Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

[romanbednarek]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

While off topic, I thought of another factor that would probably impair my ability to pick a "best" speaker out of a lineup (maybe more so than looks). That would be the order that the speakers are played. I feel that once speaker 1 was played I would be able to pick out obvious differences between speaker 2 and speaker 1 but then when speaker 3 was played my comparison with speaker 2 would be more accurate than any recollection of speaker 1 and so on down the line. This assumption would suggest that a method of removing the bottom few speakers (based on a 1st round of judging) and then having a 2nd round of judging of the remaining speakers and so on. This may be a common practice already but as I mentioned, I have very little experience in this area.

[brianp]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

I understand what you are saying Roman, but Toole (at Harman) found speaker looks to be quite effective in skewing perception. I've linked such articles previously.
AJ

I believe that when Toole conducted his research at the NRC, to determine which sonic attributes of a speaker people found most pleasing, he concealed the test speakers behind a grill cloth screen for this reason.

[Guest]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

The thing is, I was just telling you what was being said in the early 80's. Several others confirmed that this was indeed the case. We've learned a lot since then, and people now know why those early players didn't sound so great, especially by today's standards. It was just a case in point on how knowledge increases and changes our perceptions. People once said that Bell's wax cylinders played through a horn were indistinguishable from the real thing too. It's hard to believe they said that, but they did. We always need to allow for the opportunity to learn something.

I'd rather not rely on your (or any one's) recollection of the past as gospel. It leads to seas being parted and such. I have no doubt that many EE's confused Sony's slogan with what they were taught in school, but perhaps they should have relied more on data from psycho-acoustic professionals (something outside the EE curriculum) before making foolish conclusions. But "engineers" are not monolithic, despite your viewpoint of such. Please don't speak for them all. Btw, if you can provide some data (other than Nousaines site) where old players sound worse than new, please do so. Link please.
Not an article about jitter, but actual player vs player (audibility) data. Thanks.

Well, if you are going to get a kick out of the story, then you might as well get it right, don't you think? The story didn't involve a CD player at all. It was a comparison between a Linn Sondek ensemble table and an much cheaper one without even a decent suspension. And it was after I said I didn't think there was a difference in how turntables sounded. I was proved wrong. The Linn really did sound better. Of course, you are free to believe what you want here too. Maybe you believe all turntables DO sound alike (it's certainly a financial benefit to believe that way, if you own a turntable, anyway). I just think you should have the story straight if you are going to reference it.

Allow me to provide you a link http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...52&postcount=1

There are still many people who swear that LP’s played on high-end turntables create a sense of space that is missing from the digital world. And if what they are saying is true, then I theorize that the reason is due to the fractal nature of the analog source versus the non-fractal digital source. Possibly this difference can be heard and maybe the digital vs analog arguments carry some weight

Here is a personal experience to describe this: Many years ago my wife and I were visiting a high-end audio salon. I was (foolishly) discussing the virtues of digital music and also my belief that expensive turntables had nothing to offer over less expensive ones. The salesman chuckled and asked if I would willing to take part in a little experiment, to which we said, “sure”. He proceeded to set up some music on a Rega turntable (which is actually a decent table) and we listened for while. Then, through the same system, he played the same music on a Linn Sondek with an Ittok arm (I don’t recall the cartridge, but believe it was a Linn as well). It only took a few seconds for both of us (my wife and I) to look at each other and exclaim the difference we heard. The sound was almost three-dimensional over the Linn, it was virtually “flat” sounding over the Rega. I inquired as to how this could be, and the salesman explained that the suspension on the Linn made it possible to pick up much lower level information that contained this 3-D space. We then listened to a CD of the same music. It was even “flatter” than is was on the Rega. This is just one example. Localization cues are very low level on a recording, just as they are in life. If information retrieval is cut off before reaching this level a loss of imaging will result.

Would you like me to turn that previous story into present day swiss cheese, or give you a pass as I did previously when I first read it, because 97% of what you post is excellent info, not to mention your fine PCD program?

I am sure I have given you the exact opposite perception of me than how I really am.

There you go with your subjectivity again:rolleyes:. If you were to be objective and ask me, I would tell you that I have tremendous respect for your contributions. About 97% of the time. The other 3%, I chalk up to a bit of sloppiness. Momentary lapses of reason. I'm human. I'm guilty of that myself.

Between being a research biologist, college instructer, and professional engineer - I have been a scientist or engineer in some capacity for 27 years now. I understand the scientific method just fine, and, in fact, rely on it daily. I would get nowhere in my job without real data to support my conclusions. However, one thing I have learned to avoid, and so has the other members of my team, is to dismiss people's observations. There have been many times that my team was called in for root cause analysis after the engineers involved were getting nowhere, only to find that they dismissed the thoughts and observations of the workers on the floor. When we listened to what these people thought was happening, and investigated it further it went from making no sense and appearing to be unrelated to actually leading us in the direction of what was really the underlying issue. People's perceptions can be much more in tune with what it really going on than you give them credit for.

No need to pull out the credentials, your pcd work and the majority of your posts speak for themselves. Plus, I rely on facts, not fame. Now, if you and your team were tasked investigating resistor "sound", would you arm them with an LCR meter and their ears, then use this method

Now, about the resistors; I already said I couldn't hear any difference between any of my other resistor brands. The issue was only with this one brand. And even though the resistance measured the same, the sound was certainly different from the rest of the bunch.

Or would you use methods more in line with what your team used on the workers floor?
People much brighter than me, such as yourself, have on occasion been sloppy and made careless errors. Familiar with Hawksford? It should not detract from the overall body of their work. But it should not be ignored either. That would do no good.

You, on the other hand, find it very easy to dismiss other people's thoughts and opinions simply when they don't agree with your dogma.

Would you mind enlightening me to what my dogma is? Constrained to physical reality and known laws of physics? Asking for more than dreams as data? Do tell.;)

However, the simple answer may be that we just don't know everything yet. Myabe you just enjoy playing the arse, I don't know.

Right. But not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. When one deliberately chooses to ignore some of what we do know, because it conflicts with one's beliefs. I'm agnostic if you haven't guessed already. So faith based audio doesn't fly with me. If calling cards to the table, when I see empty handed bluffs. makes me an arse in your eyes, well so be it. Keep in mind that I find all this hallucination stuff highly entertaining.

I am sure even you would have heard the difference, but then again.......

See my response to Mr Wiggles about what my hearing has to do with your beliefs :p.

But, I have seen some very bright engineers who have never solved anything just because in their arrogance they believe they have everything figured out. It is really such a shame. I hope you're not in that group.

I never claimed to be an engineer, although I play one on TV (plus I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).
Let's not generalize or create monoliths, shall we?

Now, about (Mills) resistor sound....

cheers,

AJ

[Guest]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

I believe that when Toole conducted his research at the NRC, to determine which sonic attributes of a speaker people found most pleasing, he concealed the test speakers behind a grill cloth screen for this reason.

Yes. Page 10 of this article references some blind vs sighted skewing http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf
Nothing new of course. This has been long known/accepted by non-audiophiles.

cheers,

AJ

[Jeff B.]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

I'd rather not rely on your (or any one's) recollection of the past as gospel. It leads to seas being parted and such. I have no doubt that many EE's confused Sony's slogan with what they were taught in school, but perhaps they should have relied more on data from psycho-acoustic professionals (something outside the EE curriculum) before making foolish conclusions. But "engineers" are not monolithic, despite your viewpoint of such. Please don't speak for them all. Btw, if you can provide some data (other than Nousaines site) where old players sound worse than new, please do so. Link please.
Not an article about jitter, but actual player vs player (audibility) data. Thanks.



Allow me to provide you a link http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...52&postcount=1



Would you like me to turn that previous story into present day swiss cheese, or give you a pass as I did previously when I first read it, because 97% of what you post is excellent info, not to mention your fine PCD program?



There you go with your subjectivity again:rolleyes:. If you were to be objective and ask me, I would tell you that I have tremendous respect for your contributions. About 97% of the time. The other 3%, I chalk up to a bit of sloppiness. Momentary lapses of reason. I'm human. I'm guilty of that myself.



No need to pull out the credentials, your pcd work and the majority of your posts speak for themselves. Plus, I rely on facts, not fame. Now, if you and your team were tasked investigating resistor "sound", would you arm them with an LCR meter and their ears, then use this method

Or would you use methods more in line with what your team used on the workers floor?
People much brighter than me, such as yourself, have on occasion been sloppy and made careless errors. Familiar with Hawksford? It should not detract from the overall body of their work. But it should not be ignored either. That would do no good.



Would you mind enlightening me to what my dogma is? Constrained to physical reality and known laws of physics? Asking for more than dreams as data? Do tell.;)



Right. But not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. When one deliberately chooses to ignore some of what we do know, because it conflicts with one's beliefs. I'm agnostic if you haven't guessed already. So faith based audio doesn't fly with me. If calling cards to the table, when I see empty handed bluffs. makes me an arse in your eyes, well so be it. Keep in mind that I find all this hallucination stuff highly entertaining.



See my response to Mr Wiggles about what my hearing has to do with your beliefs :p.



I never claimed to be an engineer, although I play one on TV (plus I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).
Let's not generalize or create monoliths, shall we?

Now, about (Mills) resistor sound....

cheers,

AJ

I am chuckling right now - mostly at myself :o. I can do that just fine. I didn't recall the reference to the CD player in that old post, but apparently I did say that, and that is an accurate recounting of the experience, at least as I perceived it at the time. It's funny that you found it and reposted it. It's a good thing you didn't find that picture of me in my underwear that I posted on myspace. (Just kidding, I don't have a myspace account :D).

I don't have any links to a CD player comparison or reports from the early 80's to review, simply because it isn't important to me. I was just referring to what was going around at the time. I guess if you search you can find my post on how I came to purchase my Cambridge CD player over the NAD that I intended to buy. But CD players are different than resistors in a lot of complex ways, and where the Mills are concerned I do not hear a difference with them over other cheaper resistors (see, now I have stated my personal position :eek. I am in the same camp with Dennis - I prefer the Mills and a couple of other brands because they hold up well to being used often in crossover designing.

I played devil's advocate, and maybe I also became a bit of an arse myself as Andy would call it. I did this simply because so much about all of our preferences in audio are subjective (yes, I suspect even yours), and most of the time we can't even explain why. Some people like ribbons, some like domes, some like vented, some like sealed, some like a flat response, some don't, all for a multitude of subjective reasons. And, you are correct, much of it is faith-based. But, we all do this because we enjoy it, and I didn't want that to be taken away from anyone. Now, tell me, you have preferences too, don't you? Are all of them easily explained? By "your dogma" I was referring to the fact that you feel that all things need to be proved scientifically, but some things just can't be, at least not all the time. That's all I meant.

So, 97% of my posts are excellent contributions? I think you give me too much credit. But thanks, I appreciate that, especially in lieu of this thread (which is undoubtedly bringing down my percentage :rolleyes and some of my other momentary lapses of reasoning :o. Yes, I have posted things that were just my opinion, and as such no one needs to agree with it. I have also posted things I no longer agree with - we all grow in our understanding. And I have posted some stuff I wish I had never posted, but then I guess that applies to all of us at a times ;).

Please allow this post to be an olive branch. And.....I will try to get my percentage back up where it belongs.

[dbe]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

Please allow this post to be an olive branch. And.....I will try to get my percentage back up where it belongs.

You, sir, are a gentleman to the end.

:D

Dave

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

You, sir, are a gentleman to the end.

:D

Dave

they don't call him Obiwan Jeffnobi for nothing you know . . . ;)

[Cinemadesigner X]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

AJ: and all

I have inquired to QSC about their ABX comparator they still have some and hopefully they will sell me one, I have a call into UNF Engineering Dept to see if they will give me graduate credit for proving that DBT's are effective and that there is a difference between even ordinary products like a Meridian CD player and Samsung DVD player, might even do the speaker cables again just because I can. Look's like there is a real need for this kind of information for public consumption, and that drivel about the reverberant field overpowering the difference in electronics, impinging on my ears (where does that come from anyway?), well that will end quickly too.

I'll just be repeating the same trials I've done before. This time for graduate credits, maybe. Thanks for the inspiration


Just like every "comparison" you require, for who for what AJ? Compare old and new Cd players for who for what? There's no money in comparing resistors or old and new cd players unlike the billions of dollars that wine marketing research you posted recently was worth.

[jonpike]

Re: Do Mills resistors REALLY sound different?

Dave, that's so deep, I think I need trunks (playing off the wiggles joke...)

http://www.yogabbagabba.com/#/aquabats

AJ, I'm know you've never said it, but you've never heard people say that all zip cord of equal guage is the same? Now that I find hard to believe.

The earlier post that RH-50 resistors had 0.22mH inductance had me sweating since I use them in my crossovers. So, I fired up the MLSSA tonight and measured the impedance of a few resistors in the audio band. All inductances are curve fit against a perfect inductor model, from 10 to 20 kHz, and with cross correlation factor shown (r=1.000 being absolutely perfect fit).

<Snip out of real, live, actual measurements>

Good news, even relatively modest wire wounds and sand cast resistors have no inductance. I bought most of these at different surplus stores for less than a buck, so I'd be surprised if parts bought with real money were any worse in this regards.

So... hard... to stay out... of conversation.... ;)

I read this about the Dale 50W resistors... and was scratching my head myself, due to measurments of this family and others a few years back.

There was a thread much like this, a few years back, starting with a semi-troll (maybe not so semi) about how the Dayton "non-inductive" resistors were supposed to be a ripoff, since they cost more, and didn't have much lower inductance.

I had some examples, and at work a $3500 lab LCR meter, so I did some measurements. The Dayton standard resistors didn't have much inductance to speak of, the non-inductive ones had even less. Since we were talking tens of microhenries (.01 mH) you could say it ALL was too low to notice, (and so the higher price was unwarrented) AND yes there was a difference. (so they were lower in inductance, and as advertized) I didn't have single digit values of the Dale's, but ones in the 25, 50, 100 ohm range, and that should mean more turns and thereby more inductance. They were in the 10-50uH range, IIRC, also vanishingly small. I'd say that Phillip's meter might not do so well for such small measurments, but he then tests even lower values on the other resistors... Unless there's something weird with the 2 ohm value, I'd expect the Dale RH 50W series to be as low or lower and be an excellent choice.

The takeaway that I took away, was that most power resistors of small (<50 ohms) value are so low in inductance that special non-inductive windings aren't important. If you have a large value of thousands or tens of K ohms, then you will have a much larger inductance, and the counter wound resistors would make a difference.

I could pull the few values I have laying around and measure again, if anyone cares.

On the overall resistor/sound issue... I'm in the measuring camp, but have an open mind for possible effects I'm not aware of. I don't think there are many significant ones out there.

Probably the more important effect is, and perhaps reason to buy a "higher quality" part... is parts tolerance. If you have a 1% part vs a 10% part, say in the tweeter L-pad, and they are at their tolerance limits.. you could end up with a noticeable level difference between the two speakers. Or somewhere else, detuning a LCR notch, maybe causing a phase difference
by slightly altering the crossover tuning... and thereby degrading the overall sound or imaging... This goes for cap and inductor values too, of course.

Whether TC, or the effect of magnetic materials in the resistor construction, etc, have any perceveable effects... hard to imagine, but hey... someone come up with a test method and let's see if we can observe it...

And, listening can be a way to quickly hear large differences... but you should be able to hunt down and quantify the differences you hear.