Reprise NOS Old Dale RN65D vs NEW Dale RN65D

[norburybrook]

Tomorrow or somewhere this weekend more. I have a busy schedule the coming 2 days.
1000Hz is almost the octave of the played b note in that spot. 493Hz is the B(7th position E string). Lets see if it's frequency depedent or played note dependent.

Cool, great stuff though. An octave is the first harmonic which would make sense, here's the 2nd ,3rd and 4 th harmonic frequencies of that note

1479 Hz, 1972 Hz, and 2465 Hz

I'm home Sunday so depending on what I need to do on a day off I might get chance to do the spectral thing before I hit the road again.





M

[Guitarman18]

Apologies for being late to the party, but thank you Erwin for doing all of this, and for such great playing/tones. Damn it man, you just keep getting better

Having listened to the samples myself, on a modest studio setup, there are distinct differences in the two samples. Most clearly in the upper frequencies. The new Dales seem to have a hash around the top end of the notes, as if tin foil was attached to the speaker. Whereas, with the old Dales, the notes seem to hold together and have that magical 3D quality (cliche I know) that I associate with original Dumbles.

This is also the experience I've had replacing the resistors in my amps with Phiers.

I get it that some people don't hear it. My eye sight is not what it used to be, but I would never suggest that people are imagining the words written in books just because I can only see the book.

If the technical analysis does not show any differences then I'd suggest that different methods should be applied.

I for one would gladly replace the Dales in my amps, if I ever see any up for sale.

Have a great weekend one and all.

Cheers,

Paul.

[jelle]

Yes, the old Dales sound scooped. You can see how Dumble made circuit changes when switching from the middier Mepcos to the scooped Dales, with the 2nd gend to 3rd gen redo of the ODS concept.

jelle

[jam-mill]

Here is an interesting quote by 'Fisherdude' from https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php ... se.414778/:

"All passive components create noise in a circuit. The lower, the better. As far as resistors, metal film has the lowest noise level, carbon film is next, and carbon composition is the highest. These are measurable specifications.

As far as how the various types affect the sound, that's in the ears of the listener."

Exiting discussion.

[didit]

Hello -

Understand why, but the details came before I could finish listening. I'd isolated 11 seconds at 1:57.8 where a subtle difference seemed, but after Tuesday was too busy to get back and listen critically--but I obviously found the section characteristic of the difference. What differences I can hear lead to no crisp aesthetic choice.

Look forward to seeing what arises from ongoing dynamic frequency analysis. And then to all varied speculations as to the root causal physics.

A final note -- experimental design is actually difficult, which is why we have multiple levels of courses on it in universities. This was far from ideal but nevertheless insightful so thanks all.

Best .. Ian

[erwin_ve]

Guys I need more time to finish this, my guitarschool is booming and have little spare time at the moment.

[martin manning]

Erwin, when you have time, in the place where you observe a difference in the graphical display, can you cut out just that small section for both cases and place them back-to-back several times?

Also, when you made the recordings, was the mic position untouched (i.e. not moved at all) from one to the other?

[erwin_ve]

Erwin, when you have time, in the place where you observe a difference in the graphical display, can you cut out just that small section for both cases and place them back-to-back several times?

Also, when you made the recordings, was the mic position untouched (i.e. not moved at all) from one to the other?

Hi Martin, you mean the audio part? sure.

To maintain the same micing position a external EVM12L Thiele cab was used.

So the mic poistioning was untouched and exactly the same.

[rccolgan]

I like the approach of using a looper and leaving everything else the same. I usually score high percentage on listening tests and, in my opinion, I hear slightly more under tones on sample #1. Ever so slightly. particularly in the overdriven, single notes. Great playing! Now I'm hyper curious about resistor types! I'll be going down a rabbit hole now..

[norburybrook]

Guy,s

here are a frequency analysis and a Spectra graph of two random points at the same point on each audio file.

You can see on the freq analysis there's a distinct difference between the two. The blue white lines are the left/right, really we should have had mono files as there's random things happening between left and right channels.

Dale spec old.jpg

dale spec new.jpg

the spectral graph is showing frequency top to bottom and the amplitude is the brightness. It's an overall picture of a short sound clip. You can see a subtle difference in here too.

dale RX old.jpg

Dale RX new.jpg

I've had chance to listen in the studio and I can hear a more marked difference than on my tests. I wouldn't say one was better than the other just different, but the main thing is it's different and the graphs show it.

Obviously this isn't fully scientific as there's no control,(As a control I'd like to record the same phrase with a looper a couple of times with the same amp and see if that has subtle changes like this) and even things like was the amp warmed up the same etc aren't taken into account..however... if we take it that the only thing changed was the resistors then we can quite categorically say they HAVE changed the sound.

(As a control I'd like to record the same phrase with a looper a couple of times with the same amp and see if that has subtle changes like this)


Now anyone care to say why?

M

p.s. sorry about the full wide screen i didn't crop the pics down to one monitor.

[martin manning]

Interesting. The frequency plots are remarkably similar, except for the downward spike in the middle of the plot in the upper one, which may be an artifact. LCR measurements did show some small differences in the parasitics, so that may be what you are seeing.

[norburybrook]

Damn.....


I've just repeated Erwins test and have had similar results with the same amp recording the same loop at different times only 5 minutes apart...with NO changes.....

this is the same phrase played from the Looper 5 minutes apart on the same amp.

loop 1.jpg

loop 2.jpg

back to square one......I've always said my amps can sound different on different days.....this just goes to prove it. Damn.. I thought we were getting somewhere....



M

[martin manning]

Good idea to try that Marcus!

[erwin_ve]

Damn.....


I've just repeated Erwins test and have had similar results with the same amp recording the same loop at different times only 5 minutes apart...with NO changes.....

this is the same phrase played from the Looper 5 minutes apart on the same amp.

loop 1.jpg
loop 2.jpg







back to square one......I've always said my amps can sound different on different days.....this just goes to prove it. Damn.. I thought we were getting somewhere....



M

So when listening back to your recording the strong pick attacks / high notes are also less/more spikey on the different recordings?

[norburybrook]

Erwin,

It's really hard to say because even listening back to the two files you can convince yourself they're the same or different each pass I've just repeated the test again in mono/dry and the two files are very different .I agree that i can hear a difference in your files at the spot we mentioned, I just wanted to do a control to put my mind at rest it wasn't something else causing the difference.....I'm now more confused

here take a look. these were done less than 30 seconds apart.

Loop 3.jpg

loop 4#.jpg

Same spot to the sample, dry mono files looped 30 seconds apart.



M