MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

New Product Announcement: Low Impedance Bus Board
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 19, 20, 21  Next [all]
Author New Product Announcement: Low Impedance Bus Board
neil.johnson
Hi,

Quote:
The "scope" shots you refer to are more likely the Wavelab/DAW "scope" screen captures which would never have absolute measurements anyway. I referenced the amplification amounts in the white paper. Nearly all tools of that type lack resolution at the low amplitude levels needed for noise analysis. I tried many options and was not fully satisfied with any of them.

Perhaps the wrong tool then? I'm sure one of your Keysight oscilloscopes would be suitable together with a fixed gain amplifier. At the moment all I see is a squiggly line without axes, and some gain value, which together still means nothing. I could lend you my HP 400F which will measure down to a few microVolts RMS.

Quote:
I agree real world bus bar tests would be an interesting comparison.

Agreed, except your results aren't real world - you use a bench power supply (which, as you state yourself, no-one else would use to power a Eurorack system), together with a specific set of modules that very few people are likely to have the exact same setup and therefore your results are mildly interesting at best. Without knowing exactly what your collection of modules is doing to the rails it is difficult to predict how well your system will perform with any other set of modules.

Quote:
Have you asked Graham Hinton for his results for a eurorack system? I've never seen any either.

On MW there are various posts from Graham containing actual repeatable measurements; for example, in this post
https://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2548854&highlight=#2 548854
Graham provides a measurement of 50-60 microOhms on a 17" busbar (about 6-7 times better than your LIBB according to your "Worst case resistance measurements" table). That is a measurement that can be repeated and verified.

I could go on further, a lot further, but to what end? I do hope your boards sell well as they are definitely a step up from those abominable flying busboards. As to how well your solution holds up under the many and varied system configurations only time will tell. All I would ask is this: cut out the BS and snake oil - the audio hifi world has more than enough to go around without the modular synth world contributing its own.

Neil
GenusModu
Neil,

neil.johnson wrote:
Hi,

Quote:
The "scope" shots you refer to are more likely the Wavelab/DAW "scope" screen captures which would never have absolute measurements anyway. I referenced the amplification amounts in the white paper. Nearly all tools of that type lack resolution at the low amplitude levels needed for noise analysis. I tried many options and was not fully satisfied with any of them.

Perhaps the wrong tool then? I'm sure one of your Keysight oscilloscopes would be suitable together with a fixed gain amplifier. At the moment all I see is a squiggly line without axes, and some gain value, which together still means nothing. I could lend you my HP 400F which will measure down to a few microVolts RMS.

No thanks, no competent engineer would use a piece of antique test equipment like the HP 400F to do modern day measurements.

If you cannot understand a gain of +94, +90 or +72 dB and a full scale image of the resulting waveform, well I don't know what to say. It is pretty clear to people who have read the white paper. The corresponding FFTs show the detailed frequency amplitude information. The recording fidelity at the DAW is what matters to the euro user, more so than readings of millivolts or microvolts.

Reminding here for folks who have not seen the white paper that all power bus measurements are given in actual units, milliVolts peak to peak, milivolts rms and in dBV for spectrums.

neil.johnson wrote:

Quote:
I agree real world bus bar tests would be an interesting comparison.

Agreed, except your results aren't real world - you use a bench power supply (which, as you state yourself, no-one else would use to power a Eurorack system), together with a specific set of modules that very few people are likely to have the exact same setup and therefore your results are mildly interesting at best. Without knowing exactly what your collection of modules is doing to the rails it is difficult to predict how well your system will perform with any other set of modules.


Here's the quote on the power supply: "The high specification bench power supply was chosen to reduce dependencies of any particular power supply and to focus on the interaction between modules and their shared power connection under the best possible circumstances."

So...if I used a noisier power supply that would be more helpful? Not for the experiment that was being run. Your complaint is baseless.

The comment on module selection is ridiculous. By that logic no selection of modules or parameters is valid, therefore let's not ever provide any results. Folks are tired of arguing about theories without concrete data on how it helps their recordings.

Your last sentence is correct. Every different set of modules, every different set of parameters or selected algorithms, every change of power bus solution and every different position of the modules provide a different test result. Other people have definitely gotten that message from the white paper.

There seems to be some mistaken idea that the results represent the absolute value of noise in a eurorack modular system, or tries to show some repeatable test that can be duplicated anywhere. Nowhere does it say that in the text. Please read it. It is a study of the same configuration with four different power bus solutions, for comparison purposes on typical noise differences, and providing guidance on how much improvement can be gained from the power bus or the output module choices.

Show any other comparison of real eurorack audio outputs to a recording solution for eurorack power solutions. Why is presenting that data so controversial?

neil.johnson wrote:

Quote:
Have you asked Graham Hinton for his results for a eurorack system? I've never seen any either.

On MW there are various posts from Graham containing actual repeatable measurements; for example, in this post
https://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2548854&highlight=#2 548854
Graham provides a measurement of 50-60 microOhms on a 17" busbar (about 6-7 times better than your LIBB according to your "Worst case resistance measurements" table). That is a measurement that can be repeated and verified.

LIBB resistance measurements are also repeatable and verified with professional calibrated equipment. Your comparison seems to imply otherwise.

But that's not the measurements I was talking about. I was talking about audible results. It could be scope plots or DAW recording waveform and FFT images. Those results for bus bars do not exist to the best of my knowledge. If you know otherwise, please provide the link.

neil.johnson wrote:

I could go on further, a lot further, but to what end? I do hope your boards sell well as they are definitely a step up from those abominable flying busboards. As to how well your solution holds up under the many and varied system configurations only time will tell. All I would ask is this: cut out the BS and snake oil - the audio hifi world has more than enough to go around without the modular synth world contributing its own.

Neil

LIBB is selling very well thank you.

The statement "BS and snake oil" is completely bogus. I present more data than anyone has ever seen, and you come back and attack it. Have you ever designed a power delivery network? Do you know what it is? Come back to us when you've read and understood one of the standard engineering tests on Power Integrity. I've seen nothing here to show you understand the concepts that you are refuting. It is not snake oil, it is 21st century power engineering design.

John Loffink
Genus Modu
PM33AUD
I have a few lock-in amps (PAR something or another) that are older than me - I'd thought to use them to do some low noise testing for distribution - anyone try sth like this? You'd have to know the LI source but for an isolated and controlled test maybe a valuable tool, no? They also have some assortment of plugin LN amplifier modules which is how I've usually gotten past the relatively high noise floor of any scope I'd used though the LIA method gets you far lower into the dirt.

The bus-bar approach vs this LIBB is definitely a bit different as they do have different initial design requirements IMO - but the end goal is ultimately the same - less noise. I like the bus-bar approach myself because it's easy and it works well. It also feels good to have a really heavy case but that's just me being silly. The reality (even for myself these days!) is that most folks do need portable systems and linear with copper or even aluminum distribution bars is real PIA to lug around unless you have $$$ to move it. Even my most portable effort is over 40kg and requires sense lines, fancy connectors, and very liberal linkage of any separate distribution boards. There is no way I can move that around unless it's in my own car or in a much larger flight case. Flying with it is just not practical until I get 'famous.'

For my LLDB prototypes, I did a 'musician can understand me' test where I simply recorded audio with a 'normal' high-pitched whine w/o the bars installed, (it was distribution noise, not some noise coupled into an audio jack though it's the same thing at the end of the day for unbalanced system) then I installed the bars and recorded again. It wasn't a scientific test but you wouldn't have wanted to record the material without the bars. I did measure the total bus DCR with some kelvin probes and a fancy new Keithley 2000 and of course it was much improved over any PCB based solution. The module that was causing the issues was one with lots of PWM'd LEDs. It's pretty easy these days to have some offender modules and sometimes it's nice to know simply how that would affect your recorded material. When you find yourself notching your tracks or staying away from dynamics plugins, you realise very quickly how important power/distribution become.

So a combination of 'real world' easy to understand tests (mostly for musicians) and scientific ones are needed. I think you'll get a bunch of technical folks (and not technical ones too!) trying to poke some holes at various efforts. You have to also consider that engineering is such a huge field. Not everybody is an expert at all aspects. I know I am not and surely still learning!

Anyways, I appreciate the work y'all have done here and it's a honourable place to spend time - I'll get around to more carefully reading through the data in the not too distant future!
GenusModu
PM33AUD wrote:

For my LLDB prototypes, I did a 'musician can understand me' test where I simply recorded audio with a 'normal' high-pitched whine w/o the bars installed, (it was distribution noise, not some noise coupled into an audio jack though it's the same thing at the end of the day for unbalanced system) then I installed the bars and recorded again. It wasn't a scientific test but you wouldn't have wanted to record the material without the bars. I did measure the total bus DCR with some kelvin probes and a fancy new Keithley 2000 and of course it was much improved over any PCB based solution. The module that was causing the issues was one with lots of PWM'd LEDs. It's pretty easy these days to have some offender modules and sometimes it's nice to know simply how that would affect your recorded material. When you find yourself notching your tracks or staying away from dynamics plugins, you realise very quickly how important power/distribution become.

So a combination of 'real world' easy to understand tests (mostly for musicians) and scientific ones are needed. I think you'll get a bunch of technical folks (and not technical ones too!) trying to poke some holes at various efforts. You have to also consider that engineering is such a huge field. Not everybody is an expert at all aspects. I know I am not and surely still learning!

Anyways, I appreciate the work y'all have done here and it's a honourable place to spend time - I'll get around to more carefully reading through the data in the not too distant future!


Interesting. I did not realize you were playing back the power bus noise directly in your bus bar/board examples. I have to say as I am taking more measurements of power bus, audio outputs and audio recordings, there is only a partial correlation to power bus noise and amount of audio noise. If it was 100% then LIBB would look even better at the audio outs, as it is the only one that really filters audio frequency noise.
meatbeatz
I'm most interested to see LIBB test results with vs without your selection of caps as this seems to be where your design differs from other low resistance busboards/busbars. You mention in your white paper that you are unsure as to what degree the caps are improving your results yet it seems to be your main selling point (otherwise we are looking at a 6 layer PCB with a bunch of connectors). Are you able to remove the caps to show how they improve output noise across the spectrum?
paults
tl;dr version

Buss bars are a low RESISTANCE solution. Great for large currents (like 10s of amps). You should see the buss bars in a typical battery plant in a telephone exchange (think the sizes of a 2 x 6)

The LIBB is BOTH a low resistance and a low IMPEDANCE solution.

A buss bar does nothing to a 300mv pk-pk, 1MHz switcher ripple.

It's not 'snake oil', come on Neil you're better than this (unless you have a horse in this race).
jimi23
Got one on the way! Enjoyed the whitepaper. One thing I found interesting was FBB vs 1oz copper BB performance. I do have a switching PSU, so I thought I'd give this a test as I get some audible HF noise at times.

I do wish the shipping options for Rest of World were a bit different though, I was potentially going to buy a few but copping a shipping surcharge per board didn't give any incentive.

Will these be available through retailers? Other than through Synthtech with their upcoming power supply
Joe.
paults wrote:
A buss bar does nothing to a 300mv pk-pk, 1MHz switcher ripple.


We will never know Dead Banana

Despite the years and years that different PSU solutions have been peddled here, every single producer refuses to do a comparative test.

It's amazing what claims you can make, about which designs are 'better', when you choose not to release actual data showing your product compared to others thumbs up
GenusModu
jimi23 wrote:
Got one on the way! Enjoyed the whitepaper. One thing I found interesting was FBB vs 1oz copper BB performance. I do have a switching PSU, so I thought I'd give this a test as I get some audible HF noise at times.

I do wish the shipping options for Rest of World were a bit different though, I was potentially going to buy a few but copping a shipping surcharge per board didn't give any incentive.

Will these be available through retailers? Other than through Synthtech with their upcoming power supply


I have two US retailers and one UK retailer lined up for LIBB distribution, working on Germany.
GenusModu
meatbeatz wrote:
I'm most interested to see LIBB test results with vs without your selection of caps as this seems to be where your design differs from other low resistance busboards/busbars. You mention in your white paper that you are unsure as to what degree the caps are improving your results yet it seems to be your main selling point (otherwise we are looking at a 6 layer PCB with a bunch of connectors). Are you able to remove the caps to show how they improve output noise across the spectrum?


I'm not that unsure actually, I just like to validate everything with data. The Z vs Frequency chart predicts effective power line filtering beginning around 3-4 KHz, and that's what we see in the power rail driven noise from the attenuverter module. Removing the caps will worsen the response at high audio frequencies, just the amount is the question. I'd like to do that test, but I have other tests that are higher priority.

I'm working on data now for the Euro Header Adapter kit. Power bus spectrum plots are consistently better between LIBB and FBC, 7 dB for 2 KHz range, 12 dB for 48 KHz, 13 dB for 600 KHz and 11 dB for 6 MHz. Those numbers are just the averages, peaks tend to be reduced 18 to 25 dB. That is the caps doing their job on the power rail.
meatbeatz
LoFi Junglist wrote:
Despite the years and years that different PSU solutions have been peddled here, every single producer refuses to do a comparative test.


I don't know of anyone that has refused to test their boards. More likely they lack the equipment, know-how, R&D budget or they are satisfied with their own testing enough to affix their logo to it. Otherwise most manufacturers design to the best of their knowledge (for better or worse).

Re: comparative tests, I'd like to have seen these include a wider range of known aggressor modules, modules susceptible to bleed, a wider range of known passive busboards, different (larger) sized systems, common bus noise vs audio path noise etc. Also a comparison to a range of well known/popular active busboards would help potential customers understand why they might choose LIBB passive distro over an active solution as used in the majority of eurorack cases.

I think it's safe to say LIBB performs favourably to several unknown products but a comparative test doesn't mean a lot without knowing what it's being compared to. The LIBB PCB screw terminal in itself is partially contributing to better results over busboards that use connectors with high contact resistance.

Personally I'd like to see LIBB tested with and without the low ESR caps which would show the degree to which LIBB outperforms a busboard of equally low resistance. It would be as simple as removing them from the PCB and the results would speak for themselves.
meatbeatz
GenusModu wrote:
I'd like to do that test, but I have other tests that are higher priority.


No probs, watching with interest. Thanks for your commitment to improving eurorack power! smile
paults
General comments below [pot stirring.......maybe]

a) to point out "Well, not EVERY POSSIBLE thing was tested" is silly. We tested things easily available, is the Hinton system "easily available"? Is it used by more than 20 people, really?

b) there are reasons in these types of test we don't want to give away TOO much about the caps used, what the caps contribute, etc. You want to know, go figure it out [eyeroll]

c) also, the Euro 'community' [COUGH] doesn't seem to appreciate pointing out things like 'aggressor' modules, because UNFAIR SLAGGING (insert reddit term here). As the modular poster boy of STOP SLAGGING OTHER MANUFACTURERS YOU ASSHOLE especially here on this list, what exactly is gained here? Yes, believe me, John found a metric shit-ton of both aggressors and victims but we just chose a representative example.

Lastly: ever notice the general 'tone' of these EEs versus the world discussions? Snake Oil! And my personal favorite: WHAT I USE WORKS GREAT FOR ME!!!

So we use an EXAMPLE setup , in a CONTROLLED environment, with $30K of test equipment and IMMEDIATELY we get the usual stuff (BTW which I 100% predicted would happed when John & I were discussing the white paper).

And in all the 'flak', the data is still there: LIBB works, it's not "snake oil", it's a combined 58 years of EEs in industry who have been designing power systems since 1977 that REALLY WE SWEAR we know EXACTLY what we are doing. REALLY.
GenusModu
paults wrote:


And in all the 'flak', the data is still there: LIBB works, it's not "snake oil", it's a combined 58 years of EEs in industry who have been designing power systems since 1977 that REALLY WE SWEAR we know EXACTLY what we are doing. REALLY.


[Cough] It is more like 70 years of combined EE industry experience.
meatbeatz
paults wrote:

a) to point out "Well, not EVERY POSSIBLE thing was tested" is silly. We tested things easily available, is the Hinton system "easily available"? Is it used by more than 20 people, really?


Well that would be silly if it were the case, but it's not. The comparisons I suggested above (on the subject of comparative tests) would have been more useful to the end user in showing how LIBB could improve on what they already have rather than product x,y,z.

paults wrote:

b) there are reasons in these types of test we don't want to give away TOO much about the caps used, what the caps contribute, etc. You want to know, go figure it out [eyeroll]


I already know. The claim here is that the low ESR caps are what makes the difference over a similarly low (or lower) resistance busboard yet the whitepaper neglects provide data in support of this. meh

paults wrote:

c) also, the Euro 'community' [COUGH] doesn't seem to appreciate pointing out things like 'aggressor' modules, because UNFAIR SLAGGING (insert reddit term here). As the modular poster boy of STOP SLAGGING OTHER MANUFACTURERS YOU ASSHOLE especially here on this list, what exactly is gained here? Yes, believe me, John found a metric shit-ton of both aggressors and victims but we just chose a representative example.


LIBB's promo material is essentially slagging every other busboard solution out there, so why not? More info is needed on the competitor busboards other than just copper thickness. Without more comparative info the white paper reads like a lengthy infomercial.

paults wrote:
Lastly: ever notice the general 'tone' of these EEs versus the world discussions? Snake Oil! And my personal favorite: WHAT I USE WORKS GREAT FOR ME!!!


Yes I have. It would seem the vast majority of people are happy with poor power distro (until they're not). wink

paults wrote:
So we use an EXAMPLE setup , in a CONTROLLED environment, with $30K of test equipment and IMMEDIATELY we get the usual stuff (BTW which I 100% predicted would happed when John & I were discussing the white paper)

And in all the 'flak', the data is still there: LIBB works, it's not "snake oil", it's a combined 58 years of EEs in industry who have been designing power systems since 1977 that REALLY WE SWEAR we know EXACTLY what we are doing. REALLY.


We can see that LIBB works but in the plethora of info contained in the white paper it is still unclear to what degree when you could have chosen the 3 crappiest busboards on the market to compare it to. Pretty simple point really and no engineering qualifications required to make it. If anyone is going to call "snake oil" it'd be over such unqualified comparisons not that the board doesn't work as advertised.

What we are interested in as musicians/music producers is whether these improvements are audible. I don't think anyone cares how a busboard performs up into the MHz. Also comparing passive busboards when most people use active busboards is irrelevant to those potentially looking to upgrade from their active busboard.

I'm not looking to pick holes in this product, I'm making suggestions that I feel would better help qualify your claims (if I don't someone else will). I think this development is a great step forward in many respects and hopefully will spark other manufacturers to up their game. smile
paults
a) So, if we specifically say "We tested the X flying cables, the Y model of 1oz buss board and the Z model of the 4oz" (ie called them out by name), that is 'useful' but then 'slagging'? Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

And no, we are not going to test EVERY one because that's not useful if we don't name them. it's the OTHER people's job to refute our "claims" if they think we are wrong or misrepresented. See, this is all tied back to the Euro "community" (hold hands, sing around campfire, whatever). When we claim "the best" and show we are in fact "the best" this is seen as 'bad karma, bro' or something. If the other suppliers want to make their own measurements, OK.

2) if you don't think "having to worry about" high-frequency noise in audio is necessary, then you need a schoolin' and please do research on 'pn junction rectification'. You don't hear THE 500Khz noise, you hear the ARTIFACTS CREATED by the 500Khz noise.

3) Again: someone has to go first, so we went first. As in all 'marketing', there are 'claims' and there are 'facts' and we believe we have presented a fair, unbiased account of EXACTLY what we did, exactly HOW we did it, and the RESULTS. Maybe John dialed the rhetoric up a notch or 2 more than I would have. I chalk this up to 'rookie excitement'.

But you know, it's really REALLY hard to listen to counter-arguments when people today use non-shrouded headers. Really.
Mungo
meatbeatz wrote:
Without more comparative info the white paper reads like a lengthy infomercial.
In many ways it is the classic advertising claim of a product being much better than unspecified other "competitor", we could certainly find other bus boards on the market which would produce similarly excellent results so the only caution is not claiming this to be the singular best but simply better than most.

Not revealing the specific problematic modules is a classy move, there is no need to point out a particular example of bad practice when there are many many out there. It wouldn't be fair to point to just one but taking the time to work through enough of the available products to produce a list of good and bad examples would be expensive and time consuming and beyond what could be expected.

neil.johnson wrote:
GenusModu wrote:
The "scope" shots you refer to are more likely the Wavelab/DAW "scope" screen captures which would never have absolute measurements anyway. I referenced the amplification amounts in the white paper. Nearly all tools of that type lack resolution at the low amplitude levels needed for noise analysis. I tried many options and was not fully satisfied with any of them.

Perhaps the wrong tool then?
The "scope" shots are relatively uninformative, they are a short capture of a much longer scale noise and can be easily manipulated by selectively picking particular segments. I don't think they add much value to the document but the measured values from the special measurements are comparable figures and well presented.

I'm already recommending this product to customers, its one of the few that actually goes through and publishes some typical performance/specifications. There is a fair bit of marketing puffery, confusing promotion, and a few doubtful claims but its still much better than most products out there. The underlying design is well thought out and realised and hopefully people can take the time to look past the hype to see whats simply a good product.
GenusModu
meatbeatz wrote:
paults wrote:

a) to point out "Well, not EVERY POSSIBLE thing was tested" is silly. We tested things easily available, is the Hinton system "easily available"? Is it used by more than 20 people, really?


Well that would be silly if it were the case, but it's not. The comparisons I suggested above (on the subject of comparative tests) would have been more useful to the end user in showing how LIBB could improve on what they already have rather than product x,y,z.

paults wrote:

b) there are reasons in these types of test we don't want to give away TOO much about the caps used, what the caps contribute, etc. You want to know, go figure it out [eyeroll]


I already know. The claim here is that the low ESR caps are what makes the difference over a similarly low (or lower) resistance busboard yet the whitepaper neglects provide data in support of this. meh

paults wrote:

c) also, the Euro 'community' [COUGH] doesn't seem to appreciate pointing out things like 'aggressor' modules, because UNFAIR SLAGGING (insert reddit term here). As the modular poster boy of STOP SLAGGING OTHER MANUFACTURERS YOU ASSHOLE especially here on this list, what exactly is gained here? Yes, believe me, John found a metric shit-ton of both aggressors and victims but we just chose a representative example.


LIBB's promo material is essentially slagging every other busboard solution out there, so why not? More info is needed on the competitor busboards other than just copper thickness. Without more comparative info the white paper reads like a lengthy infomercial.

paults wrote:
Lastly: ever notice the general 'tone' of these EEs versus the world discussions? Snake Oil! And my personal favorite: WHAT I USE WORKS GREAT FOR ME!!!


Yes I have. It would seem the vast majority of people are happy with poor power distro (until they're not). wink

paults wrote:
So we use an EXAMPLE setup , in a CONTROLLED environment, with $30K of test equipment and IMMEDIATELY we get the usual stuff (BTW which I 100% predicted would happed when John & I were discussing the white paper)

And in all the 'flak', the data is still there: LIBB works, it's not "snake oil", it's a combined 58 years of EEs in industry who have been designing power systems since 1977 that REALLY WE SWEAR we know EXACTLY what we are doing. REALLY.


We can see that LIBB works but in the plethora of info contained in the white paper it is still unclear to what degree when you could have chosen the 3 crappiest busboards on the market to compare it to. Pretty simple point really and no engineering qualifications required to make it. If anyone is going to call "snake oil" it'd be over such unqualified comparisons not that the board doesn't work as advertised.

What we are interested in as musicians/music producers is whether these improvements are audible. I don't think anyone cares how a busboard performs up into the MHz. Also comparing passive busboards when most people use active busboards is irrelevant to those potentially looking to upgrade from their active busboard. I'm not looking to pick holes in this product, I think it's a great step forward in many respects. I am making suggestions that I feel would better help qualify your claims (if I don't someone else will). smile


Your request for comparative tests amount to thousands of hours of work, for products that don't provide a single spec of their own. Why should I do that? The test results in the white paper represent the three main classes of power distribution. FYI I did not choose the "crappiest" products out there. Products were chosen to be representative of their category. The category results are not going to vary that much due to the limitations of their similar geometries. There is no reason to test them all when I know the results will be almost the same. Maybe it is not that obvious to other folks. How can I help people understand that?

For your ESR question, it works, there is zero question on that. I was only questioning the extent of the improvement in one specific test, and it is now being interpreted as having no idea of whether it did anything. That is not what was written. Again, as I wrote earlier, look at the attenuverter audio noise spectrum results and the differences between the solutions.

The white paper has data to inform the eurorack user on how much difference they might see with different power solutions. If data is considered slagging then I can't help that. Be happy with the data I provided. Before the white paper there was ZIP - nothing. If you don't like the data, or want more data, then you or the community can provide their own. We would all love to see more data.

A comparison to powered bus boards was not provided as I was not providing a powered solution.

Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate feedback which can help better communicating these complicated topics to a non-technical audience.
meatbeatz
paults wrote:
a) So, if we specifically say "We tested the X flying cables, the Y model of 1oz buss board and the Z model of the 4oz" (ie called them out by name), that is 'useful' but then 'slagging'? Can't have your cake and eat it, too.


Useful info would be to provide more info than the copper thickness eg: type and position of input terminals, orientation and position of output headers, number of layers, on-board capacitance etc. would go a long way in illustrating the difference in noise levels as seen in the whitepaper.

paults wrote:
And no, we are not going to test EVERY one because that's not useful if we don't name them. it's the OTHER people's job to refute our "claims" if they think we are wrong or misrepresented. See, this is all tied back to the Euro "community" (hold hands, sing around campfire, whatever). When we claim "the best" and show we are in fact "the best" this is seen as 'bad karma, bro' or something. If the other suppliers want to make their own measurements, OK.


And that's what I'm doing. I feel that the data is somewhat misrepresented in that the graphs compare to busboards described only in terms of copper thickness. Again I'm NOT suggesting you test every other board on the market but that you provide more information on what LIBB is being tested against.

paults wrote:
2) if you don't think "having to worry about" high-frequency noise in audio is necessary, then you need a schoolin' and please do research on 'pn junction rectification'. You don't hear THE 500Khz noise, you hear the ARTIFACTS CREATED by the 500Khz noise.


I get it. I work with two EE's (60+ years combined experience) that have explained this to me at great length while pointing out how LIBB could be improved. Again, all the end user cares about is whether PSU/module noise and associated artefacts are in fact audible.

paults wrote:
But you know, it's really REALLY hard to listen to counter-arguments when people today use non-shrouded headers. Really.


Well you might not like it but with so many incorrectly assembled IDC cables in the wild there is an argument against the use of shrouded headers (well at least without very clear instructions on how to check your cables). However I'm with you on this, the only good thing about using IDC cables for euro power is the polarizing key which has completely gone to waste when using non-shrouded headers. :(
meatbeatz
GenusModu wrote:
For your ESR question, it works, there is zero question on that. I was only questioning the extent of the improvement in one specific test, and it is now being interpreted as having no idea of whether it did anything. That is not what was written. Again, as I wrote earlier, look at the attenuverter audio noise spectrum results and the differences between the solutions.


Not at all. My question relates to "how much improvement" not "if there is any" and given the amount of work you've put into your white paper removing the caps from LIBB to illustrate the improvement would have been a drop in the ocean.

GenusModu wrote:
Be happy with the data I provided. Before the white paper there was ZIP - nothing. If you don't like the data, or want more data, then you or the community can provide their own. We would all love to see more data.


100% although Mungo provides complete specs for his active busboard there isn't much out there.

GenusModu wrote:
A comparison to powered bus boards was not provided as I was not providing a powered solution.


I think your potential customer base would be most interested in LIBB's comparison to the big name active busboards as they are used in the vast majority of cases (both pre-built and DIY). Maybe when Paul releases the Skunk Worx power supply we'll get a better idea of how the system performs as a whole.

GenusModu wrote:
Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate feedback which can help better communicating these complicated topics to a non-technical audience.


No problem and thanks again for your efforts. smile
mskala
I think there's a place for independent reviewers to do comparative tests of products. It doesn't have to be manufacturers testing their own products in an obvious conflict of interest. Manufacturers will do their own tests anyway just because it's part of the development process; but expecting them to publish all their internal results and have the results be convincing to everyone on Muffwiggler at all levels of skill including the trolls makes very little sense. I don't know where the idea came from that manufacturers were obligated to even attempt that.

All these modular magazines, v-logs, and similar publications could be doing comparative tests. It is part of their mission.
paults
Quote:
All these modular magazines, v-logs, and similar publications could be doing comparative tests. It is part of their mission.


And curious what your opinion is of such places:

a) having degreed EEs on staff with industry experience in power supply/distribution (say min. of 10 years, because that's how long it takes to START to be good at it)

b) $30,000 of test equipment
mskala
I have no more faith in manufacturers than in magazines.
GenusModu
Chris Meyer is doing some "informal" tests of different bus solutions for Learning Modular.
paults
Quote:
I have no more faith in manufacturers than in magazines.


This is probably the most bizarre thing I've seen on MW, and I've seen a LOT.

So, if you want to buy a new phone, and the specs say "4.3in screen" you have no faith in that? See, that's a MEASUREMENT. It's not a CLAIM.

When we say "LIBB reduces broadband noise 4x better than a typical 1oz copper bussboard", that's a MEASUREMENT. A CLAIM would be "There is no better passive bussboard available", because there is no data to support that as not every bussboard was tested. But when you market a product, you have a mixture of both [shrug].

If you see a Plaits video and it says "16 different algorithms" do you want an independent test lab to count them?

Now, I fully 'get' that there are people in Euro that kind of wish the 'community' was some island of "helpful DIY folk" + "friendly manufacturers free of the usual commercial BS" and somehow Euro is 'immune' from other areas of MI (like say.....guitar pedals or drums). And that's OK, it's just at some point, in order for us (the manufacturers) to be able to both provide reliable, solid products and elevate the Euro so that this CONTINUES, we all have to do some 'degree' of marketing.

Now power supplies are the hardest thing to do correctly. The entire synth history is full of crappy power supplies (OB-anything, P5, even the Moog modular). And now we have switchers to deal with, thrown into a 'Wild Wild West' sort of mentality.

Like John (and I) have been saying: we encourage other power supply providers (bussboards, active bussboards, etc) to make these same type of measurements. If there is improved methodology we can retest.

But please don't lump us with the $3,000 HDMI cables. All that audiophile crap is based on CLAIMS and not MEASUREMENTS.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 19, 20, 21  Next [all]
Page 2 of 21
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group