|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.232.84.108
I noticed a day or so ago that the moderator invited me to "COOL IT" after a post about the physical and electrical properties of wall plates. I re-read my post and agree, it was a little rough around the edges. If I had gone for a whiz, say, and read it again before posting, I would have done some editing. No personal offense was intended, however. The "flavor" of my post is probably a result of having spent my working life in the technical fields of electro-mechanical engineering and maintenance where one must vigorously defend one's ideas.The driving force in design and repair of electronic equipment is, most of the time, $MONEY$. Budget constraints are always present in equipment design or repair. So, when a deficiency is found in a prototype or a piece of equipment is down, there is discussion of how to eliminate the problem or make a desired improvement. Ideas are proffered and considered. Different individuals with different experiences or different critical thinking skills will come up with different suggestions. But ALL of them must be obviously based upon the understood laws of the physical universe. There would never be funding or time for ideas which someone might just have a "gut feeling" about or simply intuit. To justify the allocation of scarce resources an idea must have merit based on known laws of cause and effect.
But, in addition to being based on physical laws, the ideas must seem reasonably, if not highly, relevant to the problem. On a quantum level everything has an effect on something, so everything is relevant. But our existance is based in the Newtonian world where cause and effect are tightly linked, usually observable, and largely predictable.
For example: in chaos theory, it is possible for a butterfly to flap its wings in Japan and have that flap affect the weather in the U.S. That is theoretically possible. But its extreme unlikelyhood of being the actual cause of a weather event prevents butterfly extermination. Far, far more likely to cause weather events are El Nino, solar storms, barometric pressure changes, and volcanic eruptions. So, based upon scientific knowledge AND probability, weather forcasting does not include butterfly monitoring in Asia.
So, also is the "science" of audiophillia (sp?). A couple of examples and I'll shut up. Can you imagine a manufacturer of, say, high-end HT packaged systems, doing a final evaluation when one listener pipes up, "Well, it sounds pretty good except the highs are a little harsh. Has anyone checked the wall plate for damping compound?"
I believe everyone not mentally retarded has critical thinking ability. If your car was overheating, for example, its unlikely that you would check the oil level in the rear end as the root cause of the problem.
So it is with audio systems. If you don't like the sound you hear, what justification is there, in science and in probability, to change the wall plate? I, personally, would first suspect my hearing (down 30 db at 5kHz - normal age deterioration), then my speakers, then my room acoustics, then ...., and maybe, after I've run out of ideas and spent my last $2, I'd think of the wall plate. But that's based upon science.
I'm not disputing that some who have tried various subtle changes in hardware can hear a change. Only YOU know what you hear and unless you own lots of stock in Hubbel or Leviton are probably not going to lie about wall plates. But when questioned as to why you suspected it made a change, I expect, no, demand, that you give me a cogent scientific expanation, free of subjective terms and free of technobable. If you don't understand the physics and the relevance of the change to an entire system, simply say, it was changed on a hunch and I like what I hear. End of story.
Let me use this last sentence to thank all of you who have shared your ideas and experiences in response to my frequent questions. Your participation in these forums make hi-fi a more rewarding and educational hobby.
GP Bobby
Follow Ups:
[ But when questioned as to why you suspected it made a change, I expect, no, demand, that you give me a cogent scientific expanation, free of subjective terms and free of technobable. ]No, no you won't, not in this forum.
This is one of the reasons that DBT arguments are prohibited, who is to decide what is a "cogent scientific expanation"? What is technobabble and why?
I could make a very convincing and strong argument that most all the amateur DBT's commonly cited are psuedo-science. Someone else might be able to argue the opposite. Who decides what is true science and what is psuedo-science? When is a 'fact' really a fact?No one should have to defend their subjective impressions or experiences, or provide any sort of 'proof' regarding same. Nor should they be required to do so for merely theorizing about their subjective impressions.
If you want to argue ONLY objective issues, then Prop Heads was created for the likes of you. It is at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/bbs.htmlIf you try to do what you state in your post, and demand an explanation, you are denigrating and harrassing members of this forum, and will be dealt with accordingly. You already have one strike against you, two more, or an egregious single post, and you could be banned from this forum.
If you want to brow beat folks over cables and related matters, go somewhere where they encourage/tolerate such behavior, such as rec.audio.opinion, or AR or AH.
Forum Co-Moderator,
Jon Risch
This is a final response to the co-moderators post. In the interest of maintaining continuity, I've quoted { }Jon's post, with my comments interspersed:{[ But when questioned as to why you suspected it made a change, I expect, no, demand, that you give me a cogent scientific expanation, free of subjective terms and free of technobable. ]
No, no you won't, not in this forum.
}My intended meaning of the above (rather poorly stated) was that in order for me to gain an understanding of X (subject) or participate in a discussion of X, one's comments should contain a scientific explanation. I thought it a given that my point of view is, as all others, just the author's and of no particular importance. What you have made clear, Jon, that I apparently didn't understand, is the limited nature of YOUR forum. As a guest in your house, I will in the future wipe my feet before entering.
{This is one of the reasons that DBT arguments are prohibited, who is to decide what is a "cogent scientific expanation"? What is technobabble and why?
}Well, I've never read a DBT test and, of course, to be valid they would have to conform to known scientific protocols. This means the test would have to be repeatable by anyone, anywhere under same circumstances, AND yield the same results - EVERYTIME. This is part of what is known as the "scientific method." Sometimes scientists get it wrong -- recall the "cold fusion" of the 80s. This concept was rather quickly disproved by scientists who could not duplicate the original experiment. True science is self correcting and the "cogent scientific explanation" is the one which can be duplicated, measured and conforms to the known laws of physics.
Technobable is the incorrect use and application of scientific terms to describe observed phenomena.
I am home teaching my granddaughter (5th grade, Calvert Systems) and her science, while simple in subject, repeatedly involves hypothesis, experiment, explanation of observed phenomenem. She is receiving a ground level introduction to the scientific method which forms the basis for all advancements in science and technology. As most people know, medicines and drugs are constantly subjected to double-blind studies. When the right protocols are followed, (including statistical elimination of possible contributing factors) the results are considered valid.
{I could make a very convincing and strong argument that most all the amateur DBT's commonly cited are psuedo-science. Someone else might be able to argue the opposite. Who decides what is true science and what is psuedo-science? When is a 'fact' really a fact?
}Good questions. My above paragraph is as far as I want to go with an explanation, however. But please consider this: The answers to those two questions have been decided upon in every field of science and investigation of observed phenomenon (or there would be NO advances at all, only arguments) with an apparent exception being the world of electronic music reproduction.
{No one should have to defend their subjective impressions or experiences, or provide any sort of 'proof' regarding same. Nor should they be required to do so for merely theorizing about their subjective impressions.
}Total agreement here, Jon. BUT, participants most often DO offer explanations of their observations. (Ex: The wall plate did such-and-such to the sound because IT WAS VIBRATING.) My point is that those explanations ought to be based upon science as understood and taught world-wide. Back to the "scientific method" again. If we AGREE that there is no intention of science playing a part in our observations, then there should be no need for an explanation at all; a subjective observation, labeled as such, is sufficient. But let's not corrupt real science by offering explanations that fly in the face of the body of knowledge known as classical physics.
{If you want to argue ONLY objective issues, then Prop Heads was created for the likes of you. It is at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/bbs.html
}Isn't it true that ONLY objective issues CAN be argued? How can one argue about someone elses subjective observation? I know I can't and won't.
{If you try to do what you state in your post, and demand an explanation, you are denigrating and harrassing members of this forum, and will be dealt with accordingly. You already have one strike against you, two more, or an egregious single post, and you could be banned from this forum.
}Your above statement so succinctly illuminates you viewpoint and the flavor of the forum under your control, Jon, but I'm surprized you feel you can speak for other forum members, most of whom seem too intelligent to feel denigrated or harrassed when asked a simple question. Your statement has the familiar ring of one right out of the 1600s Inquisition when Galileo was punished, not for asking for explanations (which he knew to be incorrect) but for offering them, bringing into question the unenlightened viewpoint of his day. In some circles, science has a very rough time.
I, and the likes of me, rest our case.
GrandPa Bobby{If you want to brow beat folks over cables and related matters, go somewhere where they encourage/tolerate such behavior, such as rec.audio.opinion, or AR or AH.
Forum Co-Moderator,
I am not a scientist nor an EE. Most audiophiles only have a working knowledge of such and others are neophytes who have "better" things to do with their time. I don't believe any reasonable person would agree that one must be a scientist or EE in order to discuss hi-fi tweaks and such. The mention of vibration in the faceplate thread was a conjecture and was never stated as fact. Statements like "did you try" and "maybe vibration" were used, and even the point about dielectric involvement was posed as conjecture (based on experience). The idea of further experimentation was encouraged, not a scientific conclusion. You need to take a good look at how fanatic your demands are and cut folks some slack. Thanks.BTW, I changed out the faceplates on two other systems and the same improvement(s) is observed based on my evaluation.
Your appeals to quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and now the Galileo story, are either a smoke-screen or reveal a profound misunderstanding of scientific inquiry.Had you done a little research in the archives here before you mounted your attack on Duster's wall plate post, you would have realized that this topic is not new. Duster's observation is one in a long string that show the weaknesses of the standard domestic electricity supply apparatus in the context of high-resolution audio playback systems.
Every bit of this apparatus is suboptimal for audio, yet we are forced by the coercive power of the state to maintain it. Changing wall plates from plastic to stainless steel stays within the constraints of the electrical code, yet gives some users improved audio performance. If you don't understand why, or the historical context of Duster's report, then don't project your ignorance onto those of us willing to consider such changes and discuss them in this forum.
If you don't understand why, or the historical context of Duster's report, then don't project your ignorance onto those of us willing to consider such changes and discuss them in this forum.I'm just wondering who the ignorant ones are in this forum.
Are they the people who believe in newtonian physics, or are they the people who think they hear audible changes when they "tweek" something that cannot possibly alter the signal path between an amp and speaker.Ever notice how Jon R reacts when someone talks real science? He threatens them with dismemberment. Power trip.
Audible improvement is not based on ignorance, it is based on direct experience. However, a prejudgment that it is impossible for a particular device/method to offer audible improvement *is* ignorant. Get your head out of your tiny hole in the ground and start listening before you shoot your mouth off.
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Scientism (as a dogma) is as pablum for the masses who seem to desire to be included in the "new elite". Perhaps an unhealthy fear of God/death/or the otherwise scary unknown? I dunno.
nt
Despite the fact that many of the replies to your post are fundamentally sound...eg, your post really *isn't* an apology, and no one in the cable asylum can really demand anything of anyone else...your post is one of the most eloquently succinct ones I've read here in months. Thank you.
Too many people treat tweaking as a religion that you don't dare question.My biggest pet peeve is those $500.00 wooden knobs.It is absolutely ridiculous.There is no science to it ,it makes no logical sense yet people are sucked in by these morally bankrupt snakeoil salesman.It infuriates me that no one has the balls to say "this is total bullshit".Ya!
What does the $485 wooden knob have to do with a cheap wall plate tweak? I know, they are both tweaks!The $485 wooden knob tweak is silly, therefore all tweaks are silly.
Not.
I stated in my first post that I had not read any of the threads on wall plates.I neither agree nor disagree on that issue.I just agreed in principal what grandpa? said about tweaks that have no real science behind them or that a person would look at and think, common sense tells me this product is a ridiculous concept.The wooden knob came to mind as it is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard in audio.I believe cables do make a difference and there are many tweaks that work.I just feel that some of these outrageously priced useless tweaks paint us audiophiles with the same brush.Sorry, I just feel we should call these con artists out on it. Cheers, Brett
The worst tweak I've heard of is Peter Belt's idea of placing a photo of yourself in your freezer. At least the wooden knobs let you turn the shaft of the potentiometer!Then there are the tweaks that do a little good on a limited population of components, yet are oversold and overpriced.
This thread concerns a tweak that costs little and may do some good. Statements that such tweaks cannot work sound like synthetic a priori. Perhaps it is the low cost that sparks the rage: the nay-sayers cannot point at a silly price and divert attention from the logical emptiness of their position.
Glad you posted that AL, because you are prime example of the following:
I will not tolerate your posts in this forum and will continue to call you on your attacks until you cease them or are banned. Take it somewhere else.
why on earth do YOU care? That's what I don't understand. Live and let live, for Pete's sake.
fellow inmates. Giving a product like that any sense of respectability by keeping silent is downright apathetic.
All you're doing is increasing the interest in, and potential sales of, this silly product by keeping it in the eye of potential buyers. That make you happy?
If so, remember when Booger was playing cards with the Asian guy and cheating him out of every last penny he had, telling him a pair of 2's beats a "frush"? It was frustrating to watch, but there was nothing you could do to help.Seeing things as silly as this can be just as frustrating, especially for an asking price of $485:
"The point here is the micro vibrations created by the volume pots and knobs find their way into the delicate signal path and cause degradation (Bad vibrations equal bad sound). With the signature knobs micro vibrations from the C37 concept of wood, bronze and the lacquer itself compensate for the volume pots and provide (Good Vibrations) our ear/brain combination like to hear…way better sound!!"
If the Silver Rock Potentiometer were designed correctly, micro vibrations would not be an audible issue. Especially not at a price point of ~$4000 (~$7000 for the "Signature" version). But they tell you in the product description that their Potentiometers have bad vibrations which result in bad sound!! Amazing...
I don't know about you, but it makes me want to grab someone by the lapelle, shake them, and say, "what the f*ck are you thinking?"
.
It seems to make you happy. Heaven only knows why. :-)
That's funny, I wasn't happy, or sad, or anything else when I posted that message. Just making a point. If you saw a friend getting ready to fork out $2000 to the guys in the white van for a pair of speakers, would you not step in and lend some advice?I don't lose ANY sleep over ridiculous claims for outrageously priced "tweaks" that most likely make no sonic difference. It's the affects that they have on the credibility of our hobby that bother me.
Take a look at this winner:
How do you know if some tweaks don't deliver the goods? Yeah, I did shout at a white van in a parking lot selling sh*t, once.Why you seem to think tweaks and other audio devices ("sensible" or otherwise) that are acceptable to those who enjoy them are in the same league, I don't know why. I won't shout at anyone who chooses something that is of *true value to them*, seemingly "sensible" or not. At least they have a right to return the product for a refund in most cases. The white van sale is final and the product is true bunk.
I said "outrageously priced" tweaks, which would not include many of the tweaks that are discussed on this board. I understand your point, and believe me, I was not trying to say that all tweaks make no sonic difference. I have heard a couple in my system. But they were very inexpensive to do, and sometimes included materials readily available around the house.But please re-read my previous post that includes a quote from the Potentiometer manufacturer's web site. It states that there are "bad" vibrations inherent to the product, and that the $500 upgrade knobs will turn them into "good" vibrations, one's that are pleasing to our ears. It makes me, personally, go hhmmm.......
...is a valid issue. If that high priced device delivers the "goods", I shall never know since I would not pay that price, either. However, I don't know the specifics of why the price is as it is...Perhaps another DIY clone project for those who wish?
All you did was call still more attention to the fact that there are such things. If some deluded soul gets curious and investigates and buys the things, it will be on your head. :-)
It does'nt make me happy but 2 of the 3 voices in my head love it. Brett
This really isn't worth arguing about (listen to the voices).
Now all I have left is to say I appologize if I offended you. Sincerely, Brett
Seriously, no need for apologies. My best to you, Dave
Er, why should we care what you expect or demand? I don't demand anything of you.
Dave,I demand that you tell my why you don't demand anything of those who demand a scientific explanation. If you can't provide a scientific explanation; I demand that you explain why I'm wrong for demanding a scientific explanation, and will demand that you back that up with a scientific expanation of why my demand is unscientific. I demand that you accept my apology for my demand. I demand that you have a nice day. However, I don't apologize for that demand. You may demand that I apologize for that demand but, your demand will have to undergo strict scientific scrutiny before I submit to your demand. I demand that you accept this post as being objective and without subjective error, or back that up with a scientific explanation as to why it is not objective. I will now demand that this message be accepted as being scientifically ended. (objective period)
Your post is about continuing your attack, not apologizing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: