consider yourself as a hard core audiophile if you have heard of Peter W. Belt, of his company: PWB Electronics in Leeds, England or of his more “iffy” advises on audio tweaking. But if you’re like me who have found out that over 90% of his radical views have been proven true in first hand experience or have been proven in more technical electronic journals like EMC Test and Design, then consider yourself welcome to the wonderful world of Peter W. Belt. For the sake of the uninitiated, let us discuss first how Peter W. Belt became famous in the hi-fi audio world. Then dissect a number of his relatively “radical” theories and decide for yourself – either through experimentation and or firsthand experience – whether these hold water.
First and foremost, Peter W. Belt is a highly qualified electronics engineer who was able to manufacture and market well-rated electrostatic speaker of his own design and electrostatic headphones during the 1970’s and the 1980’s. But during those times, he’s neither orthodox nor a mainstream part of the hi-fi establishment. The most damning of Peter Belt’s criticism came in the form of his so-called “hi-fi tweaks” that are based on very new and cutting edge electronic theories that have not yet seeped through to the civilian populace. Most damning of all is the fact that almost all of these so-called tweaks are relatively inexpensive, and could make the subjective (i.e. perceived) sound quality of inexpensive audio kit sound magnitudes better than their more costly counterparts with no tweaks applied. And these things made Peter Belt less than welcome with both manufacturers and customers in the hi-fi world during the late 1980’s.
Then the 1990’s rolled along and came with it the first step of the long road to vindication of Peter W. Belt and his theories. As the consumer electronic manufacturing conglomerates – i.e. personal computer and audio gear makers – started to adopt electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) awareness, an aspect of one of Peter Belt’s theories can now be scientifically scrutinized. Belt used to demonstrate in the 1980’s that a small and usually overlooked ambient electromagnetic fields in a typical living / listening room could seriously affect the sound quality of audio gear. So he tried various methods of EMI / RFI (electromagnetic interference / radio-frequency interference) shielding and gasketting i.e. Faraday Cages. These methods did work with varying degrees of effectiveness the problem now is that it is very hard to objectively measure the subjective improvements in sound quality. Unlike the field strengths of EMI / RFI which can be easily measured by a field strength meter in units of V / m (volts per meter). You would need to generate EMI / RFI fields at least 1,000 times the existing ambient field readings in a typical listening room just to measure the interference effects in a typical audio gear via conventional means. This just proves the versatility of the human ear, not to mention the proverbial “golden ears” of typical audio / hi-fi enthusiasts.
The other often referred “radical theory” of Peter W. Belt is on how turning platters – of LP turntables and CD players – can have a noticeable effect on the sound quality of your audio gear. Though I’ve yet to experience first hand those “platter accessories” intended to improve your LP turntable’s sound quality, the ones intended for CD players – like the STATMAT - do improve the unit’s sound quality. The ones marketed for CD player’s works on the principle of limiting the magnitude of static electricity – i.e. triboelectric field suppression – that’s generated when a CD player’s “platter” revolves at high speed. This static suppression devices work for at least two reasons, first of all the active electronics used to process the digital signals being read of the pits and bumps of the CD disk are CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) devices. CMOS devices are very sensitive to static electricity and can even be rendered inoperable – i.e. damaged – by high levels of ESD (electrostatic discharge). We’re talking of ESD here several magnitudes higher than that a typical person generates by walking across a carpet and getting a shock as he or she tries to turn the doorknob. Second, if you are fortunate enough to use a gallium arsenide-based night vision goggles (NVG) to see a helicopter landing at night, you’ll notice that a helicopter rotor generates static electricity of magnitude that’s visible enough to be seen by NVG gear as it lands. You’re CD as it rotates at high speeds inside the player does this too. Even if the electrostatic buildup near your CD player’s laser assembly is not of magnitude that would burn-up the junctions of the CMOS devices, this electrostatic build-up can cause the signals to phase shift 45°, 90°, or even higher. This will cause the absolute phase of the signal appear inverted. These phase anomalies can affect the timing of the music, with relatively disastrous consequences on the quality of the reproduction. The phase and timing issue is probably the most contentious reason that divides the respective merits between analog and digital music, and yet there are mitigating external factors that came into being - especially when it comes to electrostatic build-up in CD replay.
These are just the few aspects of Peter W. Belt’s theories that had been proven so far to have a bearing on sound quality. His views on cryogenically treating audio components have also been proven to be effective. The interconnect I use are of the cryogenically treated variety and I swear by them. Even musical instruments are joining in the cryogenically treated bandwagon. Dan Markley marketed bass guitar strings that are cryogenically treated back in 1992, and many musicians – from heavy metal to jazz musicians – swear by their improved sound quality and consistent feel. Even firearms have joined in the fray. Looks like Peter W. Belt will get his vindication after all.
By: Vanessa Uy
Though being labeled as a mystic has its pros and cons, Peter W. Belt could would past muster being called a rock star – albeit the most unconventional one to date. If DJ s were already passing themselves off as rock stars in the 21st Century, shouldn’t people who make listening to recorded music more enjoyable be considered as rock stars too? Anyway, you can consider yourself as a hard core audiophile if you have heard of Peter W. Belt, of his company: PWB Electronics in Leeds, England or of his more “iffy” advises on audio tweaking. But if you’re like me who have found out that over 90% of his radical views have been proven true in first hand experience or have been proven in more technical electronic journals like EMC Test and Design, then consider yourself welcome to the wonderful world of Peter W. Belt. For the sake of the uninitiated, let us discuss first how Peter W. Belt became famous in the hi-fi audio world. Then dissect a number of his relatively “radical” theories and decide for yourself – either through experimentation and or firsthand experience – whether these hold water.
First and foremost, Peter W. Belt is a highly qualified electronics engineer who was able to manufacture and market well-rated electrostatic speaker of his own design and electrostatic headphones during the 1970’s and the 1980’s. But during those times, he’s neither orthodox nor a mainstream part of the hi-fi establishment. The most damning of Peter Belt’s criticism came in the form of his so-called “hi-fi tweaks” that are based on very new and cutting edge electronic theories that have not yet seeped through to the civilian populace. Most damning of all is the fact that almost all of these so-called tweaks are relatively inexpensive, and could make the subjective (i.e. perceived) sound quality of inexpensive audio kit sound magnitudes better than their more costly counterparts with no tweaks applied. And these things made Peter Belt less than welcome with both manufacturers and customers in the hi-fi world during the late 1980’s.
Then the 1990’s rolled along and came with it the first step of the long road to vindication of Peter W. Belt and his theories. As the consumer electronic manufacturing conglomerates – i.e. personal computer and audio gear makers – started to adopt electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) awareness, an aspect of one of Peter Belt’s theories can now be scientifically scrutinized. Belt used to demonstrate in the 1980’s that a small and usually overlooked ambient electromagnetic fields in a typical living / listening room could seriously affect the sound quality of audio gear. So he tried various methods of EMI / RFI (electromagnetic interference / radio-frequency interference) shielding and gasketting i.e. Faraday Cages. These methods did work with varying degrees of effectiveness the problem now is that it is very hard to objectively measure the subjective improvements in sound quality. Unlike the field strengths of EMI / RFI which can be easily measured by a field strength meter in units of V / m (volts per meter). You would need to generate EMI / RFI fields at least 1,000 times the existing ambient field readings in a typical listening room just to measure the interference effects in a typical audio gear via conventional means. This just proves the versatility of the human ear, not to mention the proverbial “golden ears” of typical audio / hi-fi enthusiasts.
The other often referred “radical theory” of Peter W. Belt is on how turning platters – of LP turntables and CD players – can have a noticeable effect on the sound quality of your audio gear. Though I’ve yet to experience first hand those “platter accessories” intended to improve your LP turntable’s sound quality, the ones intended for CD players – like the STATMAT - do improve the unit’s sound quality. The ones marketed for CD player’s works on the principle of limiting the magnitude of static electricity – i.e. triboelectric field suppression – that’s generated when a CD player’s “platter” revolves at high speed. This static suppression devices work for at least two reasons, first of all the active electronics used to process the digital signals being read of the pits and bumps of the CD disk are CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) devices. CMOS devices are very sensitive to static electricity and can even be rendered inoperable – i.e. damaged – by high levels of ESD (electrostatic discharge). We’re talking of ESD here several magnitudes higher than that a typical person generates by walking across a carpet and getting a shock as he or she tries to turn the doorknob. Second, if you are fortunate enough to use a gallium arsenide-based night vision goggles (NVG) to see a helicopter landing at night, you’ll notice that a helicopter rotor generates static electricity of magnitude that’s visible enough to be seen by NVG gear as it lands. You’re CD as it rotates at high speeds inside the player does this too. Even if the electrostatic buildup near your CD player’s laser assembly is not of magnitude that would burn-up the junctions of the CMOS devices, this electrostatic build-up can cause the signals to phase shift 45°, 90°, or even higher. This will cause the absolute phase of the signal appear inverted. These phase anomalies can affect the timing of the music, with relatively disastrous consequences on the quality of the reproduction. The phase and timing issue is probably the most contentious reason that divides the respective merits between analog and digital music, and yet there are mitigating external factors that came into being - especially when it comes to electrostatic build-up in CD replay.
These are just the few aspects of Peter W. Belt’s theories that had been proven so far to have a bearing on sound quality. His views on cryogenically treating audio components have also been proven to be effective. The interconnect I use are of the cryogenically treated variety and I swear by them. Even musical instruments are joining in the cryogenically treated bandwagon. Dan Markley marketed bass guitar strings that are cryogenically treated back in 1992, and many musicians – from heavy metal to jazz musicians – swear by their improved sound quality and consistent feel. Even firearms have joined in the fray. Looks like Peter W. Belt will get his vindication after all.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Hi – Fi ‘s Green Credentials: More Hype than Myth?
Ever sine electronic or e-waste became an environmental issue due jour, should we hi – fi enthusiast remind everyone again our green our hobby is like we supposedly did 10 or so years ago?
By: Vanessa UY
After seeing a BBC documentary about the sheer amount of plastic waste piling up on the Pacific island of Midway, especially plastic housings of pre-loved personal computers, I asked myself: “Why aren’t there hi – fi related parts out there like the synthetic wood used on good hi-fi speakers?” Another environmental group – Greenpeace – was recently (or is that perennially) vocal about the e-waste issue especially with regard to substances that are dangerous to human health like lead, cadmium, and arsenic used in a typical PC, mobile phones and other mass market PC related product. (Should Greenpeace also lecture to Iraqi insurgents not to use e-wastes as electronic triggers for their IED ‘s, since it’s dangerous to the health of US troops?) But seriously, has anyone wondered why hi-fi enthusiasts are not chucking their pre-loved gear into the garbage bin with similar frenzy as the PC crowd?
Though there are people who refurbish pre-loved PC ‘s, usually these are donated to impoverished parts of the world to promote computer literacy. The person doing the refurbishing is likely not the PC ‘s original owner. When a hi-fi gear becomes obsolete or worse yet “give up the ghost”, their owners either give them away to someone who is new to the hobby (usually a sibling or a very close friend) or cannibalized for the still functional parts if its busted beyond repair. Hi-fi enthusiasts regard their gear with such reverence that the only time you see their audio systems shattered and scattered in the middle of the street is when a 2,000-pound JDAM strays into their listening room. A friend of mine – an unabashed vacuum tube amplifier enthusiast - has his e-mail inbox filled to the brim with request for vacuum tubes, which have lived out their useful lives to be used in an art installation. To me, I even wonder if this is environmentalism or fanaticism.
Even though we never throw away our gear even after becoming obsolete (I’m even hanging on to my great grandmother’s 78 R.P.M. shellacs), our hobby can’t be considered completely green. Those “old school” audio amplifiers are very power hungry – even on standby. But given today’s high cost of grid electricity, most of us are either embracing photo voltaic – storage battery energy systems or are now too busy to listen to more than four hours a week on our audio systems. At least my pre-owned audio interconnect cables are not choking a flock of albatross in the middle of the Pacific.
By: Vanessa UY
After seeing a BBC documentary about the sheer amount of plastic waste piling up on the Pacific island of Midway, especially plastic housings of pre-loved personal computers, I asked myself: “Why aren’t there hi – fi related parts out there like the synthetic wood used on good hi-fi speakers?” Another environmental group – Greenpeace – was recently (or is that perennially) vocal about the e-waste issue especially with regard to substances that are dangerous to human health like lead, cadmium, and arsenic used in a typical PC, mobile phones and other mass market PC related product. (Should Greenpeace also lecture to Iraqi insurgents not to use e-wastes as electronic triggers for their IED ‘s, since it’s dangerous to the health of US troops?) But seriously, has anyone wondered why hi-fi enthusiasts are not chucking their pre-loved gear into the garbage bin with similar frenzy as the PC crowd?
Though there are people who refurbish pre-loved PC ‘s, usually these are donated to impoverished parts of the world to promote computer literacy. The person doing the refurbishing is likely not the PC ‘s original owner. When a hi-fi gear becomes obsolete or worse yet “give up the ghost”, their owners either give them away to someone who is new to the hobby (usually a sibling or a very close friend) or cannibalized for the still functional parts if its busted beyond repair. Hi-fi enthusiasts regard their gear with such reverence that the only time you see their audio systems shattered and scattered in the middle of the street is when a 2,000-pound JDAM strays into their listening room. A friend of mine – an unabashed vacuum tube amplifier enthusiast - has his e-mail inbox filled to the brim with request for vacuum tubes, which have lived out their useful lives to be used in an art installation. To me, I even wonder if this is environmentalism or fanaticism.
Even though we never throw away our gear even after becoming obsolete (I’m even hanging on to my great grandmother’s 78 R.P.M. shellacs), our hobby can’t be considered completely green. Those “old school” audio amplifiers are very power hungry – even on standby. But given today’s high cost of grid electricity, most of us are either embracing photo voltaic – storage battery energy systems or are now too busy to listen to more than four hours a week on our audio systems. At least my pre-owned audio interconnect cables are not choking a flock of albatross in the middle of the Pacific.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Have Video Will Travel
Audiophiles are forever resentful when state-of –the-art video technology become their despotic overlords. Have we seen this coming?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since George Lucas tackled the problem of insufficient sound quality that exists in an overwhelming majority of commercial movie theaters not doing justice of the "soundtrack" i.e. the musical score and sound effects of his masterpiece “Star Wars” back in the late 1970’s. By establishing his THX program and together with Dolby, finally made a new dimension available to the moviegoers – namely good quality sound. I do admit that most horror movie’s “scariness factor” can be dramatically increased when the desolate sonic ambiance of a quiet cemetery or a haunted house can be faithfully recreated inside a movie theater. Thus the excellent results of George Lucas’ THX program was hijacked by the consumer electronics industry to sell their “Home Theater” concept. Maybe “Home Theater” is much easier to sell because the consumer electronics industry can’t figure out how to include pimps, hookers, and cocaine peddling drug dealers when they tried to sell us “Home Disco” back in the late 1970’s.
Despite concerns over high electricity consumption and the ensuing enlargement of my personal “carbon footprint”, my personal disdain – make that cynicism – over the “Home Theater / Surround Sound” industry is largely to my very personal tastes and aesthetics. Most of the “multimedia stuff” I watch domestically are what a majority of people would consider “old”. To be watching a DVD of that old Frank Sinatra version of The Manchurian Candidate or an episode of Coronation Street just four feet in front of a 3,000 dollar 150 inch plasma screen with a THX certified surround sound system is a tad too overkill for me.
The audiophile community has since harbored resentment, not only because the home theater industry made their hobby more expensive than it actually is. But also by actively – I mean actively - perpetuating the fallacy that a good audio system must / should have a large video monitor that costs similar to a budget Japanese car and is surround-sound capable with speakers littered all around the listening room. Now, the pimps, hookers, dealers, and junkies (even Osama Bin Laden?) can now come to your home via the state-of-the-art video monitor. Ok, I’ll admit that it’s a technological “Stepping Stone” to Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “Holodeck” technology. But should we the consumer foot the bill for these companies R&D development? We’re not walking banks you know.
In my opinion, the consumer electronics industry has been exploiting the “video bandwagon” for one thing only – it sells. So if your selling a bona fide “Luxury Item” that most people can really do without, you should exploit the sense that they use most even if not conscientiously – their vision. Video monitors sell so easily because overwhelmingly most people use their sense of sight more than they use their sense of hearing. The “latest technology” catchphrase being used as a unique selling point describing the improved quality of the video monitors that these companies are selling are easily manifest by sight alone. The old adage of “to see is to believe” really applies when it comes to touting the improved quality of the latest models of video monitors that they are trying to sell.
The only thing that bothers me though is the way today’s consumer electronics “marketing men” use the old adage of “to see is to believe” in perpetuating the myth that sound quality is unimportant. They rely on oscilloscopes and PC compatible audio analyzers to show – or make visually manifest - how excellent their latest audio amplifiers perform. They do this even though a tube-based amplifier using technology form an era when Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower was still the president of the United States is more beautiful and real sounding than their latest model. Home Theater as a concept is really great, but it can’t quite compete yet with this thing we call “real life”.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since George Lucas tackled the problem of insufficient sound quality that exists in an overwhelming majority of commercial movie theaters not doing justice of the "soundtrack" i.e. the musical score and sound effects of his masterpiece “Star Wars” back in the late 1970’s. By establishing his THX program and together with Dolby, finally made a new dimension available to the moviegoers – namely good quality sound. I do admit that most horror movie’s “scariness factor” can be dramatically increased when the desolate sonic ambiance of a quiet cemetery or a haunted house can be faithfully recreated inside a movie theater. Thus the excellent results of George Lucas’ THX program was hijacked by the consumer electronics industry to sell their “Home Theater” concept. Maybe “Home Theater” is much easier to sell because the consumer electronics industry can’t figure out how to include pimps, hookers, and cocaine peddling drug dealers when they tried to sell us “Home Disco” back in the late 1970’s.
Despite concerns over high electricity consumption and the ensuing enlargement of my personal “carbon footprint”, my personal disdain – make that cynicism – over the “Home Theater / Surround Sound” industry is largely to my very personal tastes and aesthetics. Most of the “multimedia stuff” I watch domestically are what a majority of people would consider “old”. To be watching a DVD of that old Frank Sinatra version of The Manchurian Candidate or an episode of Coronation Street just four feet in front of a 3,000 dollar 150 inch plasma screen with a THX certified surround sound system is a tad too overkill for me.
The audiophile community has since harbored resentment, not only because the home theater industry made their hobby more expensive than it actually is. But also by actively – I mean actively - perpetuating the fallacy that a good audio system must / should have a large video monitor that costs similar to a budget Japanese car and is surround-sound capable with speakers littered all around the listening room. Now, the pimps, hookers, dealers, and junkies (even Osama Bin Laden?) can now come to your home via the state-of-the-art video monitor. Ok, I’ll admit that it’s a technological “Stepping Stone” to Star Trek: The Next Generation’s “Holodeck” technology. But should we the consumer foot the bill for these companies R&D development? We’re not walking banks you know.
In my opinion, the consumer electronics industry has been exploiting the “video bandwagon” for one thing only – it sells. So if your selling a bona fide “Luxury Item” that most people can really do without, you should exploit the sense that they use most even if not conscientiously – their vision. Video monitors sell so easily because overwhelmingly most people use their sense of sight more than they use their sense of hearing. The “latest technology” catchphrase being used as a unique selling point describing the improved quality of the video monitors that these companies are selling are easily manifest by sight alone. The old adage of “to see is to believe” really applies when it comes to touting the improved quality of the latest models of video monitors that they are trying to sell.
The only thing that bothers me though is the way today’s consumer electronics “marketing men” use the old adage of “to see is to believe” in perpetuating the myth that sound quality is unimportant. They rely on oscilloscopes and PC compatible audio analyzers to show – or make visually manifest - how excellent their latest audio amplifiers perform. They do this even though a tube-based amplifier using technology form an era when Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower was still the president of the United States is more beautiful and real sounding than their latest model. Home Theater as a concept is really great, but it can’t quite compete yet with this thing we call “real life”.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Romancing Black Gate Capacitors
What is it about Black Gate capacitors that installing them in your audio amplifier’s power supply always result in a dramatic improvement in sound quality, or is the perceived improvement just in our heads (and ears) as the current wisdom of meter reading audio engineers attest?
By: Vanessa Uy
Anyone who practices DIY (Do it Yourself) hi-fi surely have come across with one of the audioworld’s most revered electrical components – Black Gate capacitors. Often used as power - supply filtering capacitors in many high – end power audio power amplifiers. Black Gate capacitors especially the “lower cost” Japanese versions manufactured by Rubicon had since become available - as replacement parts sold in electronic parts retail supply stores - to the DIY hi-fi hobbyist. And since their use have sparked the debate between subjective and objective ways of assessing the sound quality of an audio power amplifier. But as hi-fi enthusiasts later knew, other “sections” of the audio chain like the preamplifier / signal controller’s power supply section of a typical audio system. And even the power supply of the CD / DVD or other front - end player will benefit in improved sound quality when their "stock" power supply capacitors are replaced / augmented with Black Gates. But before we proceed further, here’s a brief primer on what are Black Gate capacitors.
Black Gate capacitors are a premium grade of electrolytic polarized capacitors specially constructed as to have a much lower effective series resistance (ESR) or impedance than cheaper electrolytic capacitors. Probably designed and marketed during the latter half of the 1970’s, Black Gate capacitors were probably built by their creators for use in high frequency switching mode power supplies due to their low ESR. But this didn’t deter audiophiles, DIY hi-fi enthusiasts and tweakers from using them on the linear power supplies that convert the ordinary 60 Hz AC household current into the DC used to power audio equipment because it made them sound good. During the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s, almost all Black Gate capacitors were manufactured by a Japanese electrical and electronic manufacturing concern called Rubicon. Rubicon became explicitly linked with these capacitors because at the time – especially in the 1970’s – Japan was still a “low wage” country which was a bit later replaced by Hong Kong and later Taiwan as the low cost production capital of the world. Because Rubicon Black Gate capacitors were relatively cheap, hi-fi enthusiasts freely experimented with them without the feel of burning their wallet if they accidentally “cooked” one. Thus Rubicon Black Gates became the raison d’être of DIY hi-fi.
But by June 1995, Rubicon – the Japanese manufacturer of Black Gate capacitors, has ceased production of the famed premium grade electrolytic capacitors. The move was perceived by hi-fi enthusiasts as being similar to Porsche quitting the manufacture of the 911 because it can’t make them as expensive as Ferrari’s megabuck sports cars. Keith Parker of Rubicon, London, said: “the Black Gates were a 20 - year - old design (in 1995) unsuitable for mass production, so they had to be hand assembled. Many of our newer electrolytics such as PS2, YXB, and YXF perform every bit as well when used properly”. In my experience so far, Rubicon’s PS2, YXB, and YXF electrolytic capacitors are often used in mid-priced (US$500 – US$1,000) DACs (Digital to Analogue Converters) manufactured in 1995 and beyond. Despite of Rubicon ceasing production of Black Gate capacitors, Jelmax, who own the Black Gate design, still manufactures the capacitors albeit at prices much steeper than the Japanese Rubicon versions. These pricier version of Black Gates were often used by Audionote one of the most respected names in tube based audio amplifiers.
In practice, hooking – up Black Gates to your system really does wonders no matter what kind of music you like. I mostly listen to guitar based heavy metal music at unamplified drum kit sound levels, and believe me, they do tend to sound as if the musicians are in front of you. Poorer recordings are redeemed by making them “listenable” over prolonged periods and can even make you conclude that this particular sound is what probably the record engineer / producer (or the artist) intends it to sound. Black Gate capacitors are probably the only tweak you need that makes listening to music more pleasurable without taking psychotropic drugs or anything similar. The bad news is if you bought hundreds of dollars of audio analyzing equipment like the latest ones by Hewlett Packard which can be connected to your Windows Compatible home Personal Computer, the output waveform of your amp remains the same before or after tweaks despite what your ears tell you. Believe me, existing audio analyzing equipment like the one I just described can be “stone deaf” when it comes to sound quality – unless you’re looking for “rogue submarines”. So better spend that money on other stuff like CDs, or give it to charity if it is really burning a hole in your pocket.
By: Vanessa Uy
Anyone who practices DIY (Do it Yourself) hi-fi surely have come across with one of the audioworld’s most revered electrical components – Black Gate capacitors. Often used as power - supply filtering capacitors in many high – end power audio power amplifiers. Black Gate capacitors especially the “lower cost” Japanese versions manufactured by Rubicon had since become available - as replacement parts sold in electronic parts retail supply stores - to the DIY hi-fi hobbyist. And since their use have sparked the debate between subjective and objective ways of assessing the sound quality of an audio power amplifier. But as hi-fi enthusiasts later knew, other “sections” of the audio chain like the preamplifier / signal controller’s power supply section of a typical audio system. And even the power supply of the CD / DVD or other front - end player will benefit in improved sound quality when their "stock" power supply capacitors are replaced / augmented with Black Gates. But before we proceed further, here’s a brief primer on what are Black Gate capacitors.
Black Gate capacitors are a premium grade of electrolytic polarized capacitors specially constructed as to have a much lower effective series resistance (ESR) or impedance than cheaper electrolytic capacitors. Probably designed and marketed during the latter half of the 1970’s, Black Gate capacitors were probably built by their creators for use in high frequency switching mode power supplies due to their low ESR. But this didn’t deter audiophiles, DIY hi-fi enthusiasts and tweakers from using them on the linear power supplies that convert the ordinary 60 Hz AC household current into the DC used to power audio equipment because it made them sound good. During the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s, almost all Black Gate capacitors were manufactured by a Japanese electrical and electronic manufacturing concern called Rubicon. Rubicon became explicitly linked with these capacitors because at the time – especially in the 1970’s – Japan was still a “low wage” country which was a bit later replaced by Hong Kong and later Taiwan as the low cost production capital of the world. Because Rubicon Black Gate capacitors were relatively cheap, hi-fi enthusiasts freely experimented with them without the feel of burning their wallet if they accidentally “cooked” one. Thus Rubicon Black Gates became the raison d’être of DIY hi-fi.
But by June 1995, Rubicon – the Japanese manufacturer of Black Gate capacitors, has ceased production of the famed premium grade electrolytic capacitors. The move was perceived by hi-fi enthusiasts as being similar to Porsche quitting the manufacture of the 911 because it can’t make them as expensive as Ferrari’s megabuck sports cars. Keith Parker of Rubicon, London, said: “the Black Gates were a 20 - year - old design (in 1995) unsuitable for mass production, so they had to be hand assembled. Many of our newer electrolytics such as PS2, YXB, and YXF perform every bit as well when used properly”. In my experience so far, Rubicon’s PS2, YXB, and YXF electrolytic capacitors are often used in mid-priced (US$500 – US$1,000) DACs (Digital to Analogue Converters) manufactured in 1995 and beyond. Despite of Rubicon ceasing production of Black Gate capacitors, Jelmax, who own the Black Gate design, still manufactures the capacitors albeit at prices much steeper than the Japanese Rubicon versions. These pricier version of Black Gates were often used by Audionote one of the most respected names in tube based audio amplifiers.
In practice, hooking – up Black Gates to your system really does wonders no matter what kind of music you like. I mostly listen to guitar based heavy metal music at unamplified drum kit sound levels, and believe me, they do tend to sound as if the musicians are in front of you. Poorer recordings are redeemed by making them “listenable” over prolonged periods and can even make you conclude that this particular sound is what probably the record engineer / producer (or the artist) intends it to sound. Black Gate capacitors are probably the only tweak you need that makes listening to music more pleasurable without taking psychotropic drugs or anything similar. The bad news is if you bought hundreds of dollars of audio analyzing equipment like the latest ones by Hewlett Packard which can be connected to your Windows Compatible home Personal Computer, the output waveform of your amp remains the same before or after tweaks despite what your ears tell you. Believe me, existing audio analyzing equipment like the one I just described can be “stone deaf” when it comes to sound quality – unless you’re looking for “rogue submarines”. So better spend that money on other stuff like CDs, or give it to charity if it is really burning a hole in your pocket.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
High Definition Multimedia Content Anyone?
Does the latest generation of downloadable high definition (HD) multimedia content worth viewing and hearing in our dedicated HD-ready home theater set-ups?
By: Vanessa Uy
Nowadays, HD (high definition) multimedia content (audio and video) that can be downloaded from the net via your own home PC is of such quality that most of them-if not all- deserve to be viewed and heard in your existing HD-ready home theater system. If you’re like me – as most of anyone in the audiophile community- who thinks that your PC and home theater system should not mix (i.e. share the same outlet) because the former can degrade the performance of the latter must face a somewhat insurmountable problem. How to send that high definition movie -with the attendant surround sound data- that you legally downloaded from the net, from your PC to your home theater set up?
There are a number of systems in which you can deliver/send that HD content you have downloaded from the web. One of them is a relatively new technology - which uses your mains/ac line to send your data. Consumer devices that utilize this principle of sending data only came to the market near the end of 1997. So the ones currently available in your local AV/computer store not only works better, it’s likely to be cheaper as well thanks to almost ten years of progress. This has the advantage of avoiding the clutter that can be created when installing the necessary data-transfer cables. The problem with this system is that if you own a state-of-the-art home theater system, you probably bought with it a very good dedicated mains/ac line filter to maintain the consistently good performance of your home theater system while protecting it from electrical interference and lightning strikes. The same mains/ac line conditioner blocks the digital data that you intend to send down your mains/ac lines. Another way to send your multimedia data while avoiding the clutter of additional cables is via WIFI or wireless data transfer systems. The current generation of WIFI systems can easily handle the bandwidth required in sending HD multimedia content but will be easily vulnerable to signal interference especially if you use your mobile phone while using the WIFI system. If you want to maintain signal integrity while transferring HD multimedia data, Ethernet networks are a good choice. A word of warning though because these systems involve additional wiring if you are squeamish about the clutter factor. The latest “Cat 6” or category 6 high speed Ethernet connections are a good choice and could be a very good investment because of it’s future proof status. This is due to the fact that it can handle data transfer speeds of 10 Gigabits per second and anything faster is yet in the far off future.
I just hope that the circa-2007 PC and AV convergence will bear the fruits of a better audio and video quality that doesn’t cost the earth. Unlike the divergence of 10 or 15 years ago were hi-fi manufacturers have the luxury of producing and selling obscenely expensive AV equipment with impunity. Since all of our present media formats are digital in one form or another, convergence is inevitable due to the fact that digital data is both robust and universal.
By: Vanessa Uy
Nowadays, HD (high definition) multimedia content (audio and video) that can be downloaded from the net via your own home PC is of such quality that most of them-if not all- deserve to be viewed and heard in your existing HD-ready home theater system. If you’re like me – as most of anyone in the audiophile community- who thinks that your PC and home theater system should not mix (i.e. share the same outlet) because the former can degrade the performance of the latter must face a somewhat insurmountable problem. How to send that high definition movie -with the attendant surround sound data- that you legally downloaded from the net, from your PC to your home theater set up?
There are a number of systems in which you can deliver/send that HD content you have downloaded from the web. One of them is a relatively new technology - which uses your mains/ac line to send your data. Consumer devices that utilize this principle of sending data only came to the market near the end of 1997. So the ones currently available in your local AV/computer store not only works better, it’s likely to be cheaper as well thanks to almost ten years of progress. This has the advantage of avoiding the clutter that can be created when installing the necessary data-transfer cables. The problem with this system is that if you own a state-of-the-art home theater system, you probably bought with it a very good dedicated mains/ac line filter to maintain the consistently good performance of your home theater system while protecting it from electrical interference and lightning strikes. The same mains/ac line conditioner blocks the digital data that you intend to send down your mains/ac lines. Another way to send your multimedia data while avoiding the clutter of additional cables is via WIFI or wireless data transfer systems. The current generation of WIFI systems can easily handle the bandwidth required in sending HD multimedia content but will be easily vulnerable to signal interference especially if you use your mobile phone while using the WIFI system. If you want to maintain signal integrity while transferring HD multimedia data, Ethernet networks are a good choice. A word of warning though because these systems involve additional wiring if you are squeamish about the clutter factor. The latest “Cat 6” or category 6 high speed Ethernet connections are a good choice and could be a very good investment because of it’s future proof status. This is due to the fact that it can handle data transfer speeds of 10 Gigabits per second and anything faster is yet in the far off future.
I just hope that the circa-2007 PC and AV convergence will bear the fruits of a better audio and video quality that doesn’t cost the earth. Unlike the divergence of 10 or 15 years ago were hi-fi manufacturers have the luxury of producing and selling obscenely expensive AV equipment with impunity. Since all of our present media formats are digital in one form or another, convergence is inevitable due to the fact that digital data is both robust and universal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
