I would like to try your Akiko in my system. I backed out of buying one for now... I am 99% sure I won't hear any difference. But it doesn't hurt to try!
The DIY'rs Cookbook
- Thread starter johnjen
- Start date
I would like to try your Akiko in my system. I backed out of buying one for now... I am 99% sure I won't hear any difference. But it doesn't hurt to try!
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
When I used the triple canister it took a while (1-2hrs of listening) to be noticeable and what I heard was hard to attribute to just the canister.
And unplugging it took ≈15-30 minutes before the 'effect' wore off.
This makes it really difficult to tell if there are any real gains, or not.
Mostly because it takes ≈ at least 1/2hr for the SQ of the system itself to settle down and reach that 1st plateau where everything clicks into place.
And if the system is still settling in after any changes (cables, warm up, etc.) this further exacerbates being able to tell what is what.
But one thing to try is to connect it directly to your dac.
I figure you'll hear changes much more readily that way.
Of course if the triple canister is 'on a demo' then jury rigging a way to connect it to the ground of the dac will require a bit of creative fussing with the wires etc.
I used a jumbo alligator clip to grab the 'u' ground connector on the power plug and the #1 pin on a 3 pin xlr to go to ground on an unused input.
That way I didn't damage or mess with the triple canister's 'stock' setup.
JJ
I left my main setup playing music at a low level for the last day and a half, with the single AC tuning stick connected to my passive distribution block.
In the last hour or so I've become aware of some small and subtle changes. The most notable is in the shimmer and definition of a wire brush on cymbals ... which has gone from being "one sound" to, for want of a better description, hearing the individual strands caressing the bronze/brass.
As you say, it's hard to know for sure if this is, specifically, down to the Akiko stick, but the system was fully warmed up, and the music is something I'm ridiculously familiar with, and having removed the stick the "effect" went away - though oddly not all at once.
After hearing this, I took the headphones off for 15 minutes (letting them continue playing) to try and let them cool a little and let any heat/moisture related acoustic coupling of the cans and air between them and my ear drums dissipate (one of your theories about the "superglue" effect that makes sense to me). The effect remained when I put them back on.
I considered the idea, at first, that the additional couple of hours of usage on my week-old set of Abyss headphones was the cause of this effect (i.e. additional burn-in time), but if that was the case the effect shouldn't have gone away when I disconnected the stick.
This is all intriguing to say the least. It's also highly unexpected and, to my more scientific/engineering sensibilities, more than a little disconcerting (comments to the effect of "Quantum equilibrium thermo-bollocks!" come to mind). Maybe it's all placebo. Those brushes sure do have some detail to them now though!
Another day of this and if the effect persists I shall likely try the triple AC unit and maybe one of the XLR or "universal" units.
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
So if you want to 'emphasize' those micro-details, connect the triple canister directly to the dac's ground as I mentioned above.
Right now I've jury rigged an Akiko USB stick to both my amp and dac's ground, in a 'Y' configuration.
I'm glad it didn't cause a ground loop condition.
This is a single wire mini stick (like 1/3rd of a single wire stick)
This test also brings out those same micro details, though not to the same degree as the previous setup using a double and triple stick and this USB stick.
This test also brings out much more of a pronounced improvement than using the USB stick in an unused usb slot in the back of my mac.
All of this reinforces my supposition that the closer these ground noise piezo sponges are to the sources of noise, the better.
And part of this may be the fact that I have a Wyrd in between my Mac and the dac which acts as a 'buffer'.
And those brushes and other upper mids that now have a greater degree of micro detail are exactly what I'd expect to hear if the noise floor is lowered/cleaned up, by a piezo electric effect if, this is truly what is happening.
As for the 'Quantum Tunneling into a lowered energy state via a tachion pairing function'… :atsmile:
Indeed when the prose is long on nonsensical gibberish and short on a realistic explanation, I usually just pass on by…
So I try not to let the marketing dept sway me one way or the other and instead just try to discern IF there really is a change.
Then I try to figure out what I hear from these changes and what are the parameters they operate under.
And along the way determine if the changes truly are 'Better', or not.
JJ
Right now I've jury rigged an Akiko USB stick to both my amp and dac's ground, in a 'Y' configuration.
I'm glad it didn't cause a ground loop condition.
This is a single wire mini stick (like 1/3rd of a single wire stick)
This test also brings out those same micro details, though not to the same degree as the previous setup using a double and triple stick and this USB stick.
This test also brings out much more of a pronounced improvement than using the USB stick in an unused usb slot in the back of my mac.
All of this reinforces my supposition that the closer these ground noise piezo sponges are to the sources of noise, the better.
And part of this may be the fact that I have a Wyrd in between my Mac and the dac which acts as a 'buffer'.
And those brushes and other upper mids that now have a greater degree of micro detail are exactly what I'd expect to hear if the noise floor is lowered/cleaned up, by a piezo electric effect if, this is truly what is happening.
As for the 'Quantum Tunneling into a lowered energy state via a tachion pairing function'… :atsmile:
Indeed when the prose is long on nonsensical gibberish and short on a realistic explanation, I usually just pass on by…
So I try not to let the marketing dept sway me one way or the other and instead just try to discern IF there really is a change.
Then I try to figure out what I hear from these changes and what are the parameters they operate under.
And along the way determine if the changes truly are 'Better', or not.
JJ
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 15 The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’
The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’,
This missive is gunna be a little different, ok so a lot different…
I’m starting it out with an hour long Utube video about a dichotomy that has ‘resurfaced’ within the traditional physics community.
It, as the video will present, addresses an age old duality that many have thought was settled, as in dead and buried, except it isn’t dead at all.
It centers around materialism that has been the ‘preferred’ underlying assumption of the make up of our understanding (construct) of our reality,
Of The Way Of Things.
There has always been a diametrically opposite (as in mutually exclusive) model of,
The Way Of Things.
The video calls it The Simulation Hypothesis.
Or as it has been known, the Plato vs. Democritus dichotomy/duality of Idealism vs Materialism, dating back several thousand years to the ancient Greeks.
This duality can also be characterized as Materialism vs Consciousness as the root of,
The Way Of Things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M
So why start out with this?
After you watch it for at least 10 minutes (and I couldn’t stop there, either…
) you’ll get most of the point I’m making here.
Which is, many of the precepts we use, and assume(d) to be true, are not necessarily accurate.
In fact, as has been the case for many thousands of years, many other cultures ascribe to the Consciousness model in a variety of ways.
I bring this up 1st because many people still rigidly cling to a materialistic viewpoint.
And it’s not to say that this perspective is all ‘wrong’,
but it is to say that it isn’t ‘correct’ as well.
IOW if, as I understand it, Consciousness is primary, all of observable reality (the domain of science) is a consequence or subset of what consciousness deals with, affects, and creates.
Another way of perceiving this is to view this split between these 2 ‘sides’ as to what is more fundamental to our reality, both general and personal,
our awareness of what and who we are,
or the stuff that makes up our reality.
Because if our conscious awareness is more fundamental, then the results we get from experimenting and trying to figure out what this stuff we deal with truly is, indeed if it forms and shapes that very stuff, then I submit our conscious awareness (perceptions and feelings and understandings etc.) will help determine what our reality is FOR US, and all those who understand it in a similar way.
This in turn means others can and DO have a different understanding of their world, which of course may or may not have much if any similarity to our own.
BOTH are equally correct FOR THEM (and those who share similar beliefs and a common conscious awareness) and for us.
IOW the makeup of the reality of our own world is in part shaped and determined by our conscious awareness, along with how it interacts with all those ‘others’ we interact with as well.
So what’s ANY of this got to do with tunes, I can hear someone mumbling in the back row…
I’ll fold this into the rest of this topic in a bit.
Think experience as a major, indeed a primary input to our continually increasing awareness.
But next up is…
The dichotomy of The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’, as I have come to understand it, is really lopsided.
Let me explain what I mean by that.
The usual perspective is that on one side there is the subjectivist POV.
This orientation doesn’t care about numbers or even a pretense of objectivity, mostly because they hear and respond to the music as it occurs without thinking or dealing with these analytical aspects.
Why?
Because it ‘gets in the way’ of the enjoyment, of the passion, of the emotional content that is delivered in real time.
Thinking or applying the minds analytic prowess just gets in the way of this direct involvement WITH the music.
And it’s completely unnecessary to actually listening to music.
Indeed some would call it a hinderance, to NOT be able to turn off the minds incessant mental chatter and just be in the moment while being immersed in the music.
And on the other hand the objectivist view point is all about trying to quantify the experience, the equipment, the means of delivery of the music, and most significantly how to improve any and all of the above. Because this is THE tool that we have that is most effective in making improvements of any kind to the equipment, the delivery, and yes even to our understanding of the experience itself.
But see, this is where it gets complicated and is usually what gets left out of the ‘equation’.
Objective data or results HAVE TO be ‘evaluated’, HAVE TO be put into context, HAVE TO be assigned a subjective measure, in order to be useful, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
HUH?
Is 0.001% distortion always better than 0.01%?
How about 0.0001% or 0.00001%?
Case in point, tubes even when done really well will almost always measure with higher distortion than a SS circuit.
But which would you prefer, which is ‘Better’?
Well, that depends now doesn’t it?
And really what it comes down to is, does 0.001% sound ‘better’ than 0.01%?
In some cases yes, and in other cases, no.
So this immediately reveals a subjective ‘layer’ to the objectivist reality.
Which means that the data alone, without a subjective evaluation, has no meaning, no context from and within which, for us to know what the numbers mean.
Is 0.001% ‘better’ than 0.01%?
IOW the objective perspective is but a subset of the subjective.
Because without the added subjective meaning, such as the determination of ‘better’, the data alone, is meaningless when it comes to using it.
Put another way we can ‘operate’ completely independently of the objective perspective while being in the subjective mode.
The reverse cannot be said to be true, at all.
We can’t exist in an objectivist reality independent and devoid of the subjective because it has no meaning.
It’s got lots of data, lots of numbers and such but without an evaluation of what it all means, without determining the relationship between how much vs what is ‘Better’, it has no useful association to us.
Indeed, we can tell if we prefer device A over B completely independently of whatever numbers are associated with either device.
IOW the numbers are not the final arbiter of whether 0.001% is ‘better’ than 0.01%, or not, because we determine what is an improvement, what is ‘better’ which is a completely subjective determination.
Which means that in the end the objectivist perspective is reliant and dependent upon a subject choice.
It’s the old quantity vs. quality duality but with a twist, because we need to use both to make changes (hopefully) with the intent that they actually are improvements.
But we are the final arbiters, aren’t we?
As in,
I like this,
except…
but only…
only for…
only while…
this sounds like a**…
etc…
But we do use both whether it is recognized or even appreciated, or not, because they, much like any yin-yang situation where it takes both sides to be ‘effective’ and operate in a balanced way, are useful and indeed tied together.
We wouldn’t have the audio systems we enjoy today if the objectivist’s methods weren’t effective, nor would we have these very same systems if our subjective evaluatory effectiveness were not utilized to the extent it is either.
IOW after changes are implemented, then we decide if they are ‘Better’,
Or not.
So if the Objectivist needs the Subjectivist and visa versa, then what is the best way for them to ‘help’ each other?
This gets back to that video at the start of this missive.
If ones conscious awareness is adamant or rigidly defined with a particular bent, that in turn not only defines that reality but it is shaped by it as well.
IOW what you believe is what you get.
Well sort of, because beliefs can, do and MUST change.
Cosmic law or sumpt’n…
And the way it works is these discrepancies will keep popping up in order to get resolved.
More cosmic law or rules or sumpt’n…
Which also means if a strict subjectivist’s understanding says objectivists are wrong, then that colors their reality.
Conversely if an objectivist defines the subjectivist view point as an aberration or ‘trick of the mind’ etc, etc. that also colors their reality.
And I submit neither is ‘correct’, nor really helpful, nor productive.
It also needs to be noted that subjectivity, and consciousness itself requires experience.
It is THE means to gain understanding and then wisdom.
IOW, in order to KNOW something it first must be experienced.
And employing the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative, (you can’t), is a trap in and of itself.
IOW stating that this or that is impossible, or wrong or incorrect based solely upon theory or preconceived beliefs is fraught with error.
Because all it takes is ‘enough’ evidence to the contrary to disprove any negative assertion.
We all are aware of negative assertions such as…
Man can’t fly.
The sound barrier is impenetrable.
Wires make no difference.
You can’t hear anything beyond x or y or z.
Audiophool fuses make no difference.
The list can go on and on.
Except that there are lots of people who KNOW these negative assertions are not correct, because they have experienced, for themselves the exact opposite.
And nothing can negate these experiences, because a conscious awareness of a repeatable and consistent experience IS, and does form, their reality.
Just as a lack of an experience can’t be relied upon as a valid assertion, because there is nothing to base this assertion upon, other than negation, which is NO-thing.
And there are some who do embrace both sides of this duality, them are the ones to pay attention to because they can play in both camps at the same time.
They have a feedback loop built into their experiencing and understanding and gain the resultant wisdom all the more quickly and effectively because of this expanded perspective and viewpoint.
Lastly, the perspective or orientation that is used to approach an inquiry or investigation is key as well.
If your intention is to prove something isn’t, you fall into the logical fallacy trap, which certainly is Not scientific.
Whereas if you explore and seek to determine what is going on with an experiment, which is a reflection of one’s conscious intent to KNOW, then the predisposition is not a primary factor in determining the outcome.
This is the empirical method in practice, to devise an experiment and thru observation follow where the evidence leads you, and not where it doesn’t lead you.
JJ
End Part 15
Next up The Prove It Proposition.
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 15 The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’
The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’,
This missive is gunna be a little different, ok so a lot different…
I’m starting it out with an hour long Utube video about a dichotomy that has ‘resurfaced’ within the traditional physics community.
It, as the video will present, addresses an age old duality that many have thought was settled, as in dead and buried, except it isn’t dead at all.
It centers around materialism that has been the ‘preferred’ underlying assumption of the make up of our understanding (construct) of our reality,
Of The Way Of Things.
There has always been a diametrically opposite (as in mutually exclusive) model of,
The Way Of Things.
The video calls it The Simulation Hypothesis.
Or as it has been known, the Plato vs. Democritus dichotomy/duality of Idealism vs Materialism, dating back several thousand years to the ancient Greeks.
This duality can also be characterized as Materialism vs Consciousness as the root of,
The Way Of Things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M
So why start out with this?
After you watch it for at least 10 minutes (and I couldn’t stop there, either…
) you’ll get most of the point I’m making here.Which is, many of the precepts we use, and assume(d) to be true, are not necessarily accurate.
In fact, as has been the case for many thousands of years, many other cultures ascribe to the Consciousness model in a variety of ways.
I bring this up 1st because many people still rigidly cling to a materialistic viewpoint.
And it’s not to say that this perspective is all ‘wrong’,
but it is to say that it isn’t ‘correct’ as well.
IOW if, as I understand it, Consciousness is primary, all of observable reality (the domain of science) is a consequence or subset of what consciousness deals with, affects, and creates.
Another way of perceiving this is to view this split between these 2 ‘sides’ as to what is more fundamental to our reality, both general and personal,
our awareness of what and who we are,
or the stuff that makes up our reality.
Because if our conscious awareness is more fundamental, then the results we get from experimenting and trying to figure out what this stuff we deal with truly is, indeed if it forms and shapes that very stuff, then I submit our conscious awareness (perceptions and feelings and understandings etc.) will help determine what our reality is FOR US, and all those who understand it in a similar way.
This in turn means others can and DO have a different understanding of their world, which of course may or may not have much if any similarity to our own.
BOTH are equally correct FOR THEM (and those who share similar beliefs and a common conscious awareness) and for us.
IOW the makeup of the reality of our own world is in part shaped and determined by our conscious awareness, along with how it interacts with all those ‘others’ we interact with as well.
So what’s ANY of this got to do with tunes, I can hear someone mumbling in the back row…
I’ll fold this into the rest of this topic in a bit.
Think experience as a major, indeed a primary input to our continually increasing awareness.
But next up is…
The dichotomy of The Audio Subjectivist vs the Objectivist ‘duality’, as I have come to understand it, is really lopsided.
Let me explain what I mean by that.
The usual perspective is that on one side there is the subjectivist POV.
This orientation doesn’t care about numbers or even a pretense of objectivity, mostly because they hear and respond to the music as it occurs without thinking or dealing with these analytical aspects.
Why?
Because it ‘gets in the way’ of the enjoyment, of the passion, of the emotional content that is delivered in real time.
Thinking or applying the minds analytic prowess just gets in the way of this direct involvement WITH the music.
And it’s completely unnecessary to actually listening to music.
Indeed some would call it a hinderance, to NOT be able to turn off the minds incessant mental chatter and just be in the moment while being immersed in the music.
And on the other hand the objectivist view point is all about trying to quantify the experience, the equipment, the means of delivery of the music, and most significantly how to improve any and all of the above. Because this is THE tool that we have that is most effective in making improvements of any kind to the equipment, the delivery, and yes even to our understanding of the experience itself.
But see, this is where it gets complicated and is usually what gets left out of the ‘equation’.
Objective data or results HAVE TO be ‘evaluated’, HAVE TO be put into context, HAVE TO be assigned a subjective measure, in order to be useful, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
HUH?
Is 0.001% distortion always better than 0.01%?
How about 0.0001% or 0.00001%?
Case in point, tubes even when done really well will almost always measure with higher distortion than a SS circuit.
But which would you prefer, which is ‘Better’?
Well, that depends now doesn’t it?
And really what it comes down to is, does 0.001% sound ‘better’ than 0.01%?
In some cases yes, and in other cases, no.
So this immediately reveals a subjective ‘layer’ to the objectivist reality.
Which means that the data alone, without a subjective evaluation, has no meaning, no context from and within which, for us to know what the numbers mean.
Is 0.001% ‘better’ than 0.01%?
IOW the objective perspective is but a subset of the subjective.
Because without the added subjective meaning, such as the determination of ‘better’, the data alone, is meaningless when it comes to using it.
Put another way we can ‘operate’ completely independently of the objective perspective while being in the subjective mode.
The reverse cannot be said to be true, at all.
We can’t exist in an objectivist reality independent and devoid of the subjective because it has no meaning.
It’s got lots of data, lots of numbers and such but without an evaluation of what it all means, without determining the relationship between how much vs what is ‘Better’, it has no useful association to us.
Indeed, we can tell if we prefer device A over B completely independently of whatever numbers are associated with either device.
IOW the numbers are not the final arbiter of whether 0.001% is ‘better’ than 0.01%, or not, because we determine what is an improvement, what is ‘better’ which is a completely subjective determination.
Which means that in the end the objectivist perspective is reliant and dependent upon a subject choice.
It’s the old quantity vs. quality duality but with a twist, because we need to use both to make changes (hopefully) with the intent that they actually are improvements.
But we are the final arbiters, aren’t we?
As in,
I like this,
except…
but only…
only for…
only while…
this sounds like a**…
etc…
But we do use both whether it is recognized or even appreciated, or not, because they, much like any yin-yang situation where it takes both sides to be ‘effective’ and operate in a balanced way, are useful and indeed tied together.
We wouldn’t have the audio systems we enjoy today if the objectivist’s methods weren’t effective, nor would we have these very same systems if our subjective evaluatory effectiveness were not utilized to the extent it is either.
IOW after changes are implemented, then we decide if they are ‘Better’,
Or not.
So if the Objectivist needs the Subjectivist and visa versa, then what is the best way for them to ‘help’ each other?
This gets back to that video at the start of this missive.
If ones conscious awareness is adamant or rigidly defined with a particular bent, that in turn not only defines that reality but it is shaped by it as well.
IOW what you believe is what you get.
Well sort of, because beliefs can, do and MUST change.
Cosmic law or sumpt’n…
And the way it works is these discrepancies will keep popping up in order to get resolved.
More cosmic law or rules or sumpt’n…
Which also means if a strict subjectivist’s understanding says objectivists are wrong, then that colors their reality.
Conversely if an objectivist defines the subjectivist view point as an aberration or ‘trick of the mind’ etc, etc. that also colors their reality.
And I submit neither is ‘correct’, nor really helpful, nor productive.
It also needs to be noted that subjectivity, and consciousness itself requires experience.
It is THE means to gain understanding and then wisdom.
IOW, in order to KNOW something it first must be experienced.
And employing the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative, (you can’t), is a trap in and of itself.
IOW stating that this or that is impossible, or wrong or incorrect based solely upon theory or preconceived beliefs is fraught with error.
Because all it takes is ‘enough’ evidence to the contrary to disprove any negative assertion.
We all are aware of negative assertions such as…
Man can’t fly.
The sound barrier is impenetrable.
Wires make no difference.
You can’t hear anything beyond x or y or z.
Audiophool fuses make no difference.
The list can go on and on.
Except that there are lots of people who KNOW these negative assertions are not correct, because they have experienced, for themselves the exact opposite.
And nothing can negate these experiences, because a conscious awareness of a repeatable and consistent experience IS, and does form, their reality.
Just as a lack of an experience can’t be relied upon as a valid assertion, because there is nothing to base this assertion upon, other than negation, which is NO-thing.
And there are some who do embrace both sides of this duality, them are the ones to pay attention to because they can play in both camps at the same time.
They have a feedback loop built into their experiencing and understanding and gain the resultant wisdom all the more quickly and effectively because of this expanded perspective and viewpoint.
Lastly, the perspective or orientation that is used to approach an inquiry or investigation is key as well.
If your intention is to prove something isn’t, you fall into the logical fallacy trap, which certainly is Not scientific.
Whereas if you explore and seek to determine what is going on with an experiment, which is a reflection of one’s conscious intent to KNOW, then the predisposition is not a primary factor in determining the outcome.
This is the empirical method in practice, to devise an experiment and thru observation follow where the evidence leads you, and not where it doesn’t lead you.
JJ
End Part 15
Next up The Prove It Proposition.
wink
His amps are made out of recycled beer cans
and his source from tomatos.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Posts
- 20,319
- Likes
- 3,676
I can prove the negative very easily.
Almost half of the posts on Head-Fi are negative.
Almost half of the posts on Head-Fi are negative.
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
So, round 2 of Akiko sticks run amok…
Big Poppa and I swapped the USB stick for the triple canister.
So I then proceeded to perform some surgery on the 3 wires and maxed out the install of this canister to both my dac and amp using the 'Y' connection I was using with the USB stick, but hardwired and no alligator clips.
Here is what I stared with…
The jumbo alligator clip was used to grab the usb adapter (not shown) and is what I originally used to grab the ground connection on the triple canister.
The 5 ring connectors and bolt will replace the alligator clip and ac power connector.
What I wanted to do is minimize the resistance of the connection from the 2 XLR grounds to the triple wire canister.
So I used ring connectors for each of the 3 wires from the canister and used 1 ring connector for each XLR connector that connects to the ground on the dac and amp.
So I have 5 ring connectors bolted together, and I added silver paste between each ring connector to maximize the contact patch between each of these 5 ring connectors and the bolt and nut on the ends.
Notice the grey paste that is smeared on the bolt threads and is on the surface of the ring connectors.
This is what the whole assembly looks like…
Now this may seem a bit over the top to some, but the way I see it is…
The voltages on the ground plane of these 2 devices is very small with an even smaller amount of current flow.
So the less the resistance from the noise sources to the piezo-electric 'sponge', the more effective the 'sponge' can be.
Thus far it still took 1/2 hr before I noticed any change and now at the 45 minute mark Those micro-details are just starting to blossom.
And all of those micro-details I know are available (from my previous experiments) are just starting to peek from around the corner and are hinting what is to come.
Also what I've noticed is that after a day or so of continuous use, the SQ morphs a bit as the top end gets just a bit strident.
And then after another day or so the SQ takes a turn towards more of the optimal micro-details.
And one last thing to do is add some of that same silver paste to pin #1 on the xlr connectors, just as that last bit of tweak.
JJ :atsmile:
ps the micro-details are now doing more than just peek…
YEEEHAWWWW!!!!
Big Poppa and I swapped the USB stick for the triple canister.
So I then proceeded to perform some surgery on the 3 wires and maxed out the install of this canister to both my dac and amp using the 'Y' connection I was using with the USB stick, but hardwired and no alligator clips.
Here is what I stared with…
The jumbo alligator clip was used to grab the usb adapter (not shown) and is what I originally used to grab the ground connection on the triple canister.
The 5 ring connectors and bolt will replace the alligator clip and ac power connector.
What I wanted to do is minimize the resistance of the connection from the 2 XLR grounds to the triple wire canister.
So I used ring connectors for each of the 3 wires from the canister and used 1 ring connector for each XLR connector that connects to the ground on the dac and amp.
So I have 5 ring connectors bolted together, and I added silver paste between each ring connector to maximize the contact patch between each of these 5 ring connectors and the bolt and nut on the ends.
Notice the grey paste that is smeared on the bolt threads and is on the surface of the ring connectors.
This is what the whole assembly looks like…
Now this may seem a bit over the top to some, but the way I see it is…
The voltages on the ground plane of these 2 devices is very small with an even smaller amount of current flow.
So the less the resistance from the noise sources to the piezo-electric 'sponge', the more effective the 'sponge' can be.
Thus far it still took 1/2 hr before I noticed any change and now at the 45 minute mark Those micro-details are just starting to blossom.
And all of those micro-details I know are available (from my previous experiments) are just starting to peek from around the corner and are hinting what is to come.
Also what I've noticed is that after a day or so of continuous use, the SQ morphs a bit as the top end gets just a bit strident.
And then after another day or so the SQ takes a turn towards more of the optimal micro-details.
And one last thing to do is add some of that same silver paste to pin #1 on the xlr connectors, just as that last bit of tweak.
JJ :atsmile:
ps the micro-details are now doing more than just peek…
YEEEHAWWWW!!!!
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
Heading into round 2 of Akiko Sticks run amok.
So the fuse was lit and just after I exclaimed
YEEEHAWWWW!!!!
Things then started to morph at an ever faster clip,
And kept going…
And hasn’t stopped…
At one point I had Pam sit in ‘The Chair Of Optimal Focus’ of my near field speakers.
She was sitting there and said “I can hear the oboes…” “…you never hear the oboes”.
Next were the french horns and on it went.
Then she said, “You know, I can hear this when I sit in my chair”.
So to put this in context…
Her chair is off axis by ≈90°+ and is 5’ away…
We never play the speakers loud enough so that we can’t talk over them.
And these are cheap (as in $40/pair Dayton bookshelf) speakers being fed by 16 gauge zip cord from my system which is running EQ meant for my 800’s…
And that she could hear all of these details, under these conditions, tells me the system is well tweaked.
AND
I have also noted a large increase in the limits of the dynamic range in terms of how low the MOAR knob can go before I stop hearing the music.
I just exceeded the previous low setting of ≈ 8:45, and now I run into the stop limit (7:00) of the DRC (Dynamic Range Control) in gain-2, all in one step.
Which is remarkable because in the past it was usually only a 15 minute improvement, and no where near this much at once.
AND my tLFF is also back up to 3:00 so the width of my ‘usable’ dynamic range has increased to new record amounts, at both ends.
And so I was pondering why these sticks/canister take a while to be ‘effective’, and thinking it’s like coming into focus or where the ∆ phase relationship is getting into better alignment.
And then it hit me…
Much of these changes and behaviors could be due to resonance effects.
IOW these piezo-electric elements may also have a ‘tuned’ frequency resonant behavior.
Which makes sense especially when you take into account that they have non wired sticks as well, which work solely upon proximity effects.
What this means is, it seems to take a while for the piezo elements to resonate to the voltage signals it ‘sees’.
And they may not only absorb these electrical voltages but may also reflect those same voltages back onto the wire but out of phase, thus helping to cancel the incoming signal.
And as the piezo elements come into entrainment or sympathetic resonance (think clocks on the wall all getting in synch with each other) with the voltages they are being presented with, they then can ‘lock onto’ those signals and have a maximal effect upon them.
Anyway just some ‘off the wall’ er, or, well, ‘out of the box’ thinking. :atsmile:
JJ
So the fuse was lit and just after I exclaimed
YEEEHAWWWW!!!!
Things then started to morph at an ever faster clip,
And kept going…
And hasn’t stopped…
At one point I had Pam sit in ‘The Chair Of Optimal Focus’ of my near field speakers.
She was sitting there and said “I can hear the oboes…” “…you never hear the oboes”.
Next were the french horns and on it went.
Then she said, “You know, I can hear this when I sit in my chair”.
So to put this in context…
Her chair is off axis by ≈90°+ and is 5’ away…
We never play the speakers loud enough so that we can’t talk over them.
And these are cheap (as in $40/pair Dayton bookshelf) speakers being fed by 16 gauge zip cord from my system which is running EQ meant for my 800’s…
And that she could hear all of these details, under these conditions, tells me the system is well tweaked.
AND
I have also noted a large increase in the limits of the dynamic range in terms of how low the MOAR knob can go before I stop hearing the music.
I just exceeded the previous low setting of ≈ 8:45, and now I run into the stop limit (7:00) of the DRC (Dynamic Range Control) in gain-2, all in one step.
Which is remarkable because in the past it was usually only a 15 minute improvement, and no where near this much at once.
AND my tLFF is also back up to 3:00 so the width of my ‘usable’ dynamic range has increased to new record amounts, at both ends.
And so I was pondering why these sticks/canister take a while to be ‘effective’, and thinking it’s like coming into focus or where the ∆ phase relationship is getting into better alignment.
And then it hit me…
Much of these changes and behaviors could be due to resonance effects.
IOW these piezo-electric elements may also have a ‘tuned’ frequency resonant behavior.
Which makes sense especially when you take into account that they have non wired sticks as well, which work solely upon proximity effects.
What this means is, it seems to take a while for the piezo elements to resonate to the voltage signals it ‘sees’.
And they may not only absorb these electrical voltages but may also reflect those same voltages back onto the wire but out of phase, thus helping to cancel the incoming signal.
And as the piezo elements come into entrainment or sympathetic resonance (think clocks on the wall all getting in synch with each other) with the voltages they are being presented with, they then can ‘lock onto’ those signals and have a maximal effect upon them.
Anyway just some ‘off the wall’ er, or, well, ‘out of the box’ thinking. :atsmile:
JJ
landroni
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Posts
- 659
- Likes
- 335
I'm very intrigued: are these $40 Dayton bookshelf speakers, like, a thing? I mean, it seems you're pairing them with a $1.6K Ragnarok... From what I see in the 2-channel world these bookshelfs are effectively worth a twopence, and hearing advanced tweaks through them would suggest that these transducers offer incredible value. If they're can be as good as that, I'd definitely consider a pair...
PS Very interesting all your reports on the Akikos, and clearly worth a try. Looking forward to a recap on an "optimal" Akiko set-up when paired with the "main" setup on this thread, the Bifrost MB & PS-III & HD650... The number of different sticks, and the various configurations in which they can be stuck, is bewildering.
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
While they not be a THING, they certainly are quite decent for $40. :atsmile:
And of course since I can't leave much of anything well enough alone, I did modify them with upgraded tweeters and cap ($35/pair).
They are the Dayton B652 bookshelf speakers which still sell for under $40/pair.
http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-652
I have been using them as an additional means of tracking and evaluating the tweaks I make to the system as a whole (independent of the 800's).
And the noticeable changes and improvements I hear from these speakers are remarkable in and of themselves.
As in the coupling into the main room of the house has increased multiple times, such that the music can clearly be heard throughout the entire (small) house, even at low to mid listening levels in the near field.
These results (and others) are mighty impressive from such modest speakers.
Which tends to counter the age old wisdom of 'get the best speakers as the highest priority' then the rest of the electronics…
As for these Akiko sticks…
Thus far my supposition about how they work, where they will have the most noticeable effects and benefits, are holding up.
Namely, if they are directly wired, as close as possible to the noise sources (amp and dac), seems to have the most beneficial results.
I'm still evaluating the non wired version.
AND if you are running your system on poor or ungrounded ac power, these will have the greatest immediate improvement.
But even if your system is tweaked and has a 'solid' ground, the results can be quite lovely.
With a tube like euphonic emphasis and micro-detail increases.
Even out of $40 (now $75) speakers.
So if these sorts of changes are desirable, these Akiko sticks might be worth your time to try out.
JJ
And of course since I can't leave much of anything well enough alone, I did modify them with upgraded tweeters and cap ($35/pair).
They are the Dayton B652 bookshelf speakers which still sell for under $40/pair.
http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-652
I have been using them as an additional means of tracking and evaluating the tweaks I make to the system as a whole (independent of the 800's).
And the noticeable changes and improvements I hear from these speakers are remarkable in and of themselves.
As in the coupling into the main room of the house has increased multiple times, such that the music can clearly be heard throughout the entire (small) house, even at low to mid listening levels in the near field.
These results (and others) are mighty impressive from such modest speakers.
Which tends to counter the age old wisdom of 'get the best speakers as the highest priority' then the rest of the electronics…
As for these Akiko sticks…
Thus far my supposition about how they work, where they will have the most noticeable effects and benefits, are holding up.
Namely, if they are directly wired, as close as possible to the noise sources (amp and dac), seems to have the most beneficial results.
I'm still evaluating the non wired version.
AND if you are running your system on poor or ungrounded ac power, these will have the greatest immediate improvement.
But even if your system is tweaked and has a 'solid' ground, the results can be quite lovely.
With a tube like euphonic emphasis and micro-detail increases.
Even out of $40 (now $75) speakers.
So if these sorts of changes are desirable, these Akiko sticks might be worth your time to try out.
JJ
landroni
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Posts
- 659
- Likes
- 335
My thoughts precisely.
I was actually considering the upgraded Dayton B652-AIR, with an improved tweeter:
http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-air-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-with-amt-tweeter-pair--300-651
Still sells for a twopence (60$)...
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
So my experiments have been progressing quite nicely, albeit at a slow recovery pace.
Until tonight.
Wholey Badt Schidt
I've got tubes in my system, somewhere, hidden, glowing away invisible to the naked eye.
SS isn't supposed to be able to deliver this degree of rich, smooth, harmonically fortified, but also tightly coupled and cohesive micro detail,
ya know, the kinda stuff that tubes are highly sought after for.
Talk about blossoming…
If you have ever heard of Gaye Delorme his The Best Of… album is killer.
He reminds me of Mark Knopfler, David Gilmore, Eric Clapton, Leo Kottke and Al Di Meola all rolled together, and it's not just his guitar playing but his voice as well.
Killer keyboard player too, and the horns ain't to shabby either…
JJ
Until tonight.
Wholey Badt Schidt
I've got tubes in my system, somewhere, hidden, glowing away invisible to the naked eye.
SS isn't supposed to be able to deliver this degree of rich, smooth, harmonically fortified, but also tightly coupled and cohesive micro detail,
ya know, the kinda stuff that tubes are highly sought after for.
Talk about blossoming…
If you have ever heard of Gaye Delorme his The Best Of… album is killer.
He reminds me of Mark Knopfler, David Gilmore, Eric Clapton, Leo Kottke and Al Di Meola all rolled together, and it's not just his guitar playing but his voice as well.
Killer keyboard player too, and the horns ain't to shabby either…
JJ
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
What and how do we know what IS ‘Better’?
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 16 The Prove It Proposition
The Prove It Proposition
Proof, some want Proof in order to validate a position or authenticate some idea or concept.
And in our world Proof is usually a necessary part of a scientific or empirical approach to gaining further understanding.
It’s part of the hypothesis to theory to acceptance as a valid reflection of reality.
And necessary aspects of Proof requires a degree of repeatability and verification.
The thing is most of us lack the means and methods to verify, by direct experience, any particular proposition where Proof is ‘required’.
So most of us rely upon an ‘authority’ of some sort, someone who embodies a sufficient grasp of a bigger picture, which provides the foundation for a ‘real Proof’.
And without our own direct experience, Proof must be taken on faith by the individual, from the one who is offering the Proof.
Faith that the person offering Proof is actually trustworthy, knowledgeable, has sufficient direct experience dealing with the topic at hand and has a thorough enough exposure to all the data involved.
And of course we will ‘examine’ the Proof for ourselves, and scrutinize it for ‘flaws’ or logical inconsistencies etc. just because.
But in our hobby, ‘Proof’ is all to often used as a tactic in a ‘discussion’ which usually more closely resembles an argument, to ‘convince’ the one requesting said ‘Proof’, that the information is ‘correct’.
This tactic usually just throws out the anchor and all useful dialog ceases at that point, as a line in the sand has been drawn and one is in effect ‘dared’ to step over it.
IOW it is a confrontational ‘tool’ used to assert and maintain authority.
This whole approach is fraught with foibles and traps galore.
IOW it’s usually employed as tactic, as a means of maintaining authority and to maintain a sense of being ‘right’ vs being wrong.
Therein lies the crux of the problem with regards to ‘Proof’ in our realm of audio.
We all have a different set of expectations, biases, and experiences from which we form our understanding of what is, and what isn’t.
This especially applies to our auditory sense and more pointedly to listening to music.
All of which is highly personal and unique to each individual.
And as such is subject to the nature of change and continued experience which was what is held as being ‘proven’ and considered as known and true, which will, in the fullness of time, change.
IOW as new knowledge and a more complete bigger picture becomes known, the details and consequences of these changes will impact those very same ‘Proofs’.
Lastly one of the biggest, and as I see it quite deleterious side effect that has been woven into all of this 'prove it’, is the lack of confidence in ones self and more pointedly ones experiences which form the backbone of each of our source of knowledge.
By that I mean people are second guessing or making excuses for their perceptions, like there is something to be ashamed of.
This, seems to be a matter of self acceptance and belief in ones own viability.
And our own experiences really are all that we have to use and operate from, as our basis for what we know.
And of course these very same experiences are the source for growth and learning as we refine our understanding of what is a suitable ‘Proof’ for ourselves.
IOW if one NEEDS verification from outside themselves in order to know what is and what isn't 'real’, then looking to authority to validate themselves, or to confirm the correctness of any experience can be a HUGE gotcha, for a variety of reasons.
And as long as one ascribes to this approach, truly Hearing MUSIC becomes a secondary aspect, with respect to listening to music for its own sake.
And it is MUSIC that is my goal.
Others have their own goals and will pursue them in their own way and at their own pace.
There will always be those who insist upon ‘Proof' before experience, which is basackwards even within the empirical method approach, let alone an investigatory one.
But one thing that usually, in the long run, does 'get to' those of the 'prove it' persuasion is the sheer volume of evidence and reported experience(s).
After a while this body of evidence becomes near impossible to ignore, and for some can provide just enough of a spark of curiosity to investigate further for themselves, which opens the door.
Perhaps it opens just a crack, but sometimes that is all that is needed in order to introduce additional aspects of a more expanded Bigger Picture…
Now does this mean no matter what anyone hears, it is ‘correct’, or at least free from ‘error’?
No, of course not, but it is to say that the experience is very real, but the words used to describe the experience may not be an adequate nor full description of the experience.
It can take quite a while (decades even) to be able to ‘translate’ our sense of auditory perception into words with sufficient prowess.
But such is not the case for the experience itself, indeed the appreciation of the experience itself can become all the more compelling as our ability to hear into the music becomes honed thru practice and further experience(s).
And as our experiences grow in number and sophistication, we hone our ability to appreciate ever greater degrees of subtlety in the music itself.
IOW as we become more ‘calibrated’, and know what to listen to as an indicator of what we choose as ‘Better’ becomes easier to pick out while listening to the music we are drawn to,
we increase our own viability to know and provide for ourselves, all the ‘Proof’ we need.
And along parallel lines, I have found that curiosity, in and of itself, is a marvelous personal trait to foster.
It can go along way towards helping us (re)discover aspects and attributes to music that fascinate us so…
JJ
End Part 16
Next up Designers vs Users
or
It’s all in our heads, or is it?
Part 16 The Prove It Proposition
The Prove It Proposition
Proof, some want Proof in order to validate a position or authenticate some idea or concept.
And in our world Proof is usually a necessary part of a scientific or empirical approach to gaining further understanding.
It’s part of the hypothesis to theory to acceptance as a valid reflection of reality.
And necessary aspects of Proof requires a degree of repeatability and verification.
The thing is most of us lack the means and methods to verify, by direct experience, any particular proposition where Proof is ‘required’.
So most of us rely upon an ‘authority’ of some sort, someone who embodies a sufficient grasp of a bigger picture, which provides the foundation for a ‘real Proof’.
And without our own direct experience, Proof must be taken on faith by the individual, from the one who is offering the Proof.
Faith that the person offering Proof is actually trustworthy, knowledgeable, has sufficient direct experience dealing with the topic at hand and has a thorough enough exposure to all the data involved.
And of course we will ‘examine’ the Proof for ourselves, and scrutinize it for ‘flaws’ or logical inconsistencies etc. just because.
But in our hobby, ‘Proof’ is all to often used as a tactic in a ‘discussion’ which usually more closely resembles an argument, to ‘convince’ the one requesting said ‘Proof’, that the information is ‘correct’.
This tactic usually just throws out the anchor and all useful dialog ceases at that point, as a line in the sand has been drawn and one is in effect ‘dared’ to step over it.
IOW it is a confrontational ‘tool’ used to assert and maintain authority.
This whole approach is fraught with foibles and traps galore.
IOW it’s usually employed as tactic, as a means of maintaining authority and to maintain a sense of being ‘right’ vs being wrong.
Therein lies the crux of the problem with regards to ‘Proof’ in our realm of audio.
We all have a different set of expectations, biases, and experiences from which we form our understanding of what is, and what isn’t.
This especially applies to our auditory sense and more pointedly to listening to music.
All of which is highly personal and unique to each individual.
And as such is subject to the nature of change and continued experience which was what is held as being ‘proven’ and considered as known and true, which will, in the fullness of time, change.
IOW as new knowledge and a more complete bigger picture becomes known, the details and consequences of these changes will impact those very same ‘Proofs’.
Lastly one of the biggest, and as I see it quite deleterious side effect that has been woven into all of this 'prove it’, is the lack of confidence in ones self and more pointedly ones experiences which form the backbone of each of our source of knowledge.
By that I mean people are second guessing or making excuses for their perceptions, like there is something to be ashamed of.
This, seems to be a matter of self acceptance and belief in ones own viability.
And our own experiences really are all that we have to use and operate from, as our basis for what we know.
And of course these very same experiences are the source for growth and learning as we refine our understanding of what is a suitable ‘Proof’ for ourselves.
IOW if one NEEDS verification from outside themselves in order to know what is and what isn't 'real’, then looking to authority to validate themselves, or to confirm the correctness of any experience can be a HUGE gotcha, for a variety of reasons.
And as long as one ascribes to this approach, truly Hearing MUSIC becomes a secondary aspect, with respect to listening to music for its own sake.
And it is MUSIC that is my goal.
Others have their own goals and will pursue them in their own way and at their own pace.
There will always be those who insist upon ‘Proof' before experience, which is basackwards even within the empirical method approach, let alone an investigatory one.
But one thing that usually, in the long run, does 'get to' those of the 'prove it' persuasion is the sheer volume of evidence and reported experience(s).
After a while this body of evidence becomes near impossible to ignore, and for some can provide just enough of a spark of curiosity to investigate further for themselves, which opens the door.
Perhaps it opens just a crack, but sometimes that is all that is needed in order to introduce additional aspects of a more expanded Bigger Picture…
Now does this mean no matter what anyone hears, it is ‘correct’, or at least free from ‘error’?
No, of course not, but it is to say that the experience is very real, but the words used to describe the experience may not be an adequate nor full description of the experience.
It can take quite a while (decades even) to be able to ‘translate’ our sense of auditory perception into words with sufficient prowess.
But such is not the case for the experience itself, indeed the appreciation of the experience itself can become all the more compelling as our ability to hear into the music becomes honed thru practice and further experience(s).
And as our experiences grow in number and sophistication, we hone our ability to appreciate ever greater degrees of subtlety in the music itself.
IOW as we become more ‘calibrated’, and know what to listen to as an indicator of what we choose as ‘Better’ becomes easier to pick out while listening to the music we are drawn to,
we increase our own viability to know and provide for ourselves, all the ‘Proof’ we need.
And along parallel lines, I have found that curiosity, in and of itself, is a marvelous personal trait to foster.
It can go along way towards helping us (re)discover aspects and attributes to music that fascinate us so…
JJ
End Part 16
Next up Designers vs Users
Users who are viewing this thread
