No, it isn't. However, the electronics underlying its reproduction are science-based.
By the way, there are people who do understand how the Klimax case improves sound quality. It does make sense, but only to some.
I feel lucky. I need no confirmations other than what I hear. Some things I like, some I don't. I need no emotional support, no blind or sighted tests or other people's opinions to tell me that it's ok for me to spend my money on what i like.
I think it was Nietzsche who said: "Ey--yo, that's why they got both chocolate AND vanilla."
I think it was Nietzsche who said: "Ey--yo, that's why they got both chocolate AND vanilla."
I respect that, but I'm the opposite.
If I hear something that common sense suggests is impossible, I want to know why I hear it. And more importantly, whether it's actually a real effect or has some other cause.
that's true of course. but preferences in music listening are subjective and taste based. Why does someone want more or less detail in their audio (or their video, photography etc.) ? At a certain point, subjective perception negates what a scientific formula says. It may satisfy someone that is skeptical to point out that there is no measurable difference from the cheap cable to the expensive one but other experts would just say that if we hearing differences and not measuring them, then we are measuring the wrong thing.
Sure, I also like to know why. But if the explanation is not available because "we" don't yet understand how to measure it, then I'm happy with what my brain is telling me.
In my case, for example, I've read the explanations about why the Radikal works on my LP12. But I hear an improvement that goes beyond --for me-- the technical explanation. So I move on happily until a more satisfying explanation comes along.
I didn't want to drag this thread into DBT territory, especially as no one agrees on the protocols except that I think it extreme for the subjects to be blinded 
Not permanently.I didn't want to drag this thread into DBT territory, especially as no one agrees on the protocols except that I think it extreme for the subjects to be blinded
To narrow the debate we were discussion the DC Power supply for a motor rather than general SQ effects and test methods.
It's a DC motor, it is driven by a fixed voltage, it has no frequency/Hz so none should be present in the signal. In a perfect world that DC voltage would be completely clean.
By the inverse something in the A-Radikal is letting noise into the DC output.
Perhaps the better screening from the PSU, less RF or something polluting the DC output?
Turning upside down or playing with torque or washers I don't subscribe too, if they work again it could be measured. But it making such a difference to change the performance of the motor, it would have to change the DC output.
It's a DC motor, it is driven by a fixed voltage, it has no frequency/Hz so none should be present in the signal. In a perfect world that DC voltage would be completely clean.
By the inverse something in the A-Radikal is letting noise into the DC output.
Perhaps the better screening from the PSU, less RF or something polluting the DC output?
Turning upside down or playing with torque or washers I don't subscribe too, if they work again it could be measured. But it making such a difference to change the performance of the motor, it would have to change the DC output.
The Klimax case provides acoustic isolation. This will reduce vibration (movement) at the circuits within. Vibration of the circuits can cause microphony. That is, the electrical signal is actually distorted by the vibrations.
Science isn't a set of facts. It is a process to determine facts, and these facts are always subject to further scrutiny and revision. Engineering is an art or a craft. It isn't science, but it relies on scientifically established principles. Development of hifi kit, at least Linn hifi kit, happens in the domain of engineering. There are engineering disciplines of electrical, acoustic, and mechanical that are employed. These disciplines work within established principles that are accepted by engineers who design this stuff. It isn't a mystery, and there's nothing mystical about it.
I know this is obvious to most reading this.
What I mean by sensitivity is that the motor must have a range of possible rotational speeds, say you apply 10V dc and it rotates at 50Hz, 11V gives 60Hz, 9V gives 40Hz etc. (that would be a sensitivity of 10Hz/V). That means when set to 10V and 50Hz if the DC voltage fluctuates the motor speed will also fluctuate so any noise coming from the PSU will frequency modulate the motor. I have no idea what the motor sensitivity is or any idea how low the electrical noise levels are, it is just the only thing I can think of that would explain the findings.
Rearraging semantic content does not change established facts or principles though. Whether engineering is a craft based on science or a scientific endeavour based on craft is neither here nor there. Electronics, however, can safely be labelled as a science. And one based purely on scientific principles: established, proven, replicable and understood down to the sub-atomic level. The measurements involved in eletronics go way beyond the capability of human senses in terms of the accuracy to differentiate, so when anyone suggests 'we must be measuring the wrong things' this cannot be applied to an electrical current driving an electric motor.
Therefore, in a Sherlock Holmes manner, we should perhaps be looking elsewhere. Move, or change the resonant properties of, a reasonably large piece of acoustically active metal in your listening space and there will be likely to be some affect on distributed and reflected sound waves. I would strongly suggest looking towards that as the potential cause of any perceived difference in this instance.
And that perceived difference is - at least on this forum - described as being "more musical" and that is a very very nuanced thing. It isn't measured in decibels or %. Like why do audiophile capacitors, precise torquing (and other things like deluxe well matched components) sound better? What little touches of alchemy are being introduced that take our listening experiences to the next - and instantly perceivable to those listening - level ?
My intent was to support your previous assertion, and to discuss further. I often read comments that essentially say "If I don't understand it then nobody does." We both know that there are smart people out there who do understand how this stuff works. The first of these I'd cite would be the engineers who designed it.
Yes, the electrical discipline is well established. It's the mechanical and acoustic disciplines that rely more on empirical information and most likely some trial and error. Any new information gleaned I would think would go back into the body of knowledge and be reused later in order to further improve.
One could take the signal waveform of the input and compare it to the output signal feeding the speaker. I assert that less loss of musical information and less distortion of that signal results in "more musical." This is the theory that fits the data, at least in my experience.
Absolutely.
All of this topic also falls into the dangerous idea of a division between the 'objectivists and subjectivists', which I firmly refute. It's perfectly possible to be both. I love music and I love listening to it. I know what I enjoy and with a little trained listening, I think I am reasonably good at describing things and differentiating between things.
On the other hand, I am painfully aware of the limits of perception, and especially the length of audio memory and the various biases that can affect what we hear.
And "different" isn't necessarily "better". But there's a right way to do things and a wrong way.
Similar threads
