why lower noise? how low noise and lower distortion relate.
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
thanks Frank, i did miss understand your intent. to show you how i feel about digital, here is a post i made last Friday on an Audiogon thread about CD verses Vinyl.
i'll add that i've always enjoyed CD, PCM in general, and of course, SACD and DSD. i'm not sure when i expressed any different feelings. i've always had SOTA digital in my system because i like digital and want to hear it at it's best.
it's only been when people make relative claims regarding how digital compares to analog/vinyl (particularly without a proper vinyl reference) that i get my hackles up.
I think it was a general discussion of TT versus CD, where you mentioned that at the time there was no real comparison between the two. I haven't used analogue since CD started in the early 80's, which doesn't mean I haven't experienced good vinyl sound in the interim. I have also heard some very expensive, and pretty dreadful, vinyl sound. My overall opinion is that all formats are capable of delivering truly amazing sound, but CD is harder, quite a bit harder to get just right. Which has been the experience of many other people as well, of course.
To answer Steve as well here, with vinyl even when it's not at its best there is a certain soothing, smooth quality that goes with the medium, that makes it almost always very listenable. On the other hand, with digital, if you sort out some of the issues, but not all of them, then it perversely starts to sound worse! So often people back off and soften the sound with the numerous well known fixes, tubes, special IC's, etc.
In my experience this is the wrong technique. You have to persist with the tweaks and suchlike which make the sound sharper, more in your face, more gratingly over detailed. This seems unreasonable and quite dumb really, but there is a "magic" moment when the last "problem" is overcome and, yes, the sound suddenly snaps together: huge soundstage, the detail of live music, and all the dynamics you could ask for, without losing the "smoothness" of good analogue!
Frank
On the contrary!! I was with Mike when he discovered that his footers needed to be disturbed every once in a while because they settle and lose their "mojo". The tweaks that he used under almost every piece of equipment does not make the music more gratingly over detailed and in your face. After massaging the footers, the music became more involving, more detailed but gentle, and listening was easier and the music flowed better as a performance.
I think that Frank just isn't there yet if sorting out issues in digital the sound starts to sound worse. Just like it is darkest before the dawn, with a lot of systems, it may get worse before it gets better if you are not yet over the hurdle. I know a lot of audiophiles who are not yet over the hump, and switch out equipment exploring the limits without making it over and getting to the other side.
Mike's system is so far over the hurdle that there is no way that you can appreciate that until you go and listen. There was a time that I avoided going to Mike's despite me liking him personally. That was because his room (while it was raved over by a LOT of people) gave me a blinding headache. No longer. The last time I was there, it was several hours before we noticed how late in the night it was, and I had to leave.
Gary is being his typical modest self.
not only was Gary there when i discovered that....he was the one who suggested i try 'disturbing' the footers and that they had settled and lost their 'mojo'. my system 'magic' was somehow different to Gary's ears compared to how it had sounded a month prior, and i had changed nothing. but while i had become accustomed to the sound as it slowly changed, Gary could hear what was missing.
2 years ago, Gary did measurements in my room (waterfall plots) that showed me the bass decay was being cut off. that was an important point of departure for me in my room development as it opened my eyes to some issues which i had heard but not defined.
Gary is one of the people who's help has been very important in taking my room and system to another level. i've been lucky to have a few very smart (and forthright) friends.
I would think the footers would effect the noise level and as far as the digital hash, I would think that could be a distortion problem or power source. Anymore I shy away from making too many changes at the same time because if the system steps backward it can be unsettling to get it back.Luckily that doesn't happen too much anymore.
I can relate fully on how little things can make a difference. My 350's sound wonderful but during the break in the gain has changed over the last month. So I have adjusted it and sometimes during the changes I have had to back it off a full increment because it can overdrive my preamp and when that happens it sounds a little bright. This is using these tape preamps to feed my digital signal,but 440 doesn't have the same problem.
It's all fun,but it's a big relief when you can be happy with your system. I'm glad to have my 1/2 inch studer because it serves as a pretty good reference.
I can relate fully on how little things can make a difference. My 350's sound wonderful but during the break in the gain has changed over the last month. So I have adjusted it and sometimes during the changes I have had to back it off a full increment because it can overdrive my preamp and when that happens it sounds a little bright. This is using these tape preamps to feed my digital signal,but 440 doesn't have the same problem.
It's all fun,but it's a big relief when you can be happy with your system. I'm glad to have my 1/2 inch studer because it serves as a pretty good reference.
I was thinking about this noise/distortion experience and although they are different they are joined at the hip. Until I did everything possible to reduce the noise floor, I never had any idea about what reduced distortion could mean about the signature of the music in my system. The sound now is so natural and really beautiful. I can't wait to turn it on in the morning.
I'm just repeating what Mike and others are saying, although I don't use footers and have a lot of money invested, I think most can acheive this level of sound,it just takes work and not neccessarily a lot of money.
I'm just repeating what Mike and others are saying, although I don't use footers and have a lot of money invested, I think most can acheive this level of sound,it just takes work and not neccessarily a lot of money.
We are on the same wavelegth, Gary, I know exactly where you and Mike are. I was trying to get over that hurdle back in the mid 80's, when the level of knowledge and communication was vastly less than now; it became so frustrating that I gave it away for many, many years. So when I talk of digital starting to sound worse this is largely a historical thing, but not really for most people out there. You see, you mentioned the blinding headache in Mike's room, and that wouldn't have been that long ago. These are the classic symptoms of digital being almost, almost there ... but there's something, possibly quite small getting in the way of really satisfying sound.
I know this infuriates people like Tim and mep, but the technique I use to track down where problems are, are to put on the "nastiest", most aggressive recordings at high volumes. If I can listen to a huge soundstage on these, with no apparent harshness at all then I know I'm in good shape.
With regard to the footers, this to me is an issue that is not strictly to do with the digital side, more of a general system refinement ...
Frank
Unfortunately, very unfortunately, some of the keys ones may involve doing the sort of things that TUC has become notorious for. In other words, taking off the covers and fiddling with the insides. It all depends how well the manufacturer has already addressed some of the issues that modding deals with, so every situation is different ...
The best approach, as a general rule, is to treat the digital gear as a very, very fragile species. So eliminate all vibration getting to it, and make sure the boxes are placed on highly effective damping material or supports. You want absolutely zero movement, for any reason, for the components.
Another key thing is to isolate the digital gear's power supply to an extremely high degree from everything else: separate spur just for the digital, the best power conditioner used exclusively for the digital. You want zero interference being fed into the digital gear, and zero interference going back out from the digital circuitry.
These may seem extreme to a lot of people, but if you can't easily fix things on the inside of the equipment this is the next best approach. I'm sure you have most of this occurring in some fashion anyway, but if you can improve any aspect of it you should reap rewards.
Frank
Last edited:
Steve-And there you have your answer. Reminds me of the Who’s Tommy album where wicked Uncle Ernie is fiddling about.
In reading Mike's note, it seems that not only did he give his feet some TLC, but they were removed from under the component, ergo that it would be hard to place them exactly back in the same position. I find that placement of the Wave Kinetics footers under gear, down to the mm, is crucial. And that "magic" anti-resonance spots will obviously vary from component to component as Doug Blackwell, inventor of the VPI brick, told me 25 years ago
What I find interesting though, is that some of the noise, the ear can filter out with extended listening and it is only when it's not there, that we notice it. Perhaps it's the old Jon Dahlquist hypothesis that the ear accomodates to the noise if there's no particular emphasis in any frequency range?
FYI, that's why I've been switching back and forth between the Wave Kinetics footers and Kevin Tellekamp's SRA Iso bases. With Kevin's custom designed bases, eg. matched for each component, there is a shockingly serious decrease in the noise floor of every component (obviously tts and then find amps, preamp and then phono stage in that order; yes, it's shocking that the phono is at the bottom of the list and don't understand why) along with far better dynamics and transparency. I jrecently installed a SRA base underneath my GAT (remember it only has two tubes) and the increase in dynamics was extraordinary; in fact, nothing short of almost buying another component. To my ears, it's this drop in noise that allows more of the music to emerge. Interestingly, years ago, designers took a wrong turn in trying to increase resolution by boosting the upper midrange leading to that term "high definition." I think that through the use of better parts, redesigned circuit boards and shorter path lengths, etc, designers have seriously lowered the noise floor of equipment. VTL, cj, ARC esp. come to mind being a tube connoisseur
Last edited:
Interesting thread. When I read a thread where someone comments upon listening to a new component/tweak- 'the noise floor was lowered', I implicitly add [I perceived it as], in the same way that when I'm developing a new cable and think 'the bass is more extended and tauter', but realize that upon measurement, I'll find no discernible measurable differences. Regardless, in single blind testing, those subjective differences are still there.
From my perspective, the problem is not that those subjective differences don't exist, but that we use language in our descriptions that are simply not borne out via objective testing. I do use various isolation/coupling/damping devices under my components, and would certainly agree that the subjective results are a lower noise floor, better extension, etc.... but conclude that the problem is that our perceptions do not jibe with what one would assume are the objective [linguistic] equivalents. Sadly, objectivists and subjectivists are forever separated by a common language.
FWIW,
Paul
KaplanCable.com
From my perspective, the problem is not that those subjective differences don't exist, but that we use language in our descriptions that are simply not borne out via objective testing. I do use various isolation/coupling/damping devices under my components, and would certainly agree that the subjective results are a lower noise floor, better extension, etc.... but conclude that the problem is that our perceptions do not jibe with what one would assume are the objective [linguistic] equivalents. Sadly, objectivists and subjectivists are forever separated by a common language.
FWIW,
Paul
KaplanCable.com
In reading Mike's note, it seems that not only did he give his feet some TLC, but they were removed from under the component, ergo that it would be hard to place them exactly back in the same position. I find that placement of the Wave Kinetics footers under gear, down to the mm, is crucial. And that "magic" anti-resonance spots will obviously vary from component to component as Doug Blackwell, inventor of the VPI brick, told me 25 years ago
I think that you are absolutely right. The placement of the footers under the component may have contributed to the effect as well. However, I think that in that case, the TLC contributed more than the placement difference as I was remembering a "magic" that I had heard a month or more earlier that I missed in the sound of the system then. Then, after the TLC, the magic returned. The way the Wave Kinetics footers are designed, the heavier the piece of equipment, the more often you have to massage them.
One possibility is that the transformer in the amp/preamp/phonostage is causing the chassis to vibrate. With almost everything, I've found that putting a single spike directly under the bolt that secures the transformer, and two more footers (can be different types) somewhere else to balance it off to be highly beneficial. The spike directly couples the transformer to the rack/stand and "drains" the vibrations off, two other types of footers somewhere else take care of balancing the chassis and/or draining other vibrations.
Interesting aside: Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far -*- oops, sorry it was this galaxy! Anyway, while checking out a customer's system I noticed a lot of rumble from the TT and suggested he use the rumble filter. That particular filter was down 3 dB at about 15 Hz, falling rapidly after that. After switching it on, I immediately felt like the system sounded much better without all that LF "hash" and the measured THD/IMD decreased significantly as the amp and speakers were no longer trying to amplify the noise. It felt and sounded like a low-grade headache that had just gone away. As I was basking in the change and preparing to accept the accolades from the customer over the much cleaner sound, he said "what happened to all my bass?"
Anyway, while checking out a customer's system I noticed a lot of rumble from the TT and suggested he use the rumble filter. That particular filter was down 3 dB at about 15 Hz, falling rapidly after that. After switching it on, I immediately felt like the system sounded much better without all that LF "hash" and the measured THD/IMD decreased significantly as the amp and speakers were no longer trying to amplify the noise. It felt and sounded like a low-grade headache that had just gone away. As I was basking in the change and preparing to accept the accolades from the customer over the much cleaner sound, he said "what happened to all my bass?"
In reading Mike's note, it seems that not only did he give his feet some TLC, but they were removed from under the component, ergo that it would be hard to place them exactly back in the same position. I find that placement of the Wave Kinetics footers under gear, down to the mm, is crucial. And that "magic" anti-resonance spots will obviously vary from component to component as Doug Blackwell, inventor of the VPI brick, told me 25 years ago
What I find interesting though, is that some of the noise, the ear can filter out with extended listening and it is only when it's not there, that we notice it. Perhaps it's the old Jon Dahlquist hypothesis that the ear accomodates to the noise if there's no particular emphasis in any frequency range?
FYI, that's why I've been switching back and forth between the Wave Kinetics footers and Kevin Tellekamp's SRA Iso bases. With Kevin's custom designed bases, eg. matched for each component, there is a shockingly serious decrease in the noise floor of every component (obviously tts and then find amps, preamp and then phono stage in that order; yes, it's shocking that the phono is at the bottom of the list and don't understand why) along with far better dynamics and transparency. I jrecently installed a SRA base underneath my GAT (remember it only has two tubes) and the increase in dynamics was extraordinary; in fact, nothing short of almost buying another component. To my ears, it's this drop in noise that allows more of the music to emerge. Interestingly, years ago, designers took a wrong turn in trying to increase resolution by boosting the upper midrange leading to that term "high definition." I think that through the use of better parts, redesigned circuit boards and shorter path lengths, etc, designers have seriously lowered the noise floor of equipment. VTL, cj, ARC esp. come to mind being a tube connoisseur
Myles,
you make some good points.
i have experimented with moving the A10 U8's around under both the dart pre and dart amp, both of which are quite heavy. the exact placement of the A10 U8's does not seem to have any audible difference, whereas the number seems to be significant. my opinion is that the casework on the swiss made darTZeel electronics is particularly robust, very thick and reinforced insde with cross bracing. so you don't have the chassis flex that typical gear might have.
i'll contrast that with the Conrad Johnson LP140M monoblocks i took in trade and had in my room for the last 2 months. the aluminum sheeting used for those amps was much more sensitive to footer placement and there was a more normal flex in the chassis. of course the dart single stereo amp is double to price of the CJ monos.....so you should get that higher build quality. i say that because i know you use the same family amp and preamp of those CJ amps i had.
so placement of isolation footers is not a universal issue. the significance of it varies from product to product.
I use CMS Filters that come with interface discs. I had my guys switch amps for me and for about a week, things just didn't seem right. There was something dead about the presentation. By pure chance as I was directing the installation of a new painting at the front of the room, I saw that the amps' rear feet weren't on the rear interfaces. After putting them back on, the presentation returned to what I had become accustomed to with that amp and speaker combo. Problematic but not dead Go figure.
Go figure.
Absolutely Gary! That's also in part why co's such as cj isolate their circuit boards from the chassis as best as one can. One might wonder why cj doesn't put the GAT's power supply in a separate box--though some designers feels that outboard power supplies are not without their own set of issues!
And think about normal tube amps with one big power power transformer and two ouptput transformers
Yes that sheet metal resonance of esp. the cj amps does bother me. Even my ARTs have that ringing quality and if not for my cats, would remove the tube cables and get rid of part of that issue. Have thought about damping the cj chassis but as all of us know, damping can be hit or miss. Too much is as bad as too little.
Absolutely Gary! That's also in part why co's such as cj isolate their circuit boards from the chassis as best as one can. One might wonder why cj doesn't put the GAT's power supply in a separate box--though some designers feels that outboard power supplies are not without their own set of issues!
And think about normal tube amps with one big power power transformer and two ouptput transformers
Yes, outboard power supplies have a whole new set of issues. I'm still perfecting the umbilical between the power supply and the amplifier with my Reference Amps. What part of the power supply do you put outboard? Just the transformer? The transformer plus the rectification? Half the power supply caps? 90%? They all result in different issues that need to be addressed.
When I designed a tube amp, I isolated the power transformer from the output transformer, and the circuitry and tubes were further isolated from both. Every step taken reduces noise from eddy currents in the magnetic parts of the chassis induced by the transformers. Even changing from steel screws to brass screws mounting the circuit board makes a difference.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |