|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
In Reply to: RE: Machina Dynamica's Teleportation Tweak posted by tomservo on June 28, 2007 at 06:41:04
Tom,I'm not sure how to take this comment "Getting suspicious are we?" I've always been suspicious and skeptical. There are three tweaks that in that past were proven to work, at least proven well enough for me, that is. As I've stated numerous times here there was a time when I believed wires couldn't possibly influence how an audio system sounds. Apparently many of the objectivists here cannot accept that someone would change their mind about wires, so my comments are mocked and dismissed as simply being made up, but truth be told I had stopped doing business with more than one dealer for trying to sell me on the idea that wires mattered. Fortunately for me Bernie an audio dealer I bought from in Newington, Connecticut was willing to put his $$$$ where his mouth was because he knew how I felt about wires and could have lost my business.
I was getting ready to upgrade from a $2.2K OCM88 preamp to a $4K Counterpoint SA5000 preamp. Bernie, the owner asked me if I trusted him to do me right and when I said yes, he said instead of spending $2000 to upgrade the preamps invest that $2000 in wires and you'll get more of an improvement! I was furious, I told him I would NEVER do business with him again. Bernie took the time to sooth my dispostion and made this suggestion. Go home and get all your wires Tom. In the meantime I'll setup an exact duplicate of your system here (I bought my system from Bernie so that was easy for him to do) When you get back we'll compare your wires to some wires I suggest you use. Then you can hear for yourself if wires do or don't make a difference.
So I went home and got my wires and a couple of my prized CD's. When I arrived Bernie took my wires which was all Radio Shack, (their best interconnects and their pseudo-monster speaker wires) and hooked the system together. Next we dropped in one of my CD's and I listened. When the song ended Bernie asked what I thought. I told him I liked it of course as it sounded essentially like what I heard at home.
Ok Bernie said lets exchange preamps. So preamps were exchanged and the Counterpoint SA5000 replaced my OCM88. Then my CD was played again. Once again when the song ended Bernie asked what I thought.
"I think it sounds a bit better." I said.
"$2000 worth of better?" Bernie asked.
"Well Bernie that's hard to say, what's $2000 worth of better supposed to sound like?" I said thinking about diminishing returns and all that. I remember Bernie laughing and saying "A $2000 investment in an upgrade SHOULD be immediately noticeable!"So Bernie put the OCM88 back into the system and played my song again. It sounded just like it did at home (essentially) but not quite as good as the Counterpoint. I was beginning to question whether the SA5000 was worth $2000 for upgrading, but probably would have bought it as it was better and I was considering diminishing returns once again.
Now Bernie shut everything off and on one side he hooked up AudioQuest Emerald interconnects & speakerwire (as best I can remember that is) I do know it was AudioQuest and the combo was equal to about the $2000 I would have spent on the preamp.
Now before we continue remember:
1) I believed wires didn't influence the sound of an audio system.
2) I expected not to hear any differences with these wires.
3) My "Expectation Bias" should have influenced me to NOT hear a differences "if" the theory about "Expectation Bias" is correct!Once again Bernie played my CD. This time he played only the channel my wires were on. It sounded just as I expected it to sound and essentially like it did at my home. Then Bernie looked at me and said "Ready?" I said, "Yes!" and Bernie now only played the channel with the Emeralds on it. I was shocked at the level of improvement. It sounded so much realistic, I was absolutely amazed. Before the song was even complete I wanted to hear the system with all the emeralds attached. This time it was even better than before, deeper, wider soundstage and just all around more realistic sounding. I couldn't believe a simple wire, dielectric and a jacket could influence the sound so much.
Needless to say I bought the wires. I went home and reattached my original wires and it all sounded very good to me. Perhaps I was fooling myself I thought? But then I pulled out my wires and hooked up the AudioQuest wires and just like at Bernies the soundstage got wider, deeper, bass was more extended and everything sounded just so much more realistic. So wires is one tweak on that I was wrong about.
There was also a time I didn't believe tubes could possibly sound better than solid state, after all tubes was an antiquated technology. Besides from the first moment you play them they're starting to deteriorate. Yet that myth, just like the wires sound the same myth was also proven to me to be incorrect. Tubes is another area, while maybe not a tweak per say where I was wrong.
Yes Tom I'm skeptical of tweaks when I cannot comprehend how they work. But these days I try to remain open minded enough to accept the possibility that the tweak may work in a way I cannot understand. How can a wire influence sound? I don't know exactly, but I know it does! Why should a tube sound more realistic than a transistor? Once again I'm not exactly sure why they do, but I know the better tubed amps do. Even John Curl admitted Dick Sequerra's tubed amps sounded better than any of his solid state amps! Although John did say his amps give most other tubed amps a run for the money if not actually being better than them.
I also remember when I was about 20 years old I went and visited a Hartley speaker representative in Storrs, Connecticut IIRC. His name was Leo Oxley. He played an all Hartley speaker system, which used the Hartley 24" Super-Woofers! This was one of my first exposures to good tubed equipment he was using an Acoustic Research amp/preamp. During our listening session Leo placed a VPI "Magic Brick" on the transformers of the amp and asked if I heard a difference. I honestly responded "Nope, no difference." Leo said "Lets listen for awhile and see what happens." After maybe 20mins passed Leo asked me once again if I heard any differences and once again I replied once again nope, no difference. At that point Leo said something like if you cannot hear the difference I might as well just remove the "Magic Brick." That's when I heard a difference, BAM! the moment he removed that damned "Magic Brick" the sound got duller and less transparent. Leo just smiled, I imagined he done that little stunt before. It appears that what the VPI did, it did very sllllooowwwlly. Something was definitely happening here-- Did it absorb stray magnetic fields? Did it damped the transformers? Did it dampen the chassis? I don't know what the "Magic Brick" did, but it happened so slowly I could only notice what it did when it was abruptly removed! That's one tweak that really amazed me. To this day I don't know what those "Magic Bricks" did, but they damn sure did it! The "Magic Brick" is the third tweak that worked when I didn't believe it would.
These days Tom I'm still skeptical on a lot of different tweaks, but try to keep an open-mind on things like cable stands, clocks, rocks, wooden discs or bells on walls etc., but I'd be willing to listen to any of them for myself to see if I heard any influence that made the music sound more realistic to me. Some things just sound too far fetched for me to simply believe on blind faith they would work. For tweaks like that I'd have to be shown that they work. That would require my seeing them installed and then my actually hearing a significant improvement. If that's not done for me the manufacturer can keep that tweak.
Thetubeguy1954
Follow Ups:
> My "Expectation Bias" should have influenced me to NOT hear a differences
> "if" the theory about "Expectation Bias" is correct!
That is a simplistic misrepresentation as to how "expectation bias" works.
First there are always subconscious issues at work is a situation such as you were in. "Subconscious" means that you are not actively aware of how some factors are influencing your thinking. (If you were aware, they wouldn't be "sub"conscious, would they?) That is, unless you're telling us you don't have a subconscious. ;-)
The entire scenario you describe in the comparison process at your dealer is filled with so many "set-ups", negative and positive reinforcement points as to present a case study for sales people. Zig Zigler would be proud.
Second there are always variables in a casual product comparison process that are not well controlled. Can you reach a decision as to which product to buy? Sure. Does it mean anything in the world of science? No. At best you may generate an issue that is worth further investigation.
To sum it up, your vignette was not an illustration of "expectation bias" in the manner you think it should have been. As noted before, we do not cease to be human in our responses just because the subject is audio. I think the reality is quite the opposite.
Notice how many components today use toroidal transformers?
rw
E-Stat,
Yes I do notice the increase in toroidal transformers. But sadly I'm not very technically adept so please explain how their usage relates to the "magic brick" and how it effected/influneced sound.
Thanks, Thetubeguy1954
is to absorb the stray EMF generated by traditional laminated transformers. Toroids generate less hum and about one-tenth the EMF, both ideal for use in audio.
Toroids render the bricks unnecessary.
rw
generate a doughnut shaped field. Placing a flat piece of ferrous metal over and centered on a toroidal transformer will actually screw up the normal field, channeling the field form the egdes towards the middle and having them in direct oppostition to each other. You need a hole in the middle to allow the field to drop through, or alternatiely you could use two bricks on either side of the cneter.
I actually use large toroids (unmagnetised speaker magnet material) to very good effect over toroidal fields. Since the fields decrease in strength with distance, placement closer to the source is always of greater benefit.
Try placing toroids over, or under, motor assemblies: your TT motor, or your CD/DVD player spin motors. The sonic improvement can be quite dramatic.
For toroidal transformers, again remove the center bolt holding down tha transformer and replace it with a nylon equivalent. You will hear a more relaxed presentation, and a quickness to the music, with a larger soundstage.
I remember playing a very power hungry speaker with a large amp, and then opening up the crossover to examine the parts. I nearly burned my finger when I touched the bolt holding the air core inductor to the wooden case. The field dropping through the center of the coil was inducing current flow and with no where to go simply generated a lot of heat.
Early on, I purchased some Mu metal and did some experimentation with it. You can actually increase the size of the field by extending the mu metal way over the edges of the magnetic source. That's not necessarily a good thing. Placement and application is quite critical for best results.
Stu
E-Stat,
I've noticed a few different proposed suggestions as to how and why the "magic bricks" worked over the years. The 2 I remember the best are:
1) The brick's weight deaded transformer, chassis and tube vibrations.
2) The bricks absorbed or influenced magentic fields around the transformers.
If #2 is the main reason the bricks worked then I'd agree toroids would render the bricks less effect and perhaps unnecessary. But #2 might not be the only thing the brick affected and it's possible they still might have some influence on toroid-based amps as well. I'd love to hear a brick on an amp that used toroids. We'd know in about 20mins if the brick helped or not!
Thetubeguy1954
s
Some is mere technical speculation - does that sound familiar here? :)
Some is based upon HP's experience. I've seen bricks in his systems since the first time I visited Seacliff in 1980. He's got about a dozen of them. I still have an old pic of that IRS-CJ Premier One-Denneson JC-80-Goldmund Studio/T3 system where he used three of them on the amp. More recently, he used six! of them on the flotilla of black boxes that comprise a double pair of ASR Emitter 2s which do not have toroids. On the other hand, he didn't use them with Edge Signature monoblocks and now doesn't use them on the Edge amp that drives his MC system. He's kinda fanatic about testing that kind of stuff.
rw
Hi Tubeguy
I meant the “are we getting suspicious” more globally than it sounded like when I went and re-read it, more like “are we having fun yet?
I was not addressing that at you specifically and was temporarily stunned by the description at the link, I have to say this is one far out tweak.
I think your continued questioning and sadly, putting up with some occasional abuse by some in response if anything shows your keen to get to the bottom of things. Don't take it the wrong way but that tenacity is a necessary trait of a person developing something new.
I couldn’t think of any other examples in technology (aside from a handset modem etc) where a telephone, with its extremely limited bandwidth, communicates with electronic circuitry via unintended means, let alone always having a positive effect, let alone for which money is charged.
Don’t say Ms Cleo, I mean in technology.
I suppose the real point of a persuasive sales pitch for a far out thing is just that, it should not persuade you that it will work, just that it might and is worth a try and THAT requires a purchase, which IS the point after all.
If it’s acceptably small amount of money, then you won’t gripe if it seems to do nothing and one is happy if “maybe it did something” or better.
On the other hand, it is a lot harder to work on things at the level they actually work, so as in most area’s, a dollar spent in marketing creating an image of R&D gets more results than a dollar spent in the R&D Lab.
Nearly invariably, the biggest selling Names are image not substance based.
I went though a driver factory once that was cranking out little drivers that cost under three bucks each. Nine of these went into a fancy plastic box that cost under 20 bucks a pair to make. The raw response was eq’d dramatically with a cheap equalizer circuit in order to make it sorta flat.
So, that pair of speakers cost about 70 dollars or less to make.
With a HUGE profit margin, one can afford a powerful marketing and legal department needed to produce the leader in technology image.
Best,
Tom
Hi Tom,
You know I have great respect for you and I hope I didn't come off as being angry by what you said. As you noticed and mentioned I continue to question how and why things occur in audio. I don't do this to be able to argue/debate/discuss with others who disagree with my audio POV, but rather this is a means to enable me to have the best, most realistic presentation of music I can afford in my home. Unfortunately I've had to endure a fair share of verbal badgering by some of the more lunatic fringe in the objectivist camp, who apparently don't approve of my methods or conclusions as a result of this.
This new tweak Geoff is selling is so difficult for me to understand how it works and seems so far fetched that when I first read it I honestly thought someone was making fun of Geoff by creating a bogus AD on Audiogon. As I stated in the original post I don't think my disbelief or my inability to comprehend how a device works entitles me to question Geoff's integrity. However I am more than a bit surprised that Geoff will not or can not provide an explanation of how something he sell works! My personal belief is as a dealer or manufacturer you should be both able and willing to provide an explanation of how something they sell works. I'm quite disappointed Geoff hasn't done so up till now.
For you Tom I wish you continued success.
Thetubeguy1954
capital for a big marketing budget you'd transform yourself into the next Bose!
LOL
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Well don't get the wrong idea, being an R&D kind of guy, if it were me I would have put a "fiscally irresponsible" portion of resources into that avenue and probably hobbled the business.
I had flown to California to audition VMPS loudspeakers (inter alia) and was greeted by Brian Cheney, Curl electronics, Len Hupp speaker hausers and... the Magic Brick. I had never seen anything like any of that, before. While doubtful, I had to admit it all sounded pretty good -- but not *as* good, with the Brick removed. "Huh!", I said.
clark
Clark,The funny part about the VPI "Magic Brick" was that I could never detect when it was placed on an amp and I could never fail to detect when it was taken off the amp! My friend Rick from Connecticut bought one of the bricks from Leo that day he showed them to us. Later we went back to Rick's house and played with the "Magic Brick" on his Counterpoint SA-220.
I'd close my eyes and Rick would at some point in time place the VPI brick on his SA-220 amp while I listened. Even though:
1) I knew the brick would be placed on the amp.
2) I knew it would make a difference in the sound.I could never, ever tell when Rick had placed the "Magic Brick" on the amp. In every case after Rick would place it on the amp he'd wait about 3-5 minutes and then he'd finally tell me he had placed the brick on the amp about 3 or 5 minutes ago. The reason we waited 3-5 minutes is we wanted to see if either I (or Rick) with our eyes closed could detect any difference in sound slowly improving. But neither of us could detect when the brick was placed on the amp, nor could we detect any differences as it slowly improved after 3-5 minutes. After that we'd often listen together until about 15-20mins passed discussing if we heard any improvement ----we NEVER did!
But with the same exact consistency that Rick and I couldn't tell when the VPI brick was placed on the amp we couldn't help but detect the very moment it was removed from the amp!!! Whenever Rick or I listened with our eyes closed we'd notice the instant the brick was removed from the amp --provided we left it on the amp for at least 15 mins, BEFORE removing it. To this day I don't know what the VPI "Magic Brick" did. I cannot tell you why I couldn't tell when it was placed on the amp or why I didn't hear the sound sloowlly improve after it was placed on the amp. The ONLY thing I know for sure was it improved the sound and the moment it was removed the sound instantly deteriorated.
I wished I had access to one of these types of devices to test today on the Mastersound because if it made anywhere near the improvement I heard on the Counterpoint SA-220 I'd buy one for certain. If anyone has one they'd let me try I'd be very, very interested.
Thetubeguy1954
You can make your own version of the "Brick" and carry out some experiments of your own at the same time.
You take a plain plastic bag and a piece of iron (a spanner will do nicely).
You place the plastic bag on top of a piece of equipment (say an amplifier) and listen. The sound, if anything, will be worse.
Remove the plastic bag and now place the iron spanner on top of the amplifier and listen. The sound, if anything, will be worse.
Place the spanner INSIDE the plastic bag and place the whole set on top of the amplifier and listen. The sound, if anything, will be better. If you do not hear any improvement in the sound, listen for about an hour and then remove the plastic bag with the spanner inside and listen again. The time you will immediately hear the sound go worse !!! Exactly the same experience as you had with the 'Brick'.
Now, if the explanation for the effect of the 'Brick' was anything to do with the WEIGHT of it on the amplifier (which was one explanation put forward way back at the time), then the WEIGHT of the spanner (on it's own) would also have had an effect !!
If the explanation for the effect of the 'Brick' was anything to do with magnetism (which was another explanation put forward way back then), then, again, the spanner (on it's own) would have had an effect.
The secret is to have the spanner (the piece of iron) inside another layer of something - in other words, once removed !! Which is what one version of the 'Brick' was - a chunk of iron inside a wooden box !!!
Explain that from conventional electronic or acoustic theories !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Interesting! I took a few minutes to do a brief test on this theory, as I had not heard of it before. Here are my findings:
SYSTEM:
Well, my audio system is not installed presently, so I decided to use the top of my computer for the test location, since it was conveniently located right next to your post. I played an mp3 on the computer (JJ Cale's "Devil In Disguise", if anyone cares), listening through a pair of portable player headphones. The materials I used was a Ziploc bag (with the Ziploc brand stamped on it), and an iron bar, about 6" long x 1" wide and maybe a 1/4" thick.
- First, I listened to the system without "installing" anything, which I often do to hear what the system currently sounds like. (Although I should say, the first time you listen is -always- the best, and indeed this test was no exception).
- Next, I placed the empty Ziploc bag on top of the computer. Expecting the sound to worsen without fail (I already know what Ziploc bags sound like....), I was surprised to see this was not necessarily the case! While the Ziploc bag clearly degraded the overall quality of the sound (things collapsing, transients dulling, etc), the core of the sound had me transfixed. I could tell that even while things were degrading all around, "musicality" (a key aspect to music reproduction!), had gotten better. My being didn't mind the degradation, it was too busy enjoying the increased musicality.
- Next, the iron bar alone on top of the computer. This degraded the sound, nuff said.
- Next, the iron bar inside the Ziploc bag, with the bag sealed. It took me a minute, but I had to conclude you were right. This sound seemed to bear no relation to the sound of the bag alone or the bar alone. It was a "duller" sound than all the previous changes (including the original sound with nothing), because HF was not as bright, but there was more information now, soundstage got larger, and the confirmation of an improvement came from a stronger connection to the musical message than the iron bar alone. I realize most people would prefer this sound to that of the bag alone. But was it more "musical" than the bag alone? I listened again to just the bag, and again, confirmed that it did add additional "magic" to the musical message, though I hesitate to say "more", and would rather say "they're different".
CONCLUSION: You may be right about VPI. EMI is the pet theory of both the company and any technically-minded person who advocates this tweak, but it may have nothing to do with it. Myself, I always thought it was the weight. "Back in the day", when this thing was more popular, I tried heavy weights, like bricks (not the magic kind, alas), on top of my amp. Did improve the sound (ie. timbre gets sharper), but eventually, I found weights on top of equipment screwed up the soundstage, and in general, the sound. But could it be working on a combination of EMI filtering, dead weight (resonance tuning) and Beltist principle? Whatever, I would have to say now that there's definitely something Beltist to the operation of the VPI bricks, as the product does fit the once-removed theory.
It occurs to me that if everyone other than me were allergic to Kryptonite (tm), then we would all have greatly improved audio systems by simply placing a stick of it inside a plastic bag.....
Objective Audiophile 2007
are constructed out of laminated steel plates about .1 inch thick and stacked upon each other. Both the additional weight and the capture of the magnetic field is of importance in it's operation. Now if you know about magnetic fields you will understand that the plates have to aligned to work with the existing fields. The best sound using a VPI brick has the internal ferrous plates aligned with the transformer laminations. Placing a single brick above a toroidal transformer has mixed blessings, mostly negative because centered over a toroid, the magnetic field wants to dive through the middle, but the lams prevent the field from doing that. Two VPI bricks on either side of a toroidal transformer works much better.
Simply placing a brick on a component and not being aware of the nature of the magnetic fields will not guarantee a quality sonic increase.
I do not believe VPI makes them anymore. You can duplicate the effect by using an old transformer's laminated core. You can cut the windings off and use it that way, or simply place the whole thing over your power transformer. You can experiment that way with the orientation of the lams.
For toroidal transformers and motors I use large diameter toroids, which you can find at surplus outlets occasionally. They work quite well, but are subject to the same forces as transformers. A copper foil covering helps dissipate the eddy currents induced, particularly if you ground the foil. Here a dumbell weight (iron) will also work well.
Stu
...previously I had seen only two, and that was bad enough!
clark
I was going to reply further to 'tubeguy' but I will reply to you because it would be exactly the same reply.
I suspect that 'tubeguy' never continued with any experiments way back when he first heard the "Brick" improve his sound. If he had done, he would have made some remarkable discoveries.
After realising that the "Brick" when placed on such as an amplifier had improved the sound, one is left with the questions "What on earth is going on. Is it the weight 'somehow having an effect on the audio signal' as has been suggested. Is it magnetism being affected which, in turn, is 'somehow having an effect on the audio signal' as has been suggested ? To attempt to find out you conduct the following experiments.
You have another IDENTICAL amplifier but this time a passive one - just sitting on a shelf - not connected to the AC power supply and not connected to the audio system. After listening with the "Brick" on the (working) amplifier, you remove the 'brick' and listen again. The sound will be perceived as 'worse' without the "Brick" in position. You now place the "Brick" in top of the identical but PASSIVE amplifier and listen again. The 'good' sound will be back !!!
Explain that !!!!
If you can get an identical improvement in the sound with the "Brick" on a PASSIVE amplifier, then any explanation to do with WEIGHT or with MAGNETISM affecting the audio signal no longer holds water !!! There IS no audio signal travelling through the PASSIVE amplifier. So, you are left with an observation - that the sound was improved with the "Brick" in position but with no explanation.
If you are a good researcher (and many people will recognise what follows) you don't let it go. It niggles you. But, as you have no explanation forthcoming you put the problem and experience on a (mental) shelf until such time as you think you may have found another explanation. Over a period of time - one, two three, five years this (mental) shelf becomes overcrowded with unexplained observations until one day you do something. Something which makes you jolt upright and you suddenly say "I wonder if what I have just experienced - which I HAVE some sort of explanation for - I wonder if this latest explanation can explain all those other observations piling up on the (mental) shelf ?"
You go back to the "Brick" again and try further experiments. Your latest discoveries are to do with layers of things - how sometimes odd numbers or odd layers are best (for sound) sometimes even layers or even numbers are best. It varies with no fixed and definite rule for 100% certainty. Now back to the experiment with the "Brick" The "Brick" is a piece of iron inside a wooden case (one layer of wood). Now, place the "Brick" inside a plastic bag or inside another wooden case and listen (two layers). The sound will now be 'worse' !! You won't get the 'good' sound back until you place the whole thing in a third layer or remove the second layer !!!
Explain that !!!!!
You can experiment as much as you want with the following. Tie a Reef knot in any audio cable - interconnect or AC power cable. ONE Reef knot only and it has to be a Reef knot - not any other knot such as a Granny knot !!! Listen to some music. The sound will be perceived as better. Now, tie a second Reef knot in the same cable and listen again. This time the sound will be perceived as 'worse'. To get the sound back to being 'good' again either tie a third Reef knot in the cable or remove the second Reef knot. If you think you can explain all that from within conventional electronic theories then carry on with the experiment. Remove any and all Reef knots from the cables and listen again. The sound will be perceived as 'worse'. Now, go to any other NON audio cable - such as the cable to the electric clock or the cable to the electric fire or to a PASSIVE cable - such as the cable dangling passively from the table lamp and tie a Reef knot in that cable and listen again. The 'good' sound will be back again !! Showing that any explanation you can think of from conventional electronic theories will no longer hold water. Explanations such as 'something affecting capacitance, resistance, inductance, microphony, dielectric effect, static, RF interference and so on' ???????
Have fun.
Over 20 years ago we were demonstrating all these things to UK retailers, UK manufacturers, UK audio journalists and THAT is why there was so much coverage way back then in the UK magazines. Until, that is, the ridiculers surged in with their input - and what is known as the "cold feet", "hide behind the parapet" syndromes set in !!!
Now the quote from 'thetubeguy' :-
> > > "The funny part about the VPI "Magic Brick" was that I could never detect when it was placed on an amp and I could never fail to detect when it was taken off the amp!" < < <
The part of quite easily being able to detect the sound to be worse when the "Brick" was removed is quite important - in fact so important that I started the talk I gave to a group with exactly that point. As Peter and I had gone around the different retailers, manufacturers, journalists I had seen this happen on numerous occasions and what had surprised me was how people had not understood why this happened. In other words, they did not understand themselves - the human being !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
states that the magnetic fields are induced any time there is an electrical current and vice versa. No mystery here with a passive pre, as it still flows current. Even placing a brick on a cable will also affect the sound if the cable is being used (or under it if you suspect the weight is an issue.
Stu
Quote from unclestu52:-
> > > "Basic physics states that the magnetic fields are induced any time there is an electrical current and vice versa. No mystery here with a passive pre, as it still flows current. Even placing a brick on a cable will also affect the sound if the cable is being used (or under it if you suspect the weight is an issue." < < <
*******************
Yes. I agree with conventional theory.
Yes, I agree that there will be an adverse energy pattern around electronic equipment anytime there is an electrical current.
Yes, I agree that if you hear an improvement in the sound when placing the 'brick' on a piece of equipment then this 'adverse energy is being reduced'.
What I challenge is the explanation that this 'adverse energy' was causing problems to the audio signal in the first place. So, placing the 'brick' on a piece of equipment and improving the sound was, yes, 'reducing the adverse effect' but I would suggest that it was not affecting the audio signal - it was doing something else !! Still exactly the same result but a different explanation.
You say there is no mystery with a passive piece of equipment as it still flows current.
Pray tell us how this passive piece of equipment, just sitting passively on a shelf, not connected into the audio system, not connected to the AC supply can be affecting the audio signal going through the working equipment.
If you say it can, then why does not everyone else know this ? Why do you have hundreds of Hi Fi retailers (around the world) with large PASSIVE displays of equipment, whilst trying to demonstrate the 'sound' of expensive Hi Fi equipment.
Why do you have numerous Hi Fi manufacturers and Hi Fi equipment distributors with large PASSIVE displays of equipment at Hi Fi Shows, whilst at the same time demonstrating the 'sound' of Hi Fi equipment ?
If, as you say, there is no mystery with passive equipment why do some reviewers of Hi Fi equipment have PASSIVE equipment strewn all over the place awaiting review ?
14 years ago I was so amazed after visiting various equipment reviewers that I wrote a paper on this very subject. (Available to read on our home page - called " Reviewers Story - written in 1993").
Regards,
May Belt.
Any piece of wire is an antenna. What can it receive? RF is the most obvious culprit.
I have a Hungarian friend who on occasion posts here. He tells me the household electricity in Hungary is much better than in America because there is no real audible change from day to evening as is common in the US. I then asked him if there were a lot of wireless appliances in Hungary and the answer of course was no. and there in lies a significant difference in the power grid of both countries. Ours is polluted by wireless appliances and digital related gear. A lot of RF rides on our grid. That RF pervades the environment in which we have installed electricity.
However, IMHE most extra gear actually deteriorates the sound in the room with playing gear. The large face plates are not conducive to good sound. The additional metal is also not so pleasant being a hard reflective surface (or plastic face plates for that matter). Weighing down a lightweight chassis can also reduce sympathetic vibrations emanating from that appliance, also.
You wonder why most dealers have tons of gear stacked around: simple, they have to move the stuff out. Out of sight=out of mind, not good in sales. AS for the reviewers , I suspect that they are just lazy, being human after all. Linn way back in the 80's was a strong advocate of single speaker demos and many Linn dealers followed suit.
I just returned from a home of an electrical engineer, spending some time in tuning his system. Interestingly, I learned a few things from him. He had small coils of wire placed strategically through out the room and he told me that the room sounded better when he did so. Again, I suspect RF absorption (the wires are not terminated or connected to anything).
Another customer who was plagued with RF on his TT reported that all his RF disappeared one day when he coiled up an experimental interconnect on top of his preamp. Removing the wire caused the RF to return.
Now you can claim that it is due to the removal of adverse energy, but I would rather call it simple reduction in RF.
Stu
Back maybe twelve years ago I made the acquaintance of an L.A. cable maker -- since disappeared -- who invited me to his place for a demonstration. There I found cables consisting of two separate and loose wires, and on them was a wooden grip which could be slid up and down the cables, at the same time *crossing the wires*! It was easy to hear the sonic differences when the grips were placed in different positions.
clark
You mean, any explanation having to do with only weight or magnetism; either or both may still be involved.
clark
I'm a bit skeptical about the EMI effect (EMI waves?? Preposterous! Where is this "invisible EMI radiation"?! I say "Show us the invisible EMI's!"), but whatever the effect wood-shielded iron may have on radio frequencies when situated near a power transformer, I find it impossible to exclude the resonance tuning effect of a several pound iron weight. I believe the laws of physics have already well established that placing that kind of a weight on that kind of an object will change its resonant frequency.
Now I have established to my satisfaction that the VPI brick must at least be affected by the laws of Beltism, since the iron core is completely encased, as was my iron bar inside the ziploc bag in the OR theory test. Understanding the influence of the remaining two possibilities (not excluding any others?!), is pretty easy - if you have access to a VPI brick. May offered the good idea of trying the brick on a passive amp (not unlike my test, where I tried the iron bar on a computer top! Don't get much more "passive" than that...).
That will help establish whether the brick is also influenced by Beltist laws, but if there are differences from switching the brick from the passive amp to the active amp, that "might" tell you (at the very least), how resonance tuning might also affect the overall sound of this device. (It only gets a little complicated to differentiate the effects of both principles, because strictly under Beltist law alone, simply moving an object from one location to another can change the sound). To understand the influence, if any, of EMI, you have simply to place the brick (on a passive amp) far away from the active amp as is possible to get in your home (but then.... that leaves open the argument as to how influential EMI really is.... "Some people" seem to think its as omnipotent as cosmic rays...).
Another way to try to put a divider between the effects of resonances and (the OR theory under Beltism), is, following May's idea, to test the influence of a heavy iron weight on the active amp, then with a plain cardboard box around the weight (which is light enough that it should have no audible influence under resonance theory). This has the possibility of showing the influences of Beltism on the weight, but I don't believe you can completely isolate the effects of resonance either, because the material itself (iron), especially in that location (transformer), will inevitably be having a 'Beltist effect'. Adding more bricks on top of each other doesn't prove anything either, because even if the weight was zero grams, a second one would be having an effect under Beltist laws.
Objective Audiophile 2007
and dropped one so I got to examine the internals.....
You guys are attemting to mystify a perfectly normal and explainable phenomena. Basic physics are employed here, no mysticism. If you want to verify the magnetic affect place a thick spacer of styro foam between the brick and the chassia and the effect will diminish, since magnetic field strength is also affected by distance. The weight is nearly the same, eliminating that factor. Or use an equivalent red brick if you really want to check.
Stu
Quote from unclestu52:-
> > > "You guys are attemting to mystify a perfectly normal and explainable phenomena. Basic physics are employed here, no mysticism. If you want to verify the magnetic affect place a thick spacer of styro foam between the brick and the chassia and the effect will diminish, since magnetic field strength is also affected by distance. The weight is nearly the same, eliminating that factor. Or use an equivalent red brick if you really want to check." < < <
****************
Of course placing a thick spacer of styro foam between the brick and the chassis will change the effect. You have added another layer. AND, in addition, you have added a material (a foam made of a specific chemical mixture) which we (human beings) react adversely to. To prove this, all you have to do is to place similar pieces of styro foam on top of all manner of other equipment and you will experience the same adverse effect on the sound !!! The more pieces of styro foam you have in the environment, the worse will be your sound !!
If you want to experiment with layers under the 'brick' to try to show distance away from the (supposed) problem, then use layers of felt. Place one layer of thick felt and yes, you will most likely hear a deterioration in the sound but then place a second layer of thick felt and the 'good' sound will be back - even though you are now further distance away from the (supposed) problem. Place a third layer of thick felt and the sound will be perceived as worse again until you either remove the third layer or add a fourth layer - giving even further distance !!
I am not saying that there is NO stray magnetic field around equipment - what I am saying is that if you are prepared to do enough experiments, you will find that the effect of the 'brick' has nothing to do with 'an effect on the audio signal' !!!
You are correct that the effect of the brick has nothing to do with it's weight - that is why I described doing the experiment of placing it on top of an identical but PASSIVE piece of equipment. The effect on the sound will be the same as when it was placed on top of a working piece of equipment i.e an improvement in the sound - even though there is no audio signal going through the passive equipment !!!
But, you are not correct when you say that 'basic physics are employed here'.
Are you claiming that without the 'brick' on top of the (say) amplifier, stray magnetic fields are having an adverse effect on the audio signal but with the 'brick' in place the stray magnetic fields are being 'dealt with' (absorbed ?, flipped ?, changed ?) so that they are no longer having an adverse effect on the audio signal ?
If this was the case, then any such changes to the audio signal would surely be able to be measured - and if there were such measurements as proof, surely those measurements would be shouted from the rooftops by the producers of the 'brick' !!! And, therefore, following from that proof, no equipment would then be sold WITHOUT a 'brick' !!
The more experiments you are prepared to do, the less the explanations of weight or magnetism hold water !! So, as I have said many times. You are left with (correct) observations i.e that the 'sound' has changed, but with no explanations !!
Regards,
May Belt.
How about a short list, say twenty common household items with their "adversity" levels enumerated? How does PVC compare with Polycarbonate? Are there actually any beneficial things that we can strew about to help reduce the overall adversity?
And how does distance affect adversity? To be safe, do adverse items need to be a meter away? In the closet? In the next room? In the driveway?
Speaking of removal, how do you tote up the layer count of bonded material such as plywood and other laminates?
Thanks, Rick
Can you look at it differently than plainly 'bad' or 'good' ?
Can you see it as degrees of adverse ? i.e PVC AND PTFE are both adverse (different mixtures of chemicals) but PVC is more adverse than PTFE !! So, if you had been listening to (or had in the room) a cable with PVC outer insulation and you changed it to a cable with PTFE outer insulation - the sound would be perceived as 'better'. Purely because PTFE is less adverse than PVC.
Try the "One Reef Knot" in cables experiment for yourself so that you can become aware of distance. Many years ago we were doing demonstrations which left Hi Fi retailers speechless !! Back then, when they did not need to be demonstrating Quad Electrostatic speakers, they would stand them outside the listening room - usually in a corridor close by (so that they could easily be brought into the listening room if needed).
We would tie a Reef knot in the AC power cables of the Quad Electrostatic speakers and then listen to some music in the dem room. Everyone would agree the sound was better. Then we would untie the Reef Knot and listen again. The sound was now perceived by everyone as 'much worse'.
We would then go to the electric vacuum cleaner, housed in a cupboard, and tie a Reef Knot in the cleaner's AC power cable and listen to some music in the dem room. Everyone would agree the sound was better. Then we would untie the Reef knot and listen again. The sound was now perceived by everyone as 'much worse'. I am talking here about well seasoned, highly sceptical, Hi Fi Retailers - highly used to manufacturers sales reps claiming this and that and that and that in order to get THEIR products into the retailers showroom !!!
So, extend out (in distance) to tying a Reef knot in AC power cables in electrical appliances in the kitchen !!! And see for yourself how far YOU can hear the effect !!
Regards,
May Belt.
I love these kinds of questions, so I'll pretend you're sincerely interested and give it a shot, in my own opinions.
> > How about a short list, say twenty common household items with their "adversity" levels enumerated? < <
Would you like that double-spaced, and on heavy bond or will foolscap do? Should the enumeration be in roman numerals or arabic? I'll have my research team draw that up to your specifications, but in the meantime, let's just say that magnets, ferrite rings, batteries and bleach would be somewhere near the top of the list.
> > How does PVC compare with Polycarbonate?
Find out for yourself. Place a small piece of PVC on a compact disk (outside of a cd player), and then compare with a small piece of polycarbonate (if you don't have one handy, just smash a Celine Dion cd, and use one of the fragments. In doing so, you'll be advancing both audio research and the world of music). If you can hear differences, I think you'll probably find they both do sucky things to your sound.
> > Are there actually any beneficial things that we can strew about to help reduce the overall adversity? < <
Yes, actually. There are about a hundred of them here: www.belt.demon.co.uk
> > And how does distance affect adversity? To be safe, do adverse items need to be a meter away? In the closet? In the next room? In the driveway? < <
Do I get to move on to the next level if I get the answer right? I pick: the driveway (to be perfectly safe). But not the -car- in the driveway, no. Otherwise, imperfectly safe requires you remove the offending material from the listening room.
> > Speaking of removal, how do you tote up the layer count of bonded material such as plywood and other laminates? < <
Odd good, even bad. Except in cases where it's odd bad, even good. How to tell which in the case of plywood? Well that's easy. Simply unbond the layers. I suggest using a high-powered laser for greater accuracy. Then once you've done that, you simply listen with one layer removed, and then replace the layer, to see which wins out. After the test, just rebond the layers. (I suggest using a high compression pressing machine, such as can be found in any auto manufacturing plant, and I recommend using the same industrial glue as was originally used in your plywood. Otherwise you may not meet up to the manufacturer's original specifications, which could void the warranty for the plywood, and/or decrease the performance).
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
> > More than four adversity ratings would be helpful, I suppose Zbeads and magnets have a high perm in common and batteries and bleach are both high conductivity liquids. Not a large enough sample to conclude much. < <
You're sniffing down the wrong trail.....
> > "Place a small piece of PVC on a compact disk (outside of a cd player), and then compare with a small piece of polycarbonate". Wouldn't the relatively large polycarbonate mass of the CD dominate the influence of the chip of material placed upon it and throw off the test. Why not just put the stuff directly on the player? < <
Well if you -must- know.... I suggested the CD because I knew that wherever you place the object, it won't be far from the CD logo. The logo is a 'hot spot', and a good place to test your "Beltist" sensitivity to things.
I can't say what polycarbonate fragments on a polycarbonate disc would sound like, as polycarbonate and PVC are not things that would interest me for testing. What is interesting? At the moment, its Ziploc bags. Specifically, the plastic from the bag. I started getting interested in the sound of the bag today (for a second time), after listening to its influence during my "Once-Removed Theory" test, which I wrote about here recently. One of my tests was to cut a small piece of the bag, and tape it to a CD logo. It's a good example of what I talked about, of objects being both "adverse & beneficial". While it degrades the sound no doubt, this Ziploc brand bag has an interesting characteristic in its sonic signature that increases the musicality component (making music more engaging). That doesn't happen every day, I can tell you that...
As for your PVC test, assuming you can hear the influence of the PVC material, then the switching with the polycarbonate fragment will tell you at least what the PVC sounds like, if the polycarbonate has no sound of its own. I think (to the keen ear) it likely will however, simply because of the location of the fragment.
> > Thanks for suggesting their site, I'll look for a list of beneficial stuff. < <
You sure do like lists, I note. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you won't find such a thing. You will however find some free ideas that will afford some opportunities to test out the phenomenon in various creative ways, and possibly learn a bit more about it, in a less abstract and more tangible way. Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to. As far as our senses are concerned, the object may be considered adverse or beneficial, but I think its more accurate to say they're a combination of both, and some objects might be (subjectively) more adverse, some less.
It gets more complicated than that, because the energy can be less or more adverse, depending on where that object is located, or whether or not you treat it. The idea behind the entire line of products that PWB creates is to treat adverse products, change their energy patterns, and create beneficial patterns from that. The closest you might get to a simple "list" that you're seeking is to read their discussion group and/or newsletters, and sometimes someone might talk about adversity of different objects in their descriptions of treating them. (ie. gas meters, breaker boxes, water pipes, clocks, mirrors, etc etc)
> > Now, the most interesting question: Why not the car? If the car is special, how far does it need to be driven to be OK? < <
Apparently, it's not the distance that matters, it's the car. While I haven't personally tested it, others have, and as I've come to understand, there's some morphic connection between car & house. That's why I suggested the driveway, but fwiw, when I am doing testing and I want to be sure that a "device" is not having an inlufence, I simply place it right outside the door (this I have done tests on). But you don't just go and move everything in your home that might be having an adverse effect on your sound outside your door, otherwise you'd be mostly living in an empty house. The audio system itself is going to have an adverse effect, (especially the speakers I'd imagine, as they contain large magnets). The trick is to deal with the most adverse objects, and that will win you the best results, on a sonic level.
> > Finally, you say: "Odd good, even bad. Except in cases where it's odd bad, even good." So, does that mean it's not a reliable principle? < <
Oh no, it's a -very- reliable principle. It keeps coming up in everything I do, whether I want it to or not. For understanding purposes, it's comparable to switching polarity under conventional audio theory. However, I must admit I've not come across the "even good" phenomenon yet. Well I don't think so.... (Yesterday I was doing reef knots and for once it was the even number that sounded better. However, there's a small possibility that I may have lost count of one, which means it could have been odd). So if May has, then I would have to take her at her word. Which means that the rule can change, depending on what you are testing. Example, toothpicks may follow the odd rule, cherry Lifesavers may be even. As scientists have discovered in quantum mechanics, the phenomenon doesn't really care whether it makes sense to humans or not. It plays by its own rules, like it or not, and you have to adapt to them if you want to have even a hope of understanding it.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Hi, thanks for information.
I may be indeed sniffing down the wrong trail, but at least for right now it's really the only trail I'm interested in treading. It may not always be.
"Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to." You bet, however I take it that you are not referring to anything which I would recognize as energy.
I tend to believe that humans can have amazing sensitivity to small stimuli but I've yet to see evidence that we need to posit some magical form of energy to account for it. Historically we dump everything we don't understand well into a metaphorical pit we call magic. The scientific revolution has mostly emptied that pit now because once we understand how the items in the pit work, or at least can predict their behavior, they become respectable.
Sorry to wax philosophic here, my point is that in addition to enjoying home audio, I am keenly interested in what makes it tick. The only way I know to do that is to apply the scientific method. Since we invented it to help us with this very process, it's quite well suited. So now you see my reluctance to accept mystical explanations? If I do, I'm stuck in the pit!
Thanks for the input and I will indeed check out their discussion groups.
Rick
> > I may be indeed sniffing down the wrong trail, but at least for right now it's really the only trail I'm interested in treading. It may not always be. < <
Hey, your dime, your time. I'll just say that in trying to find a chemical or otherwise physically known connection between adverse objects under Beltist rule, without even having done listening tests (I presume...), is something like trying to find clues to the secrets of the great pyramids by listening to a Mariah Carey album. If you haven't yet established for yourself whether the phenomenon exists by doing the experiments, there doesn't seem much point in analyzing it beyond that.
> > > "Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to." < < <
> > You bet, however I take it that you are not referring to anything which I would recognize as energy. < <
I am referring to Beltist phenomenon, in which it has been discovered that all objects posess an energy field that human senses are sensitive to. Change the energy field, and you change the acuity of your senses (thus your audio system sounds better, your tv looks better, your wine tastes better, etc).
> > I tend to believe that humans can have amazing sensitivity to small stimuli but I've yet to see evidence that we need to posit some magical form of energy to account for it. < <
Don't call it "magical" because you can't understand what or why it is. I am not in the habit of wasting my time doing years of research on a phenomenon that doesn't exist, and fwiw, "magic placebo pills" do not work hundreds of times over, each and every time, with predictable results. There's plenty of working theory as to why it is.
> > Historically we dump everything we don't understand well into a metaphorical pit we call magic. < <
I don't. I don't believe in "magic" and I never did. I believe in what's real, and everyone has their own determination of that, according to their beliefs. Which may or may not be accurate (theology anyone?).
> > The scientific revolution has mostly emptied that pit now because once we understand how the items in the pit work, or at least can predict their behavior, they become respectable. < <
I'm not interested in what's "respectable" either, only what is real, to the extent one can determine such. Science has barely scratched the surface of what's out there, and there's a kind of arrogance in assuming that we pretty much know everything by now. As for the items in the Beltist pit, even though I may not fully understand how or why they work, I can predict their behaviour and have been doing so for years. Yet those items are not "respectable" to the people on this board, and science in general, which for the most part, has not done the same research. In fact, most skeptics -refuse- to do the research on the grounds that Beltist practices sound like nonsense, do not appear to be based on previously known principles, and haven't been scientifically validated yet -- so are therefore not worthy of investigation. (A position hardly "scientific"...).
So "science" is a crock o' crap if you ask me. Because you can not separate "science" from the "scientific establishment" which declares what is and isn't "science", according to those who adhere to "the rules" (of the "scientific method"). The scientific establishment is made up of humans, who have foolish prejudices, who make mistakes, who go down wrong paths, who have throughout history dismissed valid phenomenon (sometimes for political reasons...), etc etc. Yet people hold everything that's declared scientific as sacrosanct, and everything that isn't as "magical", "mystical", "metaphysical" rubbish. In another post, Stu talks about "Chi". I believe in "Chi", I have felt its effects in my body. Billions of people in the world have believed in and practiced ways of Chi for thousands of years. Does your "science" believe in "Chi", and is it "respectable" now? Hardly. Sorry, crock o' crap! I believe in the concept of science, not the religion of science, which is unfortunatley what you see being promulgated all over internet audio forums.
> > Sorry to wax philosophic here, my point is that in addition to enjoying home audio, I am keenly interested in what makes it tick. The only way I know to do that is to apply the scientific method. Since we invented it to help us with this very process, it's quite well suited. So now you see my reluctance to accept mystical explanations? If I do, I'm stuck in the pit! < <
ALL revolutionary scientific breakthroughs begin in "the pit". That's what we're dealing with here when we talk about Beltism, a revolution in science & sound. You're trying to take cheap shortcuts already, when you haven't even started on the proper path! That's why I suggested you start with the basics by trying the free techniques listed on PWB's home page, in order to try to understand that there is such a phenomenon that exists, and it isn't "magical", and its possible that others can hear what you're hearing. *Everyone* on the discussion forums tries to understand Beltism theoretically, before they even think of trying to understand it physically. That's not the way to go about understanding this revolutionary phenomenon. All you're going to understand that way, is how many prejudices you have built up over the years from what you were taught under conventional training and education. Those prejudices don't help you to understand this.
Trying to find chemical connections between adverse objects thinking you're going to come up with your own "correct" explanation for all of this will only lead you down wrong paths, and is a waste of time IMHO. (Especially if you haven't even researched the hypotheses PWB has put forward - which is far better fleshed out than any alternatives I've ever heard). I don't think you have any idea of the extent of the phenomenon. It goes far beyond mere "household objects". It touches light, water, language, nature, colour, shape, symbol... -everything!-. But if you are thinking about applying known laws of "science" to ruminate over a phenomenon, you should at least know the basics of it first, no?! I understand the idea of wanting to understand what makes something tick, but I also understand that for too many audio hobbyists, "science" becomes a security blanket, which they are afraid of being without. And because of that, science becomes a crutch, not an advantage, for such audiophiles.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments and insights!
Learning "what makes home audio tick" for me is understanding in more detail the subtleties of the electronics and how it affects our enjoyment. I've ran across a few things, and read about many more that I think would be fun to pursue, time permitting.
I'm sort of like the guy whose only tool is a hammer... Electronics is my field and I've spent a long career doing product design. Although I've never done consumer audio equipment I have worked extensively on technologically similar stuff which possess equivalent subtleties.
Actually I'm not as blind or unexposed to the issues being raised as I may seem. They simply aren't my focus. I am more concerned than I was that these other factors which affect the listening experience may add to the difficulty of evaluating designs.
I am a staunch believer in the scientific method, it works. It's a good technique. As for those who attempt to turn science into a religion, they offend both. I too find them annoying, especially those who fancy themselves "skeptics".
Like Stu, I seek and expect to find at least some, if you would, "scientific" explanations for my observations. I think we're all in the same boat, science is a tool we can us to help understand our observations, not a dogma that precludes them.
Rick
I believe you have a good philosophy that more ought to take up. Very often understanding a phenomenon may lie beyond the scope of any one individual, but others can contribute their experiences and knowledge and then the whole field can advance. Bickering does little to advance any cause.
While not a staunch numbers man (the attitude that I won't believe it until you can show me a test with numeration), there are many aspects to sound which are difficult to measure, difficult to communicate about, and difficult to resolve. The scientific method is not only necessarily creating a test or obtaining the instrumentation to measure something, but also understanding the principles which can involve an aspect of audio. Once having a theoretical understanding, then the tweak or principle can then be applied and the quality of the results, good or bad, observed. This in itself can help prove or disprove the theory.
Stu
Rick, you say you are interested in knowing what makes 'home audio' tick.
No one is asking you to "accept mystical explanations".
Can you see my reply to unclestu below?
Regards,
May Belt.
There are some interesting Eastern philosophies and beliefs in this regard. One of the foremost is the concept of "Chi" or "Ki", in Japanese. I met a Chi 'master' a couple of times through a friend. Interesting fellow, born and raised in the US, although of Chinese ancestry. My friend told me they met at the badminton courts, but after a short time no one would dare play against him. All he had to do was make a few 'funny' motions with his hands and you'd either miss the shuttlecock or stumble.
He demonstrated his power to me at his home: he had three of us stand in a tight triangle with hand stretched out over and under the adjacent persons but not touching. Then he asked us to close our eyes. Within a few seconds, I felt really dizzy and when I opened my eyes, he was simply moving his finger in a downward circular motion. My friend's wife was standing but her entire body was swaying in a circular motion.
In the conversation that followed I asked him about this 'power' and his reply was he thought it was magnetic in nature, because the effect would change if there was a strong magnet nearby. He also admitted that not all responded to his 'power'.
In another incident, I was talking to a Stanford graduate in medicine, an MD whose specialty was bio-electricity. This doctor was from Japan and I asked him about this unusual specialty and how he decided to specialize in it. His response was that he had trained in Jiu-jitsu as a child and knew all the pressure points. While all the other Western born students struggled with the concept, he recognized the locus of the electrical pathways as being the pressure points in the martial arts.
Interesting and because the human organism has many varied responses, sensitivities, and variations, it would behoove all of us to look at things in a different light. There may be many alternate explanations than having to resort to mysticism, even though meaningful measurements may be difficult to obtain.
Stu
> > > "I suggest a brushing up on physics basics. Electron flow and magnetism are inextricably bound together." < < <
I KNOW about electron flow and magnetism being inextricably bound together !!!
However, I think we may share some common ground. You list very many things which you can hear 'affect' the sound. I am sure you can double that list, even treble or more - as can I.
At least you are not moving in the world of "it must be suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing, effective marketing". At least when I say that this affects sound, and that, and that, and that, you do not 'throw a wobbly'.
Where I part company with you is that you believe that many of the things you list are changing the 'sound' because many of them affect the 'acoustics' - however small the object !!
I have a problem in replying fully because as a manufacturer 'posting' on the Audio Asylum sites I am not allowed to advertise our products - I am only allowed to answer questions or reply to comments.
You will also be aware of the numerous things which can have an ADVERSE effect on the sound but again, your belief will be that they are, to a great extent, having an adverse effect because of an 'acoustic effect'.
From over 25 years of extensive experiments I have to challenge that belief.
If you, for example, find that placing the "magic brick" on top of (say) an amplifier, over the transformer area, gives an improvement in the sound because it is dealing with (stray) magnetism, then if you remove the "magic brick" you will (obviously) reintroduce the adverse effect and the sound will be worse. Now, if you apply (say) a small amount of our Cream-Electret on the equipment case, in exactly the same position where the "magic brick" had been or, in the case of 'thetubeguy's' amplifier which has no case, directly onto the transformer, back will come the good sound !!!! Not by any stretch of the imagination could our Cream be 'adding any weight' nor could it be 'dealing with stray magnetism' but it will have restored the good sound !!!! So, there has to be another explanation !!!
This beneficial effect I describe, which so many people have experienced, will take place if the same Cream is applied in exactly the same position on the identical but PASSIVE amplifier - just sitting passively on a shelf !!! Again, not by any stretch of the imagination could 'treating' the PASSIVE amplifier with a tiny amount of Cream possibly have any effect on the 'acoustics'. So, there has to be another explanation.!!
> > > "As far as actually placing the brick on a shelf, several other manufacturers, (Enacom, Argent, Roomtunes, Shakti, Shun Mook) have effectively demonstrated that placement of anything within the room can have an effect on the reflected acoustic wave, however small." < < <
Yes, I would agree entirely with the fact that these things will 'affect' the sound but I disagree that the effect is an 'acoustic' one. Let me try to explain further.
One problem with (such as) our Cream is that once it is applied that is that - it has done it's job, it cannot be removed. So, particularly with the Cream, you are not able to do before, after and back to before experiments. Over 20 years ago whilst struggling to find a way to demonstrate the effect of our Cream with before, after and back to before demonstrations we discovered that colours are important. Change the colour, you change the sound.
So, going back to such things as Roomtunes. In no way do I challenge that Roomtunes can give a perceived improvement in the sound but your belief would be that this is because it is ONLY 'dealing' with acoustics. But, if you have exactly same Roomtune in exactly the same position in the room, made of exactly the same material but you change the COLOUR of that same material, you will change the sound !!! If you DO do this experiment and find that the sound changes when the only thing you have changed is the colour, would you actually claim that it is the acoustics which has been changed ?
Going back again to the effect of the "magic brick" and, (incidentally) the Shakti Stone (both are claimed to have an effect on the audio signal when positioned on top of equipment therefore improving the sound).
If you remove the "magic brick" or the "Shakti Stone" back will come the adverse effect on the sound - i.e the sound will be perceived as 'worse'. Instead of replacing either the "magic brick" or the Shakti Stone, write yourself a beneficial message and stick it onto the equipment in exactly the same place where the "magic brick" or the Shakti Stone had been. Back will come the 'good' sound. Not by any stretch of the imagination can the effect of a 'beneficial message' be because of it's 'weight', or because it is dealing with magnetism, or because it is doing something with the 'acoustics' !!! So, there has to be another explanation !!!
I would suggest you read of Dave and Carol Clark's experiences trying the 'beneficial message' technique. I included an extract from their article in my recent article in positive feedback online i.e "Myth, Mirth or Magic? - The Peter Belt 'Snake Oil' Fallacy." You can do your own experiments just as Carol Clark did, you don't need OUR devices to carry out your own initial experiments.
Now to the subject of such as Styrofoam.
> > > "Styrofoam has high amounts of static, check out those 'peanuts' your shippers use. Foam, which I wrote, can be fabricated from many different materials with various properties." < < <
Yes, such as Styrofoam has high amounts of static and yes, the presence of Styrofoam in the listening environment has an adverse effect on the sound - but again, the effect on the 'sound' has nothing whatsoever to do with static or to do with acoustics !!
Again, do a similar experiment as described previously. Leave exactly the same piece of Styrofoam in exactly the same position in the room (obviously still having it's adverse effect on the sound) 'P.W.B treat' it and you will reduce it's adverse effect considerably so much so that the sound will be perceived as 'much better' - WITH THE PIECE OF STYROFOAM STILL IN POSITION.
The Styrofoam and so many other man made materials are made of different mixtures of chemicals - chemicals which we (human beings) react adversely to. To name but a few.
Polystyrene, bextrene, P.V.C, polythene, polyethylene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon, acrylic, nylon, perspex, BAF, all manner of adhesives, paints, lacquers and so on - the list is endless !!!
To quote you again 'stu'.
> > > "In general, natural substances work better acoustically than synthetics, Maybe its because they are generally neutral electrically, but also because they have a certain amount of 'randomness'." < < <
You use the word 'maybe'. Do I detect a 'chink' ? Do I detect an uncertainty ? Do I detect that you are not REALLY certain why natural substances work better, that you are not REALLY certain why synthetics are not good ? When faced with all these questions why do you think Peter and I have done so many experiments, over so many years - surely to TRY to find out why !!!
> > > "The one thing I will say in parting is that the human body's sensitivity is quite astonishing, although not every one shares that sensitivity." < < <
You can say that again, and again, and again. The more you say it, the more you might be prepared to investigate it more thoroughly.
You are already so far along the path 'stu', you are already aware of so many things which can 'affect the sound' - which others are not !!
With your latest description. If you had been listening to music at the same time as the friend was doing his demonstration of Chi, the 'sound' would have been changing !! NOT because the acoustics had been changing but because YOU had been changing !!! I have explained in earlier 'postings' how even telling (or thinking) a lie will spoil the 'sound' for everyone who is listening in the room.
It is really refreshing to see someone (join the club) saying :-
> > > "Interesting and because the human organism has many varied responses, sensitivities, and variations, it would behoove all of us to look at things in a different light. There may be many alternate explanations than having to resort to mysticism, even though meaningful measurements may be difficult to obtain." < < <
We DON'T have to resort to mysticism we just have to study the human being more !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
First, I try not to post anything on tweaks, or products I have not personally tried for myself. I have not tried nor analyzed your electret cream so I will not comment nor even attempt any intellectual exercise as to their function, because it would be patently unfair to assess judgement with out experimentation, both on my part and for your sake (in order to be truly objective).
In the case of the Shaktis, VPI bricks, and even the Shun Mook discs I have fairly extensive experience with them all and have analyzed, x-rayed, and even taken them apart to examine their inner workings. Ben Piazza of Shakti has a patent on his designs. The workings and explanations definitely lie in the realm of hard basic science.
Now my reference to things like Chi does not mean that I believe that this force is something mystical. There is a science behind it even though we may not understand the true causality as of yet. I try to keep my thinking open even though I may lack the instrumentation or the procedure to measure exactly what is going on.
Again please do not infer that because I say one thing about a VPI brick, and I must add I have talked to Harry Weisfield about the product, that my comments must necessarily reflect on all the products that you manufacture. My comments are purely about the product specifically mentioned.
The only product of yours that I have analyzed is a piece of the 'rainbow foil'. I find that I can duplicate it's effect on my own and extremely cheaply, I may add, but I do not print what process I employ (you may have some other process, but IMHE, the effect is the same or at least 99% as effective, at least judging from a comparison to a sample a friend obtained from your company) because I feel, ethically, it would be unfair for your company and father who have first brought it to attention.
Here, I suspect the foil is actually working on small amounts of RF and the foil itself is acting almost as a constrained layer dampening for the RF absorbed, dissipating that energy absorbed. The amounts are very small, but can be noticeable to at least a few individuals (sensitivities and awareness vary widely, as you well know).
The experimentation with placement and such convince me so, although I lack the instrumentation to verify this. In addition, a customer who lives in a high rise apartment facing several radio and television transmitting towers reports a complete reduction of RF on his TT after installing an aluminized mylar window tint. The process to manufacture the window tint is similar to the one used for the foil.
I use the word maybe in speaking of natural substances, because, quite simply I have not tried everything out there. Since the statement implies an assumption on my part, I would rather not be so dogmatic about it veracity.
If you have experimented with the Combak (Enacom) plastic stick ons which you place in the corners of a room you will understand what I mean about acoustics. It works in a similar manner to the Corner tunes Mike Green sells but is much, much smaller and thus significantly more unobtrusive.
I took a more direct approach and simply eliminated the corners of my older sound room using drywall. The effects are extremely similar, but obviously an A-B comparison is not really possible.
I am very much aware of the change in properties imparted by dye lots, which essentially are contaminants. I have made numerous posts about the color of electrical insulation, and the changes in both electrical and mechanical properties imparted by the dye lots. The same observations also apply to your advocating, what was it?, red zip ties. Again I do not post any thing about increasing the effect out of respect to your original research. as it were.
I make no claim about being first in the matter of dye lots, as Stan Warren pointed this factor out to me almost 20 years ago. I struggled with the concept and an explanation for many years until a painter pointed out to me that most paints are bases to which dye lots are added. He then proceeded to detail the chemical composition of those dye lots.
Mysteries are that until a logical explanation can be found and then experimented with to verify. In the case of the wire, I found a manufacturer who was willing to provide samples in various colors (8, IIRC), and helped my experimentation significantly, particularly since the insulation all used the same base plastic.
Now, I firmly believe that while science may not have all the explanations readily at hand, it can be applied in order to understand the workings of many things. It may not be as romantic, but for the most part, it is not mystical. Again, I have not examined, nor do I claim to be an expert in all things, so I can not say anything definitively. I can make some generalizations, but that may not be universally applicable as I have not tried everything out there.
The one thing that is amazing, is that human sensitivities can be trained, and recognition and awareness can be enhanced, if you desire it. You can not conceptualize riding a bicycle and simply jump on one and expect to ride like a pro. The same applies with something like drinking a mug of beer: it is only after a lot of practice will you discern differences in taste and such. If that is what you mean in terms of 'affecting your mind', then we are on the same page.
Stu
To be honest, I don't know what I am, perhaps interested but not sincere... Clearly I'm interested enough to read posts about it and thus appreciate your input which has raised some questions, to wit:
More than four adversity ratings would be helpful, I suppose Zbeads and magnets have a high perm in common and batteries and bleach are both high conductivity liquids. Not a large enough sample to conclude much.
"Place a small piece of PVC on a compact disk (outside of a cd player), and then compare with a small piece of polycarbonate". Wouldn't the relatively large polycarbonate mass of the CD dominate the influence of the chip of material placed upon it and throw off the test. Why not just put the stuff directly on the player?
Thanks for suggesting their site, I'll look for a list of beneficial stuff.
Now, the most interesting question: Why not the car? If the car is special, how far does it need to be driven to be OK?
Finally, you say: "Odd good, even bad. Except in cases where it's odd bad, even good." So, does that mean it's not a reliable principle?
Rick
is shatterproof, hence its use in 'bulletproof' glass. I have dropped a few CD's and have had them crack: a clear indication that manufacturers are using far cheaper materials in CD manufacture. Among other properties, (high electrical resistance, part of the reason that plastic caps for binding posts were originally made using polycarbonate) polycarbonate when pressure is applied normally does not turn white as normal plastics do. The 'soft' nature of polycarbonate simply 'gives and leaves a relatively smooth, clear impression making it easier for the laser to track through small imperfections.
Styrofoam has high amounts of static, check out those 'peanuts' your shippers use. Foam, which I wrote, can be fabricated from many different materials with various properties.
In general, natural substances work better acoustically than synthetics, Maybe its because they are generally neutral electrically, but also because they have a certain amount of 'randomness'. Synthetic fibers tend to be mono filaments of identical diameters: natural silk and cotton, for example, will have slight but important unit to unit variations.
Stu
Hi Stu,
Well... I really don't know if CD's are pure PC or some sort of blend. As you point out PC has desirable optical characteristics similar to glass. It certainly acts similar when you exceed it's elastic limit. I had a defective CD that I decided to break in two so it could never plague me again. Well it had the last laugh, it was tough to get it to break and after I did I spent half an hour picking out slivers of it from the carpet. I suspect that the shatterproofness of bullet proof glass is largely a function of it's thickness.
I bet you've put your finger on it regarding "natural" substances being better acoustically due to randomness. That really makes sense to me. Especially since I believe that the primary coupling mechanisms are likely to be acoustical or electrical rather than a mystical energy field.
I find it amazing that audiophiles of all people would discard the most likely mechanisms if favor of mystical ones just on the basis of measurement difficulty. If there's anything that distinguishes us from 'normal' folks it's that we aren't very surprised to discover stuff that matters to our enjoyment that may seem unlikely at first blush. Often because the threshold level of the effect is far lower than one would suppose.
Regards, Rick
I have strips of polycarbonate which I used to use as fairing strips or as french curves when I worked as a shipfitter loftsman. A 1 inch wide strip of polycarbonate, 1/8 inch thick and three feet long was flexible enough to tie knots in it. At the shipyard, we used to put the polycarbonate in a sheet metal bender and bend pieces into right angles or even greater with no shattering at all (making custom covers for equipment and such). In order to make a 90 degree bend, we had to bend it way over, by about 45 degrees or so.
I believe many current CD's are regular plastic with possibly a very thin sheet of poly on the label side, although I definitely have had one CD where the only coating on the label side was the paint. That would explain why your disc was hard to break. But I do use polycarbonates like Lexan and Tuffax, for making adapters for chassis to convert from terminal strips to 5 way binding posts a lot. Never had a cracking problem working them drilling as well as bending. I guess you would be right, there has to be a limit to which it can take a bend, but I never approached it.
Stu
about the 'passive' gear: I somehow read it to mean a 'passive' preamp, i.e. one without active electronics.
That being said, you can demonstrate the magnetic effect by placing the brick under a component also. Or, if you wish place the brick on the shelf below.
As for designing to minimize the effect of a brick, one reason why toroidal transformers became popular was because they generate a smaller magnetic field. But as far as completely eliminating the effect of magnetic inductance, I suggest a brushing up on physics basics. Electron flow and magnetism are inextricably bound together.
Again, magnetic fields would rather travel through ferrous objects rather than through air. Sprinkle iron powder on a sheet of paper and place a magnet under, gently tapping the paper to align the powder with the lines of force. The place a piece of iron close by, doing the same. You will see a change in the nature of the lines generated. Using that knowledge will enable you to 'properly' locate a VPI brick on your gear, and also explain why some positions are more effective than others. There is no one carte blanche solution for very situation.
As for measurements, yes, you can measure changes (I have a Lakeshore Gauss meter). Most will not own or have access to a gaussmeter, but you could even employ a simple compass and see changes in the needle deflection, which is how I started out. But you can also use your ear, too. Again experiments with iron powder show that strategic placement of something like a VPI brick can reduce the stray magnetic field.
Measurement of magnetic fields are actually very enlightening, and you can measure the relative fields by again using a simple compass. On a 12 inch woofer, I can see and measure magnetic deflection up to 4 to 5 feet away. even a foot away from a CD player I can measure changes. The pervasiveness of magnetic fields, not counting the field of the planet, is far greater than many realize. The same applies to RFI which can be measured by a simple meter used by microwave servicers.
As far as actually placing the brick on a shelf, several other manufacturers, (Enacom, Argent, Roomtunes, Shakti, Shun Mook) have effectively demonstrated that placement of anything within the room can have an effect on the reflected acoustic wave, however small. You should get a similar effect using a weighted wooden box, as you have pointed out.
I use pieces of wood placed throughout my sound room for sonic advantage. By using sample blocks, I can easily assess which woods sound 'better' to my ears, and surprise, surprise (actually no surprise) the better sounding woods mirror their use in musical instruments.
One of the Shun Mook founders told me that the effect of the wood was discovered (by them) because one of them had a guitar for decorative purposes one one wall. His son decided to learn how to play the instrument and removed it, and then he realized that the skewed soundstage in his sound room suddenly reverted to normal. Ever notice that they often have a violin on display in their booths at CES, placed between the speakers? The placement is not purely for decorative purposes.
I have often visited my customers' homes, and by strategically moving their existing furnishings and decorative fixtures, greatly improved certain aspects of the sound, using their tastes as a guide.
Again my apologies for making that mistake on passive components, but I still must stand by my statement in that trying to 'mystify' a basic application of physics, you are actually doing audio a vast disservice.
The one thing I will say in parting is that the human body's sensitivity is quite astonishing, although not every one shares that sensitivity.
Stu
Thanks for clearing up some of the misconceptions about "the brick". Indeed, you've shed some light about how it could work.
Have you had the opportunity to try the Shakti Stone? I believe that it is supposed to work based on similar principles.
I'm thinking of trying one over the x-former of my power amp, but would like some feedback before plunking down the cash.
Cheers
work on a totally different principle. It works to absorb EMI/RFI by creating a waveguide within the stone and focusing it on quartz crystals. The quartz, with its piezo electric properties, is then used to convert the energy into motion, thus dissipating the energy. I usse them also.
Stu
> > > "weight or magnetism; either or both may still be involved." < < <
Clark,
Weight or magnetism (having an effect on the audio signal) are (were) the two explanations put forward for why (how) the Magic Brick improved the sound when placed on top of a piece of working equipment.
If you had done the experiment of placing the Magic Brick on an identical but PASSIVE piece of equipment and got exactly the same improvement in the sound as you did when the Brick was on the working piece of equipment then how could weight be having any effect (on the sound) or how can magnetism be having any effect (on the sound) - when there is no audio signal going through the passive piece of equipment to be so affected ?
Regards,
May Belt.
It simply adds a third.
clark
Hello May,
I'm afraid I have to admit that this "Once-Removed" theory is a bit more than I can understand. Can you explain or do you have any ideas of why it works and effects the sound? All this time I thought the "magic brick" worked by deading the vibrations of the transformers and the tubes, plus absorbing or effecting the magnetic fields from the transformers.
I'll be making my own DIY "magic brick" but cannot help but wonder if the type of metal used matters? If so what's metal is best, iron, steel, brass, aluminium etc? My plans are to get a bar of whatever metal is best and then veneer a wooden outer layer on it. I don't want the metal to scratch my transformers so I will be adding a layer of felt on the bottom. But if the layers matter will this have a postive or negative effect on the sound? Or maybe I should I forego the wood veneer and just put felt on the bottom of the metal bar?
Thetubeguy1954
If you are going to make your own DIY "magic brick" and if you are going to test the two explanations put forward for why the "magic brick" improved the sound, and if one of the explanations was that the chunk of iron inside the "magic brick" absorbed the magnetic field created by the transformer in the equipment, then you have to also use a chunk of iron!!
You say that you don't want the metal to scratch your transformers. Why do you want to put the metal directly onto the transformers ? In the majority of cases, the "magic brick" was placed on top of the equipment's outer CASE !!
You are quite correct in wondering if an additional layer of felt would affect the sound. The answer is yes, as will a second layer of felt as will a third layer of felt !!!
To begin to understand so much, you have to move away from "something affecting the audio signal" or "something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room".
Quite simply, instead of searching for a wooden case in which to place the chunk of iron, use a plain (unprinted) cardboard box !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
MB: If you are going to test the two explanations put forward for why the "magic brick" improved the sound, and if one of the explanations was that the chunk of iron inside the "magic brick" absorbed the magnetic field created by the transformer in the equipment, then you have to also use a chunk of iron!!
TG1954: Of course you're 100% correct "IF" I wanted to make my DIY "magic brick" exactly like VPIs it would have to be iron. My goal is not to simply create an exact DIY copy of VPI's brick. Instead I'm hoping to discover why it worked and then possibly improve it's performance. I'm not very technically adept and I thought there might be other metals known to absorb ot affect magnetic fields even better than iron. If that was the case I'd want to use that metal instead of iron. The idea being that it "might" cause an even greater, better effect. I was hoping you might know which metal is best at absorbing or influencing magnetic fields.
======================================================================
MB: You say that you don't want the metal to scratch your transformers. Why do you want to put the metal directly onto the transformers ? In the majority of cases, the "magic brick" was placed on top of the equipment's outer CASE !!
TG1954: Unfortunately my transformers are "exposed", yes they're covered by metal cylinder covers but I don't want the covers scratched either. I provided a picture of my amp from the front and side so you can see what I mean. So I'd have to place my DIY brick on top of these covers. Hence the need/desire for felt.
======================================================================
MB: You are quite correct in wondering if an additional layer of felt would affect the sound. The answer is yes, as will a second layer of felt as will a third layer of felt !!!
TG1954: Ok that's what I'd thought you were going to say.
=======================================================================
MB: To begin to understand so much, you have to move away from "something affecting the audio signal" or "something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room".
TG1954: I'm willing to try and understand that something else besides "affecting the audio signal" or "affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room" is happening. Can you begin to help me understand what you're suggesting is actually occuring instead?
=======================================================================
MB: Quite simply, instead of searching for a wooden case in which to place the chunk of iron, use a plain (unprinted) cardboard box !!!
TG1954: Great suggestion. I'll start with that.
Thetubeguy1954
We are making mountains out of molehills!
If you want to improve on the VPI brick, be sure to radius the corners of the laminated steel or iron plates. Of course the thickness of the case matters: magnetic fields weaken with distance also.
Again, seriously examine a transformer. The better ones have more and thinner laminations in order to 'catch' more lines of magnetic force, as each lamination will pass one line of magnetic force. Magnetism would rather travel through ferrous objects than through air. The field traveling through the laminations will induce a current. A copper foil tape will speed this current flow especially if placed occasionally within the iron lams. Grounding the copper will 'sink' that current induced speeding the flow even more.
You may want to check the websites for people like Co-netics, who manufacture mu metal. They have useful tips and advice for magnetic shielding and channeling.
Stu
"The better ones have more and thinner laminations in order to 'catch' more lines of magnetic force, as each lamination will pass one line of magnetic force."
Stu, the transformer has laminations to reduce eddy currents, that's all. Don't forget that lines of magnetic force don't really exist, they're just a mental model to help visualize the magnetic flux density and vector. So, actually a thicker lam will have a lower reluctance and more "lines of force" than a thin one, but it also has lower resistance and thus more eddy current loss.
Regards, Rick
disagree, unfortunately. Why else would manufacturers use multiple laminations in a transformer if one solid piece of metal would be superior? The only time you see solid pieces is in ferrite core material.
Stu
Hi Stu,
I didn't mean to imply that laminations aren't necessary, they are. Without them the eddy current losses kill efficiency and bandwidth. The point I was trying to make was that it's the total effective cross-sectional area, not the number of laminations that determine the flux capacity.
Regards, Rick
Now I understand why you said you would be placing the DIY "magic brick" directly on top of the transformer.
Aside from your desire to make a DIY "magic brick", how many feet does your amplifier sit on ? Four ? I also notice from your photograph that there is a (TV?) stand behind the amplifier - with four feet !!
Now, experiment with the (peculiar) odd and even rule. If your amplifier has four feet, place a plain piece of paper under ONE (only ONE)of the four feet. Listen for a short period of time, then remove the piece of paper. I think when you remove the paper, you will find that you can no longer listen with the same pleasure !!
Carrying on with the experiments place a plain piece of paper under ONE of the four feet of the TV stand, also under ONE of any other four feet of equipment !! Listen for a short time, then remove any one of the pieces of paper ! You will be surprised at the deterioration in the sound !
Nothing to do with vibrations, nothing to do with magnetism, nothing to do with 'something affecting the audio signal', but something to do with how the human being is reacting to their environment !!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
MB: Now I understand why you said you would be placing the DIY "magic brick" directly on top of the transformer.
TG1954: I thought a photo of what the amp looked like would clear that up.
========================================================================
MB: Aside from your desire to make a DIY "magic brick", how many feet does your amplifier sit on ? Four ? I also notice from your photograph that there is a (TV?) stand behind the amplifier - with four feet !!
TG1954: My amp sits on 3 cones. 2 in the back 1 in the front. These days it sits in a dedicated audio room on a stand between and behind 2 speakers.
========================================================================
MB: Now, experiment with the (peculiar) odd and even rule. If your amplifier has four feet, place a plain piece of paper under ONE (only ONE)of the four feet. Listen for a short period of time, then remove the piece of paper. I think when you remove the paper, you will find that you can no longer listen with the same pleasure !! Carrying on with the experiments place a plain piece of paper under ONE of the four feet of the TV stand, also under ONE of any other four feet of equipment !! Listen for a short time, then remove any one of the pieces of paper ! You will be surprised at the deterioration in the sound !
TG1954: My CD player (BlueNote Stibbert) picture above has four feet. I'll check out this experiment you mentioned above with this component.
========================================================================
MB: Nothing to do with vibrations, nothing to do with magnetism, nothing to do with 'something affecting the audio signal', but something to do with how the human being is reacting to their environment !!!!!!!
TG1954: Well May as I've always advocated that one of the reasons why audio equipment measurements and the specs they provide don't correlate with what we hear is due to the human ear/brain and our perceptions being involved, I can believe that some things will affect and influence those perceptions. So I will be starting with the "odd and even rule" you spoke of above.
Thetubeguy1954
By inadvertently using three cones (I will explain the use of the word inadvertently later) you have dealt with the problem of four (even numbers) feet.
Obviously, whoever produced the cones you use must have HEARD the beneficial effect of using three instead of four (or they would have recommended the use of four cones!!!) If you used four cones, the sound would be perceived as 'worse' and you would either have to add a fifth cone or remove the fourth cone.The reason why I use the word inadvertently is because it would not have been a logical step for you to deliberately chose to use only three cones. You either used the number three because it 'sounded' better with three cones or it had been recommended by the producers of the cones that you should only use three (because it would 'sound' better)!!
If the explanation given is that three cones 'deal with' vibrations better - therefore 'dealing with' any adverse effect on the audio signal better, all you have to do is to remove the three cones from under the working amplifier (the sound will now be perceived to have deteriorated) and place the three cones under an identical but PASSIVE amplifier - just sitting passively on a shelf - not connected to the audio system and not connected to the AC power supply - and back will come the 'good' sound !!!!
There is NO audio signal travelling through the PASSIVE amplifier to be adversely affected and yet you will have the 'better' sound back !!
Regards,
May Belt.
By inadvertently using three cones (I will explain the use of the word inadvertently later) you have dealt with the problem of four (even numbers) feet.
Obviously, whoever produced the cones you use must have HEARD the beneficial effect of using three instead of four (or they would have recommended the use of four cones!!!) If you used four cones, the sound would be perceived as 'worse' and you would either have to add a fifth cone or remove the fourth cone.
The reason why I use the word inadvertently is because it would not have been a logical step for you to deliberately chose to use only three cones. You either used the number three because it 'sounded' better with three cones or it had been recommended by the producers of the cones that you should only use three (because it would 'sound' better)!!
If the explanation given is that three cones 'deal with' vibrations better - therefore 'dealing with' any adverse effect on the audio signal better, all you have to do is to remove the three cones from under the working amplifier (the sound will now be perceived to have deteriorated) and place the three cones under an identical but PASSIVE amplifier - just sitting passively on a shelf - not connected to the audio system and not connected to the AC power supply - and back will come the 'good' sound !!!!
There is NO audio signal travelling through the PASSIVE amplifier to be adversely affected and yet you will have the 'better' sound back !!
Regards,
May Belt.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: