 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I am tired of the contempt displayed by audio "professionals", sometimes with an EE degree, for audiophiles.
I was like you, guys, at age 23 when I got my degree in architecture.
"How can these people think that they are able to make the plans of their futur house ?"
It is just a sign of weakness, an the result of feeling threatened.* MANY people are able to appreciate the sound of audio equipment as well or better than EE engineers ;
* MANY audiophiles are intelligent enough, and sometimes have a solid scientific background without an engineering degree (Physicists, Geophysicists, Mathematicians, etc.), to be able to appreciate the quality (and shortcomings) of audio equipment
* Audiophiles are, by definition, passionate by their hobby, unlike "professionals" that see audio equipment as tools for their work. Perhaps it explains why, often, I feel that an audiophile's advice is more accurate than the advice of an EE engineer.
Cheers,
Yves Simon
Follow Ups:
..yet the preamps that he designs are in great demand in recording studios. Even his electron tube and early germanium transistor preamps command a very high premium. And he was virtually self taught!He just stood for QUALITY and is probably the most respected designer of recording equipment in the world. I also have see EEs scoffing at audiophiles. Ray Hughes
You'll find that the great majority of people who earn a living making music did not earn a degree in the field; for every Berklee grad there are a thousand self-taught musicians that do what we do quite well despite lacking 'credentials'. Like most of my friends in the business I find the whole notion of 'audiophiles' to be rather silly on the whole. Those who can make music do; those who can't are audiophiles. IMHO, of course.
Funny ! You are saying that you don't need credential to be a good musician, but you need credential (to be a musician) to be a genuine audiophile.
I don't think that people (among them, self-appointed audiophiles) don't need to be musicians to appreciate music and equipments to listen to music.
Cheers,Yves
What I am saying is that by and large those who really know what music is all about, those who do it for a living in one form or another, don't lose a lot of sleep worrying about whether they've used the right color shrinkwrap on their capacitors and they don't spend $600 for a six foot AC power cable. Take a perusal in the Cables or Tweaks forums and you'll come across some of the most silly things imaginable, and the great majority of the flakey notions promulgated are not being posted by people in the business, trained or otherwise. I doubt if the average owner of Watt Puppies could play the bass line of 'In a Gadda da Vida' if his life depended on it, but he'll expound ad nauseum on the sonic necessity of his ByBees even though he hasn't a clue exactly how it is that they supposedly function.
"Those who can make music do; those who can't are audiophiles."Surely you recognize the ignorance of that statement. For example, what of the musicians who are also audiophiles?
"I doubt if the average owner of Watt Puppies could play the bass line of 'In a Gadda da Vida' if his life depended on it..."
I managed to pick out the bass line of a Pixies song once. Big deal. What does that have to do with me hearing, acknowledging, and appreciating how much better my Pixies CDs sound when playing back on audiophile-quality systems, especially ones that include the audiophile interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords that you apparently disdain?
_____________________________"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world."
--Gore Vidal
I just found your post wherein you admit to using zip cord. That explains a lot about your perspective.I suppose you think that pro audio cable companies like Evidence Audio are just deluding themselves, right?
_____________________________"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world."
--Gore Vidal
I just found your post wherein you admit to using zip cord. That explains a lot about your perspective.
*************************************************************
Yeah, it means he HAS perspective. This is the PRO Asylum and most pros have been in enough studios to realize that 99% of all commercially available music was recorded and mixed using nice fat gauge zip cord. I prefer 12ga. myself. That preference is based on repeated comparisons between zip cord and various "magic wire" without ever hearing any improvement attributable to the "magic wire."
.
Steve
Lexington 125 - High Resolution Location Recordingwww.lexington125.com
lex125@pacbell.netdigital? I'm still not sure about transistors....
The only people whom I think are deluding themselves are those who devote inordinate amounts of time, money and energy nervosa to nostrands and do-dads that have not been proven to actually do anything except assuage the egos of their owners. Pro-audio cable companies are not deluding themselves at all; they've got a product that is highly, perhaps obscenely, profitable, and a large pool of customers willing to purchase it.As for zip cord, when used in the same gauge as esoteric wire there is a difference, along the lines of a tenth of a dB of insertion loss and two degrees of phase shift, as compared to the most expensive cables made. If you've managed to convince yourself that you can hear those differences and are willing to pay the price to get it then the marketing gurus can count you as one of their success stories. The vast majority of music professionals know that those differences are only perceptable in the minds of the purchasers.
...all of whom use gear that sounds best to them. What is inside the gear, between the gear, and powering the gear? It is almost never cheap hookup cable or zipcord. OK, I know they don't typically go for $100/ft cable, and that this is an ancient and tired argument. But, I believe it is only fair to read the statements of Bob Katz, Peter McGrath, Tony Faulker, Bob Ludwig, Denny Purcell (R.I.P.), Tom Jung, and many others. Regards, Sam
And when they speak, as the old commercial went, I listen, because they:
A. Know what they're talking about.
B. Know the difference between quality and price.Anyone who does spend $100 a foot for cable can't make the same claim.
...aren't cheap, because they have either careful design and moderate production costs, or careful design with high costs. Cost tradeoffs are a fact of life in the manufacture of cables as well as in other components. For example, you can drop the noise in every mic preamp I've seen, just by using better caps and resistors. Imagine what 200 $10 resistors do to production costs for a stereo mic pre. I have worked with some of the best cable designers in the business. Here's a case in point. The company I formerly worked for built two line-level consumer preamps. One cost $10k and the other was $16k (same design, better parts). Replacing the stock, high-quality power cable (no garbage IEC plugs, but Amphenol screw-on connectors) with a prototype Shunyata cable, equivalent to about a $2000 model made today, made the cheaper pre destroy the pricier one. I agree with you that many, if not most, very pricey cables are either bad deals, inadequate designs, and or poor matches for many systems. I believe the same holds true, but to a much, much lesser degree, for other components. I'm sorry for the late reply. Regards, Sam
Great cables may not be cheap (it depends on your threshold of "cheap"), but they're not all expensive, either.Any device that needs a $2000 power cable to perform at its best must be pretty poorly designed.
-Bob
Listen to the best gear you can find, then look inside. Halcro, Edge, Boulder, etc., as your specialty is power amps. Some have really pricey wire, others moderately expensive wire. Of course OEM prices are just a fraction of those published. (Natch, the relative absence of wire shows good design.) Proof? No, not at all. But I would like to know if you have attempted or even read of a well-controlled double-blind A/B (beyond ABX) test for this. The cost is enormous: hundreds of listeners are needed. This quality of non-empirical data does not, to my knowledge, exist. So these guys design, build, measure, listen, and try a few cables out of the hundreds available. Look, every design in comsumer and entertainment-based audio has cost constraints--QSC has achieved a great deal, by nearly every parameter. The small, boutique audio market can't live on the same margins as the big boys. Some great cable really does cost over $10 foot to produce. Is $1 a foot too much? That's the production cost of some world-beating hookup cable I've used, but finding it is a very long road. Regards, Sam
Like I said, if wire does its job properly, it doesn't matter whether it costs 50 cents a foot or $500 a foot. But in that case I'll buy the 50 cent stuff myself.-Bob
nt
Hi Bill,As far as I know, Bob Ludwig is using cable from Transparent Audio.
Check the pricing. If I'm not mistaken, Bob isn't including or excluding a cable because of its price tag.Happy Listening!
Barry
I visited Gateway a few years ago but didn't pay attention to the cabling. ;^)I'd be surprised if the Transparent cable Bob used even had a price tag. I'm sure it's as good as most other cables.
Here's a great article about that brand: Cable Story .
Hi Bob,"I'd be surprised if the Transparent cable Bob used even had a price tag."
Not exactly sure of what you mean by that but it really isn't hard to check the pricing on these cables.
I don't understand how folks can make comments about what kind of wire others are or are not using, or how much that wire costs, without checking their "facts". These are the same folks who draw conclusions about how things sound or don't sound without inconveniencing themselves by sitting down to listen.
Is the article you linked to supposed to prove something about cables in general?
The strange thing is when I speak with musicians about the difference in tone between a Fender and a Gibson guitar or between a Steinway and a Bosendorfer piano, or when a musician chooses one brand of instument over another, no one says the differences are in the musician's imagination. The world of audio, unfortunately is overflowing with folks who say such things about those who can describe what they hear when they sit down and listen.
Kind of reminds me of someone I met in the record business (who shall remain nameless). This poor fellow insisted that female orgasm is a myth. The proof he offered was that he'd been with a large number of women and not a single one of them ever had an orgasm.
Happy Listening!
Barry
What I mean is that Bob Ludwig probably didn't have to buy those cables, or at least pay regular price. If I were the owner of Transparent and wanted some publicity, sure, I'd place them for free or really low cost in a local world-known mastering facility, too. (Better that than making outlandish claims about wire.) I'll try to remember to ask Bob the next time I see him, though.But as I said, I'm sure the cables are as good as any others that cost much more and much less.
-Bob
"Better that than making outlandish claims about wire."Then why do you make these outlandish claims? For example:
"But as I said, I'm sure the cables are as good as any others that cost much more and much less."Exactly what methodology did you employ in comparing the cables Bob has with "any others that cost much more and much less"?
Or was there in fact, no comparison at all, indicating your statement is based upon conjecture?Starting to get a little low down in your post titles Bob. Remember "civil discourse"? If you've heard the cables you're talking about or even if you've subjected them to some sort of laboratory test, I'm interesting in what you have to say. Otherwise I'm afraid I'm not.
I don't know what you do for a living, but Bob's is sound. Same as mine. Referring to previous posts, those of us in the industry don't easily fall for advertising hype. If something works we use it, whatever the cost. If something costs a lot we don't assume it's better. We make sure it works better before spending our hard earned money on it.One thing we in the industry are quite aware of is that there has never been an unbiased scientifically conducted double-blind test of any cable, be it speaker or interconnect or AC, that has shown any advantage whatsoever to esoteric materials and construction, let alone high prices. Bob knows this, I know this, the vast majority of music professionals know this. Why? Because it's our job. If you don't want to accept the advise of people who are in the business then don't ask for it.
Bill, you said that:> > ...there has never been an unbiased scientifically conducted double-blind test of any cable, be it speaker or interconnect or AC, that has shown any advantage whatsoever to esoteric materials and construction, let alone high prices. Bob knows this, I know this, the vast majority of music professionals know this. < <
Yes indeed! However, most also *should* know that there has never been "an unbiased scientifically conducted double-blind test" of any cable, be it speaker or interconnect or AC, *at all*. There have been many tests, many constructed with sincere zeal, but I have never heard of a truly rigorous one being done. It's too costly. Now, that also means that no cable maker can yet make an honest claim of proof of sonic superiority based on listening tests. A fine summary of the state of psychoacoustic testing can be found in AES Jan/Feb 2004, p. 65. I recommend this to anyone interested in the subject. Regards, Sam
" If you don't want to accept the advise of people who are in the business then don't ask for it."Sorry Bill, but I don't recall asking for your advice?
Hi Bill," don't know what you do for a living..."
Look at some of your CDs (or some older vinyl) and you might find my name there as mastering (and/or recording) engineer.... more than 30 years worth and one of the very first mastering for CD. Have to read the posts more carefully Bill...or do the research first.
"One thing we in the industry...
Have you engineered and/or produced many recordings or mastered any vinyl or for CD? As I'm sure you know, "in the industry" can describe a lot of jobs that have nothing to do with recording music.Still, all that is irrelevant. One either is willing to listen (to a product designed for nothing other than to be listened to ) or one is not. And that says all that needs to be said.
So much shooting from the hip. So little doing the research first.
Such a strong aversion to sitting down and listening. And above all, such hostility. I'm sure you feel you have very good reason to behave like that.Like Frank Herbert said: "Fear is the mind-killer."
Hi Barry,Making conclusions without actual testing (that does not include poor testing) is truly shooting from the hip. I hope to one day see some convincing data of the magical claims offered for some cables. It would be Nobel Prize material.
-Bob
Bob,"Making conclusions without actual testing (that does not include poor testing) is truly shooting from the hip."
And what of making conclusions without bothering to even ask the questions?
Still avoiding the concept of listening with your ears as if something bad might happen to you? Why are you so afraid of listening? You've never addressed this in any of your posts.Listening, according to you, would appear to qualify as "poor testing".
Okay. That's understood. You want a numerical representation and are convinced that everything of any significance whatsoever with regard to audio has already been quantified and if it can't be measured it doesn't exist. Is that about right?Let's say it is right and I understand where you're coming from.
Why such an avoidance of listening? Do you ever enjoy putting on a recording and using loudspeakers and ears to see what's on it? Or do you attach it to some measuring device and create graphs and charts to see what the composer intended? I'm serious in that question. Why the avoidance of listening as though your very life would be endangered by the experience? Even if only to confirm what your measurements are "telling" you.Do you so mistrust your ears? Perhaps you have reason to do so. This I don't know but as I said in another post, I have confidence in your ears and the brain to which they're attached. Why not give them a try? (Remember, I acknowledge that only blind tests and numerical measurements are what you find convincing. Why not add a little listening and see what happens. It can't be as dangerous as you would make it seem.)
To my mind, you've painted yourself into a logical corner. Do you have any numbers or blind test results that in fact prove you exist? Have you made any direct comparisons of your existence with your non-existence? Or are we to simply take your word and experience of self for this?
Barry
Hi Barry,> And what of making conclusions without bothering to even ask the questions? <
That, too, is pointless, as I have been saying.
> Still avoiding the concept of listening with your ears as if something bad might happen to you? Why are you so afraid of listening? You've never addressed this in any of your posts. <
In what fantasy world do you think I am afraid of listening?
> Listening, according to you, would appear to qualify as "poor testing". <
Not necessarily. It depends on the procedure. But the true test of sonic characteristics is in a properly done listening test where listening, and not ego, placebo effect, marketing hype, et al, is the sole evaluation criterion. A double-blind test would be such an evaluation.
> Okay. That's understood. You want a numerical representation and are convinced that everything of any significance whatsoever with regard to audio has already been quantified and if it can't be measured it doesn't exist. Is that about right? <
Nope. Keep in mind that I have not insisted on measuring anything, only on listening.
> Why such an avoidance of listening? Do you ever enjoy putting on a recording and using loudspeakers and ears to see what's on it? Or do you attach it to some measuring device and create graphs and charts to see what the composer intended? I'm serious in that question. Why the avoidance of listening as though your very life would be endangered by the experience? Even if only to confirm what your measurements are "telling" you <
Again, what fantasy world are you making up about me, Barry? Avoidance of listening? Do I ever enjoy putting on a recording and using loudspeakers and ears to see what's on it? Of course. What makes you fantasize that I don't? I wouldn't have gone into audio professionally and done all kinds of extra-curricular study of listening tests and psychoacoustics if I didn't love music and recording and performance and learning about what makes audio work.
> Do you so mistrust your ears? Perhaps you have reason to do so. This I don't know but as I said in another post, I have confidence in your ears and the brain to which they're attached. Why not give them a try? (Remember, I acknowledge that only blind tests and numerical measurements are what you find convincing. Why not add a little listening and see what happens. It can't be as dangerous as you would make it seem.) <
Again, you are making up fantasy, Barry.
> To my mind, you've painted yourself into a logical corner. Do you have any numbers or blind test results that in fact prove you exist? Have you made any direct comparisons of your existence with your non-existence? Or are we to simply take your word and experience of self for this? <
Je pense, donc je suis.
-Bob
Hi Bob,I've been getting the impression you don't like to listen because your responses seem to be quite resistant to the idea without your having read about a double blind test beforehand.
I've continually suggested trying a simple, 5 minute listening test using some easily made roller bearings (or an even more easily made air bearing for that matter) under your CD player but you've never said "okay, I'll spend 5 minutes". Instead you've told me that wouldn't be an adequate test. Five minutes. It would seem from your posts that's too much time to risk. That's where I get the idea you're afraid to listen. If that isn't true, why not give it a shot? (Please see more on this below.)
From other posts, it seems you find listening an acceptable way for a musician to judge say, a piano but haven't yet responded to how that would be different from adjudicating a CD player or amplifier. Why doesn't the musician (as well as the salesman) have to be blindfolded when auditioning the piano? Note I was referring to how the musician feels about the sound of say a Steinway vs. a Kawai vs. a Bosendorfer, not the action or any consideration aside from the tonality.
When you are contemplating speakers for your own system, do you double blind test them?
As to the last question, regarding proof of your own existence, quoting Descartes (more like: I think therefore I think I am) isn't the same as supplying the results of double blind testing. It appears you want us to take you at your word based upon your own direct experience. No "proof" beyond that? Personally, I take your word for it but from your posts it seems you'd want further "evidence" if someone merely talked only about direct experience.
Okay for self, okay for piano but require double blind for amplifiers. This seems inconsistent.
All I've been trying to say in this thread is that a direct audition performed by an experienced listener using a system and environment with which they're familiar can be a valid way to assess how something sounds. Of course there are always some, usually with considerably less experience, or perhaps less skill, that can be fooled but this isn't always the case. Experience can help avoid pitfalls (for example rapid A/Bing of one mix with a natural sound and another with a very hyped treble can lead one to erroneously conclude the natural mix sounds "dull"). After all, the products are designed for nothing other than to be listened to.
As with the piano and with one's own existence, sometimes direct experience of an audio product can give one a pretty good idea of what it actually sounds like.
It is possible to remember a sound. If I were to talk about the sound of a JBL speaker vs. the sound of an AR-3, I'd bet you'd know what I was talking about. Would you agree? Or less subtly, the sound of a Quad electrostatic vs. a Dayton-Wright electrostatic. Experienced listeners have a memory of what these sound like and can (to varying degrees of success) describe those differences.
Similarly, if I am very familiar with the sound of my system and a change effects that sound, I can describe it. I understand you are skeptical (to put it mildly?) of being able to discern such changes in the absence of a double blind test and here is where we have to agree to disagree. I trust adjudication by listening if the listener is experienced, familiar with the system and environment and the results are consistent and repeatable.
One of the prerequisites I have for deeming something an improvement (and not a mere change) is the differences in the sound of various recordings. Experience with master tapes showed me how very different each is sonically from all others. Any improvment must reveal these differences. Conversely, any diminution of system quality will make records sound more alike, those similarities being the colorations superimposed by the system. Well conceived vibration control measures easily fill this requirement. (I understand you do not accept this and feel listening by itself an inadequate means of adjudication.)
Thanks for the dialog. I'm frequently in touch with others who feel the same way I do but it is in contacts with those of diametrically opposed viewpoints where I like to challenge my own perspectives.
In the past few years, I've given away the specs for my own (copyrighted) design for a roller bearing device, which I call Hip Joints. In the posts I've put up about the experiences that led to the creation of Hip Joints, I've asked others to undertake a similar journey and to please confirm or deny what I've said. So far, I've sent the specs to a few hundred people all over the U.S., Canada and several countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. To date, all that have had them machined have unamimously confirmed my findings. The power of suggestion? That's not impossible but the numbers are starting to get pretty large and I would doubt suggestion could be the case in every instance.
Anyway, again, thank you for the dialog.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Hi Barry,Well, you certainly got the wrong impression about whether I like to listen.
It would take much more than five minutes to set up a double-blind test of a CD player with ball bearings versus an identical CD player without (and the CD players would have to be swapped for half the test to make sure that any differences detected were not due to a defect or irregularity in one of them). If the prospect looked promising, I might try it. Although my curiosity is limitless, my time isn't.
I still don't see any parallel to choosing a piano, or to anything else for creating music or sound, like guitars, guitar amps, or other instruments. Originating sound is not the same as reproducing it.
A direct audition can indeed be a valid way to assess a system or piece of equipment, but only in an absolute way. It is a poor way to conduct a comparison on sonic characteristics except for very gross differences, even if you think you can listen to something exactly the same way some minutes, hours, days, weeks or months apart. Some people need to demonstrate their aural acuity by claiming to hear differences that may not actually exist--"You changed the knobs from black to white … of course I can hear the difference that makes!"--so it is much more revealing to have listeners evaluate on this basis: "you've heard the system with the black knobs and with the white knobs; which are you listening to now?"
Thank you for disclosing your commercial interest in this subject. It would be interesting to know if there are any controlled tests of your product, and it would also be interesting to determine why, if they do alleviate a vibration-induced problem, the CD player manufacturers design products that are susceptible--when it seems it would be fairly easy for them to avoid it. I hope that you'll consider patenting your invention instead of copyrighting it, as that would seem to be more effective protection.
-Bob
Hi Bob,I'm glad to hear you like to listen and I stand corrected.
My suggestions to listen were not about spending the time setting up an elaborate test though. Maybe that's why we keep differing on how much time it would take. My point was to spend a few minutes and from that experience, decide if you want to pursue the issue further with more elaborate testing if that is your inclination."I still don't see any parallel to choosing a piano, or to anything else for creating music or sound, like guitars, guitar amps, or other instruments. Originating sound is not the same as reproducing it."
What I was referring to was evaluting the sound of the instrument and comparing it to one's memory of the sound of another. Or playing one instument and then another. Sonic "memory" is still involved, just as it is when comparing a CD player with vibration measures and the same player without.
"Some people need to demonstrate their aural acuity by claiming to hear differences that may not actually exist...:Agreed. This however is not always the case. By the same token, one could say some folks need to "disprove" what others can hear but they can't. I remember an experience in Atlantic studios once where the tech was aligning a machine using a 15kHz tone playing quite loudly over the loudspeakers. When I asked him if he could please turn the volume down because it was painful, his first word was "Bullshit". He couldn't tell the difference when the mute button was switched on and off. Both of these examples are extremes that don't reflect the larger middle ground.
"Thank you for disclosing your commercial interest in this subject."Please read what I said again. I came up with a creation and have been giving the specs away so folks can make their own or have them made for them by their own machinist. I don't see how this is a "commercial interest". If someone asks for the specs (the only way to get them), I send them. Is that commerce?
My "interest" in the subject is only rooted in my interest in music and sound. The only profit I gain from Hip Joints is when someone who has heard them let's me know what they experienced.
Really Bob, it is interesting that you missed that point, so clearly stated in my post. Are you predisposed to "disproving" what I've said? Or do you still think I have a "commercial interest"?
Cheers,
Barry
Hi Barry,> My suggestions to listen were not about spending the time setting up an elaborate test though. Maybe that's why we keep differing on how much time it would take. My point was to spend a few minutes and from that experience, decide if you want to pursue the issue further with more elaborate testing if that is your inclination. <
What would a five-minute test tell me? That it sounds great, probably. But that's not the issue; the issue is whether it sounds different. Before one can determine that something sounds better than another, it's good practice to first determine if they sound different. If, going by sound alone, one is indidtinguishable from the other, then neither sounds better than the other. That's why the side-by-side, double-blind testing is necessary.
I'm sorry, I inferred that you had some kind of commercial product for vibration isolation. My apologies if I misread that.
Where are you located? If you are in the LA area, I invite you to attend the August 31 meeting of the LA section of the AES. The presenter will be Sean Olive (possibly assisted by Dr. Floyd Toole, at least in the Q&A part), who has done a great amount of research and published AES papers on listening tests, controlled variables, conditions which produce false results, etc.
-Bob
Hi Bob,"What would a five-minute test tell me? That it sounds great, probably. But that's not the issue; the issue is whether it sounds different."
Isn't identifying a difference easier (I think so) than deciding if it represents an improvement, a decrease in quality or simply a change? I think you'll notice a difference in seconds, not minutes. Then you can decide what value you'd attribute to it. That would tell you if further investigation interests you. Only if you want to, of course.
"I'm sorry, I inferred that you had some kind of commercial product for vibration isolation. My apologies if I misread that."Accepted. Thank you. I'm merely trying to share what I deem a wonderful find and decided to give it (the design specs) away for free rather than make it a commercial product, the idea being that more folks would have the opportunity to try it out this way. I know I wouldn't have believed what can be achieved had I not heard it for myself. In fact, it took me a couple of years from the time I first heard about the idea (which aroused my skepticism) until I tried it (and picked my jaw up off the floor). I understand this sounds like a lot of hooey to you. I just want to be clear that I'm only seeking to share what I deem a very happy discovery.
"Where are you located? If you are in the LA area, I invite you to attend the August 31 meeting of the LA section of the AES."I'd take you up on it but I'm located about 18 miles north of New York City and won't foreseeably be in LA. Last AES meeting I attended (back in '83?), I sat on stage as part of a panel of some of the very first CD mastering engineers. Thanks much for the invitation though. That's very kiind of you. It sounds like it will be quite interesting.
Cheers,
Barry
> Isn't identifying a difference easier (I think so) than deciding if it represents an improvement, a decrease in quality or simply a change? I think you'll notice a difference in seconds, not minutes. Then you can decide what value you'd attribute to it. That would tell you if further investigation interests you. Only if you want to, of course. <Identifying a difference precedes making a relative or comparative judgment. The problem with non-blind tests is that the participants often tend to jump to the "better or worse" judgment before determining definitively if there is actually a sonic difference. This is the sort of "testing" that got people excited about green markers, digital clocks, and other audio voodoo.
It's not a fault of of the people listening, but a fault in the procedure. How do physicians and pharmaceutical companies determine the efficacy of a certain medicine or treatment, they see how it works on sick people. But the problem with that is some sick people will feel genuinely better just for receiving a pill or a shot or being seen by a doctor, even if the treatments do nothing but provide a psychological boost. These people aren't rubes or suckers; they may honestly feel better. So tests have to be done that compare results with real medicine against those with placebos, with the test subjects unaware whether they're getting the real medicine or the placebo treatment.
-Bob
Funny to see objectivists and subjectivists battling eachother on the entire planet (i come from the Netherlands). I couldn't agree more with Bob Lee. And i think he's making valid points about factors involved in listening tests and how to exclude those so the one factor remaining is whether a sonic difference is perceivable or not. And i think it's a real shame the HiFi world is governed by people that don't know how to seperate real from imagined, because of an endless trust in their own perception. All the fuss about cables and endless tweaks: a good test would end it all. So few people can seperate what's important and what's not (Siegfried Linkwitz can to name one), it's holding back better music production.I'm glad i don't only listen to music at home, but i also work as a soundengineer in a theater. In the pro audio world things are handled more factual and there's less nonsense going around.
nt
I expect a cable to be a cable. I expect it to transport the signal from one spot to another with, at most, minuscule degradation. As close to "signal out = signal in" as possible.I don't expect a cable to sweeten up anything, and I'm skeptical of all such claims of cabling magic.
-Bob
Hi Bob,You didn't answer any of my questions Bob. How come?
Who said a cable (or vibration control measure) will "sweeten" anything? "Sweetening" is as much a distortion as rolling off the highs or adding grain or smearing time. What a good device (or cable) will do is none of the above. A good vibration control device won't for example add dynamics, it will prevent compression of dynamics.
Since you're talking about expectations, I usually expect those who comment on how something sounds (or doesn't sound) to have actually experienced the sound. Or at least be curious enough to listen. But that's just me. I still don't understand why some insist on numbers before they'll try direct experience. Do you completely distrust your own ears? I have more faith in your listening ability than that. (Please read that last sentence again.)
Barry
> Who said a cable (or vibration control measure) will "sweeten" anything? <Some of the cable marketers imply as such, and then their fans take it the rest of the way.
> "Sweetening" is as much a distortion as rolling off the highs or adding grain or smearing time. What a good device (or cable) will do is none of the above. <
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!! Very true. What's wonderful is that good cables like that don't necessarily cost much! And good devices shouldn't need extra padding and AC filtering and coddling, if they're designed well. (Though if they're not designed well, it's mistaken to call them "good.")
> A good vibration control device won't for example add dynamics, it will prevent compression of dynamics. <
Interesting. Has that been tested?
-Bob
Just go back to the early posts and work your way around again.I don't know if you read (or prefer the books tested and measured instead) but there's a chess game in Samuel Beckett's "Watt" and this thread is following the pattern of that game.
To my mind, you've painted yourself into a logical corner. Do you have any numbers or blind test results that in fact prove you exist? Have you made any direct comparisons of your existence with your non-existence? Or are we to simply take your word and experience of self for this?
Amen to that, Bill.After all, this is the Pro Audio Asylum, where performance precedes form, not the other way around.
-Bob
Completely agree with you. See my answer to Johnson's post "Anyone using Gotham interconnect and speaker cable".
When Quad demo'd their fantastic speaker line at a large venue somebody left the cables in the shop. Peter went down the street and picked up some that he knew would work just fine, and in fact he got as many compliments from the audio community on the striking orange color of the cables as he did on the superb sound that they and his ESLs produced. When prodded on the source of the fancy looking cables he acknowledged their source: Black and Decker. They were AC extensions that he cut the plugs off of.
qualities of a good speaker cable: enough gauge for total resistance < 0.1ù or less, flexible (internal filling of fabric or threads betwen individual wires), high resistance to compression, to resist to heavy loads (under a truck's tyre for example), no persistant flame in case of fire, no toxic emanation when burning, high resistance to abrasion, low surface tension to avoid dirts and old gums sticking to it, higher tensile strength of the outer cover than the wires themselves (so, when somethings pulls onto the connected wire, force is sent to the connector via the outer shell instead of the wire connections -solder or screw-), resistance to weak acids (coca-cola), weak alcalis (soaps), gasoline, oil.
I would add it has to keep its flexibility under freezing temperatures if you're living in a cold area, and expect to make exteriors.
By using such cables, you can take for granted it will work the same way in 10 years, and your sound will keep being what is is with the same ease of mounting.
The National Electric Code (NEC) requirements for communication cables do not apply to single and two-family residences. If you're concerned about this, use some plenum rated innerduct and fittings for all your cables. (I hope no one takes this post tooo seriously!)
Hi Yves,Not all electrical engineers know anything about audio. Many are just not interested.
But there are many who do, and many of them, in fact, got into electrical engineering because of their love of audio.
of the audio EE's I know, they are as opinionated and self righteous about what they believe as the rest of us. And much of what they believe you can apply a rule of thirds to; 1/3 is true, another 1/3 is a theory they hold dear to their hearts and the remaining third is nothing but opinion or worse. Ray Hughes
I've found that in general, the most knowledgeable engineers in audio--people like John Eargle, Floyd Toole, Pat Quilter, Gene Patronis, Kees Imminck, and others--are among the least opinionated and self-righteous people in the business. They're the least likely to insist that some cable or ultra-high-priced gadget makes a system sound better.
Hi Bob! I don't mean to be mean spirited nor am I compelled to one upmanship. By and large I think that the industry is controlled by public opinion and the corporate hold on public opinion as exercized by the ad gurus on Madison Avenue, not by truth or scientific fact. If you could convince people that crap is good then you could sell crap by the truckload. It's basically about getting rich and most companies don't much care how they get rich as long as they do. It is amazeing what Americans will resort to in order to sell. But Americans are not alone and other cultures are just as powerful sellers. I'm now 56 years old and as I look at Audio in general I'm saddened to see what has taken place. I could site many examples of what I feel are backward steps and some of them have big names behind them and they have been immortalized both by Madison Avenue and by the Audio Engineering Society or SMPTE or NAB or whatever mutual admiration society you might mention. "You can't srgue with success." is their favorite byline. Well I could argue with their success if I think their contribution doesn't really inprove the listening experience and downright hurts or detracts from it. I can't mention names or companies or it would invite litigation. Public opinion is this country is now controlled by who can afford the loudest DRUM or buy the most number of TV spots and who can hire the greatest number of spin doctors countering the TRUTH. Everything from soap to amplifiers to loudspeakers to the Presidency is sold this way. There are virtually no publications or E-zines or Tv stations or Newspapers that do not accept or is not controlled by a group of people with the same vested interest. Even this asylum could be construed as nothing but subliminal advertising by it's supporters. IMHO, there is little in the last fifty years that has improved the quality of sound. They are all different variations on the same theme. It's much like taking two steps forward and 1 and 9/10s steps back. There are few speakers manufactured today that can equal a Western Electric 755 for fast respinse in the midrange. I have heard Altec 604s that sound every bit as good or better as anything being produced today and they were designed in the year that I was born 1948. IMHO inefficient close box speakers are a step backward. Signal processing using compression is a step backward. Multi tracking that destroys the integrity of the performance factor of human musicians is a step backward. Robot controlled loop music is a step backward. A transistor amp doesn't to my ear sound as good as an all triode thermionic amp (and I've tried a lot of transistor amps). These are all the choices I have made and my system entertains me. But then you might have other opinions that serve you well. But for you OR ANYONE WITH THEIR OWN OPINION to stand back and say "well you just like to listen to distortion...." is not relevant. It's not relevant to my situation. I probably am listening to distortions of some form or other but I ernestly try to minimize them according to my ear. These two ears are mine and I'm going to treat them the way that pleases ME most. There are those that think they are so well informed and erodite and scientific AND WISE that they feel they should be making choices for the rest of us. These people's attitudes, in my humble opnion are tantamount to totalitarianism. Cordially, Ray Hughes
I'm not clear what your point is, but IMHO, if adding some type of distortion makes something sound better to someone--and that is a common and well-documented phenomenon--there's no harm in his or her knowing the mechanism behind it.I would estimate that most audio engineering types would prefer that the amount of added distortion then should be adjustable to the point of elimination (to the extent that it can be), instead of an arbitrary alteration of the signal. This would be so that the straight, unaltered signal can be heard, as well as the signal with the added distortion effect.
-Bob
If you could produce a distortion free component, people probably wouldn't like it. Is that few enough words? Ray Hughes
Sure. Some people, anyway, but not all. There are many audio products that are for all practical purposes distortion-free, within their linear ranges.But I do acknowledge that accuracy does not necessarily sound best to everyone.
-Bob
Your 100% objective criteria? Or subjectively accurate to a recorded event? There's a difference between them and being accurate at one does not imply accuracy to the other.It's rather smug to believe that you can be absolute about your objective measurements of a completely subjective experience.
I'm talking about accuracy from the beginning of the system to the end, or from the input of the device to the output. Aside from transducers, excellent accuracy is not as elusive or difficult today as it once was. There's nothing smug about that.-Bob
You're not talking about being faithful to a recorded event. You said that for all practical purposes many audio products are distortion free withing their linear ranges. You've made a value judgment that once your objectively measured criteria reach a certain threshold, their effects are now irrelevant. I don't hold to your values.Call me a staunch subjectivist if you will, but I've learned through experience that you can't properly make decisions solely on objective criteria when it will have an effect on the subjective experience.
The reference is the input signal. Anything that alters the signal audibly can be measured, or at least identified. I prefer to avoid devices that alter the signal arbitrarily and irretrievably.Please realize also that identical signals will sound identical if the downstream part of the system and the listening environment are the same.
It's not the input signal that is the reference, but your concept of what the reference is that is the reference. What are you basing your immutable and absolute claim upon? Test tones and noise for making distorion measurements, or music? Sorry, but your concept is much too neat for this complex and chaotic world.Too often I hear people tell me something sounds good, when in reality what they based their judgment on was that they didn't hear anything particularly bad. For all practical purposes, if that's how you base you listening judgments, then all amps do sound the same.
Everything is quantifiable? How do you quantify the difference between Nebraskan corn-fed Hereford prime rib that's been boiled, broiled, baked, grilled, smoked, or deep-fried? Not a single test you can run can tell you how it will taste. It will always come down to taking a bite. As it is with food, so it is with music.
Hi Jimmy,I'm done.
This is a lot like debating rainbows with someone who refuses to look at the sky, isn't it?They ask for "proof" but want it without having to look up.
They would seem to believe the map is the same as the territory and by extension, having looked at the map, they've visited the territory.I'm starting to think they're afraid to listen. Very afraid.
I hope they can overcome this fear some day. But it will take courage and a desire to do so, neither of which is in evidence yet.Let's keep the Music coming.
If they won't listen, perhaps they'll derive pleasure from their numerical representations of it.Happy Listening!
Barry
You're on your own now Barry. I went sideways with the titles just so I wouldn't take it too seriously. The next one was going to be "Bob, I am your father. Come over to the dark side." But I decided to drop it. I couldn't think of any way to make it really humorous.As an aside, I'd appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you personally. If acceptable, please e-mail me through the asylum by clicking on my monikor.
Thanks
email sent
Whatever your point is, Jimmy, well, whatever. I stand by what I said.-Bob
Try a 1959 Fender Bassman amp. Its crappy knock-off of a Western Electric power amp couldn't deliver less than 10% THD on its best day, and talk about a shit speaker section: four tens in an open back cabinet. As little as Fender and White knew about amps it was a whole lot more than they knew about speakers, especially those for electric bass. Plug in a Precision and you couldn't get it loud enough to hear past the second row in a three row honky-tonk without distortion so bad that you wanted to toss the thing into the nearest dumpster.Ah, but plug in a Les Paul with those newfangled PAF pickups, crank it up all the way and give the strings a 'whack' and you were in heaven, or at least on the stairway to it.
And then there's that Jim Marshall guy. A few years later he copied the Bassman circuits but cut a few corners doing it and ended up with an even dirtier tone. Not hi-fi by any stretch. But take one part Marshal, one part Stratocaster and put them both in the hands of a certain Mr. Hendrix and the world would never be the same again.
Pristine clean has its place, but so does a little dirt every now and then.
Hi Bill,True, true … distortion is a very useful tool in the creation of sound. My Dallas-Arbiter FuzzFace is one of my tools, and my early 60's Fender Super Reverb will be, too, once I finish restoring it. ;^)
-Bob
That Super was probably the best amp Fender ever made. I never cared for Twins, they were too powerful to really get any tone from them, but Princetons and Deluxes didn't have quite enough. Supers are the favorite of most guitarists I talk to, if they can find one. If yours is clean enough it could be your retirement nest egg, assuming you don't take it to the grave with you. Please don't tell me you have a 59 Tobacco Paul to go with it.
Thank you Yves.In my more than thirty years as a pro engineer and as an audio hobbyist, the most knowledgeable and helpful folks I've met never felt the need to offer their "credentials". I'm sure it isn't a coincidence that these were also the most talented.
Barry
Some EE's take their love for technical understanding and invention and apply it to their audio hobby with great success.Other EE's suck as badly at audio as they do at engineering. They can't get past textbook formulas - and God help if they attempt to apply real-life measurements and construction techniques.
You just can't make generalizations about people I guess.
Ever wonder why the EE is held in such high regard - as if audio were only an electrical system? Check this out...
Audio is:
1)Physics
2)Chemical Engineering
3)Materials Engineering
4)Mechanical Engineering
5)Acoustical Engineering
6)Electronics Engineering
7)Electrical Engineering - Your work by definition of an EE is done at the DC supply rails thanks :PAnd MOST IMPORTANTLY
8)Psychology (Psycho-acoustics, perception)
9)Physiology
10)AudiologySo there you go. You need to master 10 disciplines be an "authority" in audio. I think EE's should reserve comment until someone from the other disciplines speak up - unless of course we're only talking about power supply harmonics. :o)
I work with EE's all day. You'd be surprised how much they DON'T know.
The fact so many of them are so bloody pompous makes you wonder what it is they are compensating for...Some EE's enter the audio realm thinking their EE degree ALONE makes them (inherently) an "expert" of audio systems. They assume that four years of memorizing formulae and calculus proofs gave them an ear for what sound quality actually is, a clue how to set up a system (let alone a room), and funniest yet - the 'inherent' ability to design elctronics and loudspeakers with no other training. They will even lower themselves to mock designs of great audio designers and companies who have 100's of man-years of AUDIO (not electrical) engineering experience at their employ.
Don't get me wrong - I've met plenty of pompous (fellow) technologists too. I rather dislike pomp in general.
Elmo
As a soon-to-be geophysicist, I think that geophysics is very important in Audio (to understand elastic (=acoustic) waves behavior), and the degree should be required to have an opinion about audio equipment.
JOKING.
Thanks all, I expected violent, primitive reactions, and I got very interesting replies, cheers,Yves
I'm myself an EE engineer. And yes, I was fascinated by audio equipment . Being also a musician, I expected to devote my professional life to mixing up the EE skills and the musician skills... I was young, it was the '70s and '80s, and I soon went disgusted by the marketing hype that surrounds audio worse than any other field. So, for years, i've been designing pro equipment, not for audio, but for airborne and hi-rel equipement. No marketing hype in these matters. I am proud of some of my designs (not of all...). Audio and its snake oil fields were far away.
I'm back in the field after having designed as a consultant some pro-audio related equipments. I had to visit some audio pro sites, and was really pleased by the quality and durability involvement I saw in some manufacturer's.
Marketing hypes and the fight between objectivity (character of the EE, seen as a nerd) and subjectivity (character of the audiophile) seems much weaker in the pro community. I think the main reason is: "I have to earn money with my sound system, so I have to be objective about the real matching of my customer's requirements and what i can bring them. To be clear, too much is too much, and I'm spending money for nothing, not enough is not enough, and i'm at risk to go out of business." Such thoughts just makes people factual.
BTW, EEs who think audio equipment is just electronics are thin-minded. We're talking about systems, not the electronic equipment chain, but the interaction between the chain, the transducers, the room, the listeners position, their auditory system, even the rooms' color temperature! (yes, proven by A/B tests that notes given in audition tests by the average John Doe to qualities like trebble stiffness, bass "roundness", etc, are correlated with the room dominant color...).
So, as an EE, I cannot tell by looking at a schematics whether it will sound good or trashy. I just don't know the "system" .
However, after examination, I can tell you whether an equipment is built to last dozens of years, or is expected to burn in the foreseable future. I can detect when marketing hype is based on forged physical laws. I do think that the 5 years training in physics, thermodynamics and the like help in detecting audio snake oil by its smell.
(O.T: I'm new in the forum, and I promise you not to climb too often on my soap box!)
I forgot to mention thermodynamics. :o)PMS
Ok, I agree with you on most counts. There is a stupid wall between the "audiophile" and "pro audio" worlds:
- Audiophiles should look more what recording studios are doing ; I think it is totally ridiculous, to spend $10,000 on PASSIVE loudspeakers, for example. Active loudspeakers make more sense - the pro audio world knows that for 20+ years - , but are more difficult to sale to the average person.
- E.E. shouldn't dismiss Audiophile's practices and advices without LISTENING an equipment. It is clear that, for loudspeakers for example, measurements fail to define how it sounds. Hundred of curves, properly measured, never available anyway, can give you an idea of how a loudspeaker sound ... but 30 minutes of careful listening give you a better diagnostic ! Cables DO sound different (I am not sure somebody really knows why), etc.
Cheers,Yves
Hi Yves,"Audiophiles should look more what recording studios are doing ; I think it is totally ridiculous, to spend $10,000 on PASSIVE loudspeakers, for example. Active loudspeakers make more sense - the pro audio world knows that for 20+ years."
I undertand your viewpoint but personally, would disagree with this generalization. For one, it depends on the speakers. Second, I've yet to hear an active loudspeaker at any price that is as true to its input as the best passive speakers.
There are good arguments for having the amps designed specifically for the speaker and there are good arguments for why such an amp should not be built in to the speaker, Vibrations will harm amp performance and it is much easier to isolate the amp when it is in a separate enclosure.
As to audiophiles looking at what the recording studios are doing, I've done this for more than three decades and speaking from my own perspective , I've yet to work in or visit a professional studio (other than a few home studios I've designed) with monitoring even approaching what the best audiophile systems can do. I realize this statement is going to be controversial among some and that is why I've emphasized from my perspective .
Happy Listening!
Barry
"There are good arguments for having the amps designed specifically for the speaker and there are good arguments for why such an amp should not be built in to the speaker, Vibrations will harm amp performance and it is much easier to isolate the amp when it is in a separate enclosure."Who said anything about mounting "plate amps" on the speakers?
Many audiophiles are currently tri-amping their systems with elaborate digital active crossovers and audiophile-grade amplification. Digital crossovers overcome many if not all of the pitfalls of passive crossovers, and seem to be considerably more transparent and detailed than their active analog predecesors. Time correction and the complexity of higher order passive crossover topologies are now simply a function of processing power. And the SQ of digital active crossovers is getting better and better all the time. Elaborate passive impedance compensation and equalisation networks are now replaced with time proven algorithms. Passive speakers measure flat as a pancake, but only in the anechoic chamber they were tested in. Digitally processed systems are flat in any room you choose to put them in, and now, with nothing more than a measurement mic and a push of a button.
Why fight it?
As sure as the compact disc revolutionized storage media, digital processing and even amplification could very well (and perhaps IS) replacing what is currently thought to be the "only way".
There will always be those who will settle for the clicks and pops of dust and scratches hitting a needle. Then there will be those who will embrace modern technology in lieu of clinging to the familiar and possibly over-priced current technology. Personally, I am willing to bet that 24/96, 24/192 and future 32 bit formats will extinguish the dying "vinyl is still better" claims once and for all.A few years back I would have said that active systems could never even come close to traditional systems. (Analog active x-overs, even good ones, seemed to always suck life, dynamics, imaging - everything - out of the music. That many OP amps tend to do that.) But now, digital processing is making some of my "old school" audiophile buddies somewhat nervous. Scoff if you will, but these guys DO have the 'golden ears', and have dedicated much time, money and effort into building marvelous systems.
I'm just saying that having an open mind is probably the order of the day. And besides, the cost of purely digital systems will eventually get so low, one can have 5 different systems to compare to eachother - instead of mortgaging the house for one analog/passive system.
As subjective as the above rantings are, they are no more or less valid than statements like "In my XX years doing yadi yadi, I have never heard an active system that is as good as passive."
I really don't like change all that much - but since the invention of the CD, the music world was headed towards total digital systems. Given just a little more time, I think they will supercede.
If not, out will come the records, the phono pre-amps, the 300B monoblocks, and of course, passive loudspeakers.
Just rambling...
Preston
Hi Preston,If you re-read my post, you'll notice I said (twice) that I speak only for myself.
I have no argument with your statements about the evolution of technology and this is something I applaud. However, we may have diverging perspectives on just how much this technology has achieved so far and how much is yet to be accomplished.
For example, to my mind, just as there are many areas where digital outperforms analog, there are still a number of areas where analog sounds better than digital. And while digital crossovers are a wonderful thing conceptually, the best sounds I've heard to date (meaning those that most closely resemble what I heard at the performance) have come from passive loudspeakers. Notice I am not saying "passive is better than active" or "analog is better than digital" or any other sweeping generalization. I'm just noting, with the knowledge that things are always in fluz, what I've personally observed so far.
Do I have to say it again? I speak only for myself.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Barry:I guess hidden somewhere in my ramblings was this:
Since partial digital active systems (with analog amp) or "total digital systems" (with digital amps) are far and few between, and often found in professional settings and not an audiophile settings, there are not that many out there to just sit and listen to.
Yes. The best system I have yet to hear was a Fulcrum Transport/DAC (64 bit, tubed output) into a Chapter Audio amp into DIY WWMMTMMWW D'Appolito/Line arrays (consisting of Seas woofs, Focal mids, and Raven R2 tweets) with very close attention to speaker placement, cabling and spiking of components. I still use this system as a reference - it is the one to meet or beat IMO!
My current "digital/active" system sounds rather different from my "analog/passive" system. The F/R curves are practically identical (digital is just a hair flatter due to room correction). Speaker placement is the SAME as the digital system since the same speakers are used for both via sneaky connectivity modifications on the rear of the speakers).
Is one better than the other? Jury is still out. In detail and SQ the digital system seems to match the analog system. Imaging: digital wins by a narrow but audible margin (speakers COMPLETELY vanish and soundstage depth/width improved dramatically. Perceived localisation of sounds is more definitive. Also, since the speakers employ 3rd order butterworth crossovers, the time-correction function of the digital system definately lends itself to superior transient response over the passive. Immediacy and impact are better - quite stunning really. Percussion (at louder volumes) makes you get, well, jumpy - even when you are expecting those rimshots. The analog system still has this likeable "airy" quality - but I cannot honestly say if it is caused by superiority or by harmonic distortion artifacts due to using tubes... The digital system is, without a doubt, considerably more analytical with a slightly darker backround. Actually - the digital system has such a low noise floor its hard to believe it is even on.
My g/f (who is an audiophile in training) claims she prefers the digital system hands down, as do a few of my other "pseudo-audiophile" amigos. My audiophile friends are far to analytical (and skeptical and stuck in their ways...) to comment at this point! lol.
In any case, from what I have heard myself, and from the feedback I got from my friends, I am now going to spend more $$$$ on a good DAC with a 24/96 capable XLR (AES/EBU) digital output, and for three identical amps, and a 6 channel pre-amp.
Not all passive speakers are bad either... some actually employ crossover topologies which are time-aligned or better yet - transient perfect. But I think the actual number of speakers that have PROPERLY designed passive crossovers would be surprisingly low if they were measured and tested in a controlled environment. Unfortunately, spending mega-bucks does not always guarantee you're getting the best.
In fact, very often cost effective "Gems" will outperform "Dressed up eye-candy fakes" costing ten or twenty times more. It just takes much networking, shopping, comparing and listening to find these gems.
Anyhow, one day I hope to come up with the right combination of gear. My passive system took years to put together, and now its time to invest hobby hours into the digital system.
I guess the possibility of getting great "audiophile" level sound through a different means is just kind of exciting for me.
Preston
Hi Preston,Understood.
BTW, if you want to experiment with something really different and exciting, try applying some vibration control techniques to some components, particularly digital gear and loudspeakers.
Mechanical low pass filters can achieve wonderful, across the board, performance improvements that are consistent and repeatable from component to component (within degrees) and from system to system.
I've been using a combination of roller bearings and air bearings (both of my own design) with results that have been unanimously corroborated by all who have tried them. (You have to venture into the Tweaks forum for more info. See "Hip Joints" for starters.)
Barry
Barry:My audiophile buddy (who was really the one who helped me along greatly) put me onto isolation of components. The easiest thing I notice when isolating any component is how the bass (especially) seems to tighten up, and even lower frequencies will find a home in the soundstage. It really brings the individual "instruments" more together. The subtle reverberations recorded in the music that provide the illusion of the venue are also more refined, resulting in a more "Hey - I feel like I am right in the (hall, church, arena, blues club, etc.) Lots of systems can create the "stage" but only the very well tuned systems can recreate the "reverberant field" of the room the recording was made in with sufficient realism.
I have 3 point isolation spikes on all CD sources and all tube amps. Next is to isolate the digital components. (But right now I am kind of limited for space as the components are in a low and wide rack system so as not to interfere with the screen in the backround.)
Have you experimented with (mechanically) isolating cables and interconnects? I have not yet - but most interconnects are kept really short, and speaker wires tend to "hang" in the air, as I keep their length "just right". I am not sold yet on the effect of microphonics on speaker cables - but I have not ruled it out either.
I also am a strong believer in observing correct connection of interconnects that employ "telescopic" shielding (shield connect to common at one end only). These cables usually have arrows on them, not to indicate current flow (contrary to popular belief created by advertising hype) but to ensure the user connects the grounded end of the shield at the source. (That's what I gather from it all anyhow.)
As for room treatments - this is not my house that I am in, so getting the speakers four feet off the back wall took so much explaining, that I doubt acoustic panels will be well received. lol
Not to mention all the furniture I would LOVE to remove from the room. I only want ONE CHAIR in there lol... one day...
I also like to experiment with DIY interconnect and speaker cable recepies in the flavor of "Allen Wright's Super Cables Cookbook".
Currently for feeding analog into my digital active crossover, I am using an extremely tight twisted pair of 30ga copper FEP teflon jacketed (hook up wire) with about a dozen twists per inch. No shield! These interconnects are so detailed, that you hear a different noise floor for every song you play - it's distracting, but if you are hearing more noise that is on the RECORDING, you are likely hearing more detail as well. This noise is NOT in the system noise floor - like I said, its virtually non-existant. Maybe the twisted AC cords I made help too! (More of the cymbal taps that fad out on the end of the Dire Straits "Fade to Black" can be heard than with my previous fine wire design.) It may be the CMR of the tight twisting combined with the fine wires that do it... can't say imperically as I never "test" the cables I make except for listening tests.)Yeah - a good system in a nightmare of a room with no isolation is definately not near as good as it could/should be in most cases. And its surprising how many people are spending $$$$$$ on mega-buck interconnects and cables before they even contemplate isolation and room treatment.
They probably don't get their ears "candled" as often as I do either. lol. I find getting the wax out really changes things - especially what volume I like to listen at. Strange.
Preston
What does your coupling/isolation (whichever) do to the components?-Bob
Bob:I guess what I am doing is "coupling".
What it does most dramatically is somehow tighten up the bottom end.
My theory is this: If the stereo racks are spiked to a solid floor (aka concrete floor in the basement through a carpet) and the componets are coupled to the rack, you could theoretically lessen vibration of the components.
Funny thing though, I can feel the surface of the CD player vibrating along with each bass note - whether I couple with spikes, or now, use a partially inflated inner-tube and a resting board.
IF excessive vibration can cause jitter to increase, then I suppose one could actually measure the effect of higher spl's causing the unit to vibrate. All physics aside, there are very often audible differences in the sound when you spike components. Is it guaranteed to be "better"? I am always wondering when to call something better, and when to call it "simply different". Lower jitter numbers is always better, but changes to the soundstage and image often seem to be very subjective. Another example is when some people describe using fine-wire interconnects as causing "less bass" where others call it "more refined" or "tighter". How can this be proven or quantified? It can't be - it's subjective, which is why so many marketing-sharks are able to sell snake oil to so many people in their quest for audio nirvana. Those who are solely in this hobby for snob-appeal and one-upmanship ('I have the best stereo' complex)deserve to pay outlandish prices for things which have no technical merit IMO.
There are endless debates about spiking components - when and how to do it. I say, if YOU think it sounds better - do it. But I do NOT believe spikes OR isolation methods need to be extremely expenisve, nor do expensive spikes (made out of 'space age' materials) work better than a typical $15 dollar spike.
Also too, if you use THREE spikes on any component, it will always automatically level itself. Using four spikes makes no sense to me at all. I imagine this is why we see so many expensive stands using three legs - two in front and one in the back.
I am not an authority on these subjects by any means - but I do like to exchange with other audiophiles (the more down to earth ones) to help decide what is worthwhile, what is just psycho-acoustic, and what is just plain silly. (I have my own list of silly things that I consider to be a waste of time and money - but you don't make too many audio buddies by constantly preaching about snake-oil and bashing what other people seem to think is important) I think if anything makes you FEEL better about listening to music, that in itself may have some value, but purely from a psychological standpoint. Not everything we do in audio can be measured and stamped "sane or insane" I guess.
Preston
I don't mean what aural effect do you perceive, but instead what do your measures do to the components?Conversely, what do vibrations do to the components?
-Bob
Hi Bob,"I don't mean what aural effect do you perceive, but instead what do your measures do to the components?
Conversely, what do vibrations do to the components?"What I found is that anything you place atop a component and also anything you place the component upon, which alter how that component sounds. Why? I can't say I know for sure. Perhaps changing the resonant signature of the component's chassis has something to do with it. Is the effect "subjective"? I would say not because I feel "subjective" is how one feels about a given sound. I describe the phenomonon as "observational" because that is how it is perceived.
Having experimented with both coupling and isolation, my experience has been that coupling changes the sound of a component, sometimes for the better other times not and still other times for the worse. While I know a number of folks who like coupling their gear using cones or spikes, to my ear the effects are somewhat random and more akin to what others have called "painting" the tone, that is, "adjusting" the tone to suit one's taste. I have no argument against this but it is not my personal preference.
Isolation, on the other hand, as provided by well designed and implemented mechanical low pass filters, can provide results that are consistent from component to component (although within degrees) and from system to system. Using roller bearings to support a component will isolate that component in the horizontal and rotational planes from frequencies above the resonance of the rollers, optimally low single digits. When combined with air bearings, often in the form of a minimally inflated bicycle tire inner tube, vibrations are blocked in the vertical plane as well.
What are the effects?
Bandwidth extension at both ends of the spectrum, seems enhanced. The same can be said of dynamic response. Images upon the stereo soundstage take on more "solidity" and overall focus and clarity are markedly improved. The soundstage expands in all three dimensions. Silences are "blacker". With video components, grain is diminished and focus is improved as is detail retreival.To be clear, the application of seismic isolation techniques isn't creating these benefits, it is blocking the effects of the vibrations which it would appear, are causing compression of bandwidth, dynamics and soundstage dimensions as well as the loss of focus and overall clarity.
Why doe this happen?
I'm still trying to figure this out, despite the theories I've read so far. Components are subject to three types of vibrations: those they generate internally, those from the loudspeakers and those originating in the ground and entering the components via their supports. While all have damaging effects, to my ears, the ones entering via the ground seem to do the most damage. These so-called "seismic vibrations" often occur in the horizontal plane as well as the vertical. (Look into "P waves" and "W waves" for more on this.) Well designed and implemented mechanical low-pass filters help block these seismic vibrations from entering the conponents.Aside from the microphonic sensitivity of tube gear, the clock chips in digital components appear to be very sensitive to vibrations and show some of the greatest degrees of performance improvement when seismic isolation techniques are applied. What I've found interesting is that the effects of seismic isolation are cumulative and are audible as more components in the chain are isolated, even the solid state components (although I don't know why) and especially loudspeakers (perhaps because of some sensitivity in their crossover components).
While I'm having a bit of difficulty accepting that (as some have said) the ocean tide or a truck changing gears 1/4 mile away are messing up my audio playback, I have no difficulty with the audible results of isolating my components. I would never have believed the magnitude of the change had I not heard it for myself. And the effects are consistent and repeatable.
The only system I've experienced in which the application of seismic isolation (in this particular case roller bearings) did not make for immediate performance improvements had all of its cabling (interconnect, speaker and AC) all jumbled up behind the rack and all components were plugged into an inexpensive power strip. From this experience, I surmise that careful cable routing (separating AC and audio lines) as well as clean AC power are pre-requisites for the successful application of isolation techniques.
Perhaps the improvements offered by effective isolation are best revealed by the fact that sonic differences between recordings are easier to hear. In my experience, the better systems reveal the greatest differences between recordings. Conversely, the lesser systems shrink the apparent differences, with the recordings have more "in common". The commonalities are the colorations superimposed by the system.
If you are interested, search on "Isolation" over in the Tweaks forum for lots of posts on the subject, many (but of course, not all) of which are quite informative.
Hope this helps answer your questions.
Barry
What is "resonant signature" of a chassis?And why would electronics be altered by vibration, aside from microphonic tubes? Poor design?
-Bob
Hi Bob,"What is "resonant signature" of a chassis?"
First, remember that I started that sentence with the word "perhaps". I also said I don't know the "why" but that doesn't prevent the perception of the phenomenon. This was the case with early digital when only a small minority were complaining about the sound most were deeming "perfect". It was only a few years later that "jitter" was identified and quantified.
That said, what I was referring to is the resonance(s) of the physical box that comprises a given component. When you rap on the top of say, an amplifier, you hear a sound. If you place a brick on top of the amp and rap on it again, you'll hear a different sound. If you replace the brick with a block of wood, the sound will change again. If you place the brick or the block of wood or a set of cones under the amp so it is lifted off its own feet, the sound will change again. Is this sound getting superimposed on the output? I suspect this but don't know for sure. Do the vibrational characteristics resulting from these changes in resonance of the physical box that comprises the amp effect the resonances of the circuitry within the amp. I believe this is a reasonable deduction.
Something is effecting a change in performance. While I'm sure of this, I am not sure of the precise cause(s) since this is a subject not yet widely discussed (just as the flaws in early digital were not initially widely discussed).
"And why would electronics be altered by vibration, aside from microphonic tubes? Poor design?
"Why" is the question. Others as well as myself have shown that blocking vibratons from entering a component has numerous, consistent and repeatable benefits, not only with tubes but with solid state devices as well (though not to the same degree as with tubes, digital devices or loudspeakers). Poor design? In so much as vibration control is only attended to by a few manufacturers, I'd say in this specific area, yes.
If the effect on speakers is due to isolating the crossover components, I would point out there aren't any tubes (or digital clock chips) in most crossovers I am familiar with.
I hope someone comes up with a good explanation for the "why" of vibration control. The absence of an explanation however, does not change what is plainly observable. Fire is hot, whether one has a thermometer to quantify the heat or not.
Happy Listening!
Barry
But first it should be determined that those alleged effects are actually observed and not imagined.-Bob
Hi Bob,"But first it should be determined that those alleged effects are actually observed and not imagined."
While I haven't any doubts the effects are real it is clear from your response that you do. There is no need however for the condescension of suggesting the effects are imagined, particularly if you have never tried to find out yourself.
After you've conducted some serious testing of the issue, your perspective will have more value, regardless of your conclusions. If you are going to dismiss the comments of experienced listeners simply because the concepts are new to you, it would seem to me you are closing yourself off from what might be some very pleasant discoveries.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Why do you take offense? If you use solid methodology in your listening tests, then you have nothing to be on the defensive about.But it is common for persons to imagine non-existent sonic effects in tests where the methodology is loose. And consequently, people end up spending much time and money in wild goose chases, and the possibilities are infinite for those, and they often come with detailed speculative hypotheses about why they happen. I'm not interested in that, which is why I don't gear up to duplicate listening tests that don't appear to be repeatable. But mentioning results without mentioning anything about method just doesn't mean much.
-Bob
"Why do you take offense? If you use solid methodology in your listening tests, then you have nothing to be on the defensive about."I take offense when someone who hasn't listened disparages the comments from someone who does.
I am not at all on the defensive. I know what I hear and am confident in the methodology of evaluating what I hear. And I get to enjoy the benefits in the listening room every day."I'm not interested in that, which is why I don't gear up to duplicate listening tests that don't appear to be repeatable."
Did you count how many times in my posts I said the results are "consistent and repeatable "?
Bob, I participate in this forum in order to engage in a civil discourse and exchange of ideas. Why would you engage in a discussion of something in which you clearly have no interest? Think what you will but I just don't understand your apparent unwillingness to invest a few minutes in order to listen for yourself. If nothing else, I admire your confidence in your own knowledge. And I am ever grateful to not feel I can't learn something new.
Happy Listening Bob,
Barry
I'm sorry, Barry, but I have found no description anywhere of how you conducted your tests. Did I miss a message that is no longer on the board? I don't think it would only take a few minutes to set up a proper test, though; more like a few hours.I appreciate and share your desire to engage in civil discourse and exchange of ideas.
-Bob
Hi Bob,"I'm sorry, Barry, but I have found no description anywhere of how you conducted your tests. Did I miss a message that is no longer on the board? I don't think it would only take a few minutes to set up a proper test, though; more like a few hours."
I have a feeling you may feel differently about this but when the product is designed solely for the purpose of being listened to, I consider sitting down and listening to it a valid test. Since my reference system is already set up, the only time it takes to prepare is to let the system warm up and get into a comfortable seat.
"I appreciate and share your desire to engage in civil discourse and exchange of ideas."
I'm glad to hear this. This being the case, I'll assume you won't feel the need to disparage the comments of those with whom you might have a disagreement regarding conclusions or methodology.
Really, instead of this back and forth, a few minutes spent listening is worth much more than all the theory in the world.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Thanks for implying that those of us who do hear differences and wonder why we hear them must obviously be hallucinating.I guess that the QSC amps I unracked and left in a heap had absolutely nothing to do with the lousy sound at a 2000 seat church I recently worked at. Installed by a vaunted sound company: QSC amps and Apogee processors and cabinets. Earlash at any volume. Don't know what earlash is? Look up Ben Duncan. In went Ashly, ATC processing and custom cabs with ATC and ESS-Heil drivers. Damn fine sounding, and not a hint of earlash. Yep, it must have all been Apogee's fault.
And thank you for misunderstanding, too …-Bob
Bob:The problem is microphonics (transfer of acoustic energy into mechanical energy)... when external acoustic energy is transferred into another device, affecting its operation.
The turntable would be the easiest example. Acoustic energy in the air moves the table, transferring energy from the record groove to the needle, causing it to track with varying degrees of force, or worse, skipping grooves entirely. DJs used to suspend their tables with "tuned" (properly stretched) pieces of surgical tubing to reduce this effect through isolation. The worst place of all was the high school gymnasium, where the "athletic flooring" (designed to absorb impact) would act as a conduit for acoustic energy - transferring it back up table legs and into the turntable, often resulting in skipping or worse - a feedback situation.
Tube amps are affected by microphonics as well - just rapping on the surface a tube amp is mounted on can result in audible output in the speakers.
CD sources, in my mind, would also be something you would not want to vibrate - unless of course your source performs real time error checking, which is not the case. A CD source is a glorified optical turn-table, and vibration is still a culprit. There are those who play uncompressed music from hard-disk storage, and claim they get superiour sound quality. With no spinning disc being read by an optical device, I find this very easy to accept.
So if microphonics are the problem, then we can either couple to something that is immune to vibration, or attempt to isolate the device.
Preston
A turntable, tone arm, and cartridge are obvious candidates for isolation from vibration. Tubes are, too, because they operate on field effect and their elements are suspended within the vacuum envelope.The current technology of CD players, it seems, can handle moderate vibration without inducing errors.
I'm really curious about the reports of microphonics in ordinary electronic components, though, and it would be good to determine whether these effects are real or imagined.
-Bob
Hey Bob:"I'm really curious about the reports of microphonics in ordinary electronic components, though, and it would be good to determine whether these effects are real or imagined."
ME TOO. Tubes, turntables and CD sources I can understand, but some SS equipment I have a hard time buying into - especially amps that weigh 60 pounds...
By the way, I am currently running a Saxon CD700 CD player (analog out) into a Behringer DCX2496 and triamping a pair of DIY Focal Towers. Analog in just seems to sound better than digital in for some reason - I have yet to try 24/96 digital in though. Split off the CD700 output, I am also running a Behringer CX3400 (3-way active cross) in "low sum" mode to create a mono output for a sub.
I am using a Marantz receiver (SR6200) for 6.1 channel amplification (6 channels from the Behringer and the .1 to control the level of the output of the CX3400 for the sub.)
The extra crossover permits me to add delays to ALL of the front channels (in addition to the required individual driver delay times) to improve the transient response (and blending).
Here is the fun part.
I am using a QSC MX2000a in parallel mode to drive two Focal 12V726S ported woofer cabs rammed in the front corner of the room. Not HT subs by any means, the 9mm Xmax and reasonably 'fast' polyglass cones make for some rather tight "music subs". Combined with the damping factor of the MX2000a, I get quite a pleasant punch out of those boxes. The voice coils will bottom long before that amp is halfway to clipping. :o)
This is temporary though - as I plan to use the MX2000a to drive a single 15" Adire Audio Tumult. Ok. Maybe TWO Tumults.
Love that QSC amp. The fan is really quiet for such a monster. The smaller fans in the MX1500a's howl, so I returned the 1500 and got the 2000.
What is scary is how one can take a $1000 CAN HT receiver and "lower end" Behringer digital crossover and get such scary good sound. The imaging, though, is the selling point. Not even my integrated tube amp can make speakers vanish like the digital setup can.
It's no wonder pro-sound companies are going with digital front ends now.
Preston
Hi Bob,"The current technology of CD players, it seems, can handle moderate vibration without inducing errors."
My understanding (always open to revision) is that when you apply vibrations to the clock chip in a digital device (we're not even mentioning any possible effects on the rest of the circuitry), you induce a voltage. This spurious voltage can effect the performance of said chip resulting in an increase in clock jitter. This is going to effect the shape of the reconstructed analog wave form and hence, the sound of that wave form.
Happy Listening!
Barry
What sort of voltage is induced? What does it come from? And how does it affect the chip's performance? I'm highly skeptical of your claim.-Bob
Hi Bob,"What sort of voltage is induced? What does it come from? And how does it affect the chip's performance? I'm highly skeptical of your claim."
Are you the designer of QSC products?
The chips we're talking about are clock chips. Clock chips contain crystals that are used to derive their timing. Stressing or vibrating that crsytal is going to induce a voltage.
"What sort of voltage?" A spurious one. I don't know numbers for this.
"What does it come from?" I just told you.
"How does it affect the chip's performance?" I told you in my last post, the spurious voltage alters the clock's timing, which alters the shape of the reconstructed analog wave form which in turn alters what that wave form sounds like.This is starting to become one of those endless debate threads. The best thing I can suggest is to try some experiments and listen for yourself. A few minutes listening can often be worth days of back and forth debates on forums like this one.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Hi Barry,No, I'm not the designer.
You haven't offered any explanation of the phenomenon, though. You just say that vibration causes spurious voltages that cause timing errors, but there's no explanations of what goes on in between those large jumps.
I could say I drop a penny on the floor and that disrupts the electrical fields surrounding my computer, causing the CPU to process data incorrectly, which causes Windows to crash, but that would not constitute a satisfactory technical explanation to a computer engineer, and he or she would be right to be skeptical of it.
-Bob
Hi Bob,"You haven't offered any explanation of the phenomenon, though. You just say that vibration causes spurious voltages that cause timing errors, but there's no explanations of what goes on in between those large jumps.
Perhaps some reading up on digital clock chips is in order. There's plenty of information out there if you spend the time looking for it.
Still, if you go back and read my post carefully you'll see I said I'm not sure of the "why" of the observed phenomena and I'm not particularly convinced by the explanations offered by others who have also heard the benefits of vibration isolation (though what I've read about digital clock chips does seem to make sense but that would only explain why digital components benefit).
I've been involved with listening to and recording music for enough decades to have heard the snake oil as well as the real sonic gems. You'll notice in my post(s) I also said an explanation for a given phenomenon is not necessary for the observation of that phenomenon. Explantions in science, usually come after observation, not before.
Please notice how I recount how only a few had any real criticism of early digital. Most simply bought the marketing of "Perfect Sound Forever". (How did you feel about CD playback from Sony's first CDP-101?) Then jitter was identified and quantified and proved a good explanation for a large part of what the complaints addressed.
I suggested you try for yourself if you have the curiosity. Maybe you'll be the person to come up with the scientific explanation.
I'd be interested in what you experience if you should try some listening tests with appropriate vibration isolation measures. That would really be the only point in continuing this exchange, wouldn't you agree? Or else we simply have to agree to dis agree.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Hi Barry,Explanations are indeed subsequent to the observation and investigation. I was hoping that, absent the details of the observation and investigation, an explanation could at least reveal some insight into them.
In the early CD players, jitter was real but hardly among the leading problems. 16-bit D/A converters that had only 13 or 14 bits of linear accuracy were a bigger detriment to the sound. Poor mastering was another puncture in the "perfect sound" balloon.
-Bob
Hi Bob,"Explanations are indeed subsequent to the observation and investigation. I was hoping that, absent the details of the observation and investigation, an explanation could at least reveal some insight into them."
I'm glad we agree on the sequence for observation and theory. (Of course there are some situations, the minority I believe, where a proposed theory is followed by observation but that isn't what we're talking about here.) As to "details of the observation and investigation", I said a number of times that I sat down and listened. (I know of no better way to observe something designed to be listened to.)
"In the early CD players, jitter was real but hardly among the leading problems. 16-bit D/A converters that had only 13 or 14 bits of linear accuracy were a bigger detriment to the sound. Poor mastering was another puncture in the "perfect sound" balloon.I don't agree on this one. I was there at the dawn of CD, being one of the first CD mastering engineers in the world (for Atlantic at the time) and having sat on a discussion panel on the subject with a few other mastering engineers at a meeting of the Audio Engineering Society. As a pro who also is in the audiophile world (my favorite engineers all seem to bridge the two), I had the opportunity to create CD masters a number of ways using the same master tapes. I was in the unique position of being able to compare original masters with assorted digital transfers. True there were several problems but some converters were better than others and jitter was indeed one of the biggies. But now we're off the subject at hand.
If you have a playback system you trust, as long as it is getting clean AC (another subject) and the cabling isn't all jumbled (AC and audio lines together), the effects of proper isolation should be quite clear, especially with a digital component or loudspeaker. All it takes is a listen to a good sounding recording. Set up can be as simple as placing a trio of roller bearings in an equilateral triangle underneath your CD player, that's it.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Even in the early days of CD, jitter wasn't a major problem. The biggest problem was that the commonly used D/A converters of the day tended to have linearity errors larger than the smallest two or three bits of the audio data, which would cause unpleasant artifacts.Some mastering jobs on early CDs were great, but some were pretty poor. It seems there's been a resurgence of bad mastering in recent years (see the subsequent thread on this topic).
I still would like to know whether the vibration-caused clocking errors you mention have been actually observed to be audible. A suitable test would be a direct comparison between two identical CD players or other clocked devices, one vibrated and the other isolated.
The issue of clean AC often comes up, but in truth a well-designed power supply should (and will) eliminate most associated problems. If not, then it's a deficient design.
-Bob
Hi Bob,"I still would like to know whether the vibration-caused clocking errors you mention have been actually observed to be audible."
"Observed to be audible"?
When I say I've sat down and listened and heard the effects, how does that not qualify as "observed to be audible"? Do you know a way of observing a sound other than listening? What do you have such an apparent aversion to spending five minutes actually listening for yourself?Whether about digital or AC or about the effects of vibrations, you speak in theoretical terms and never once mention having listening. I'm sorry Bob, I've really tried to engage in a dialogue but don't know how to continue in the face of your unwillingness to listen.
At this point this thread is wasting both of our time so I am done here. If you ever decide to actually listen, start a new thread and talk about what you actually heard (or didn't hear). Theory isn't of value without practical experience to back it up.
Happy Listening! (and I really mean that)
Barry
Hi Barry,Yes, it doesn't seem that you made an actual side-by-side comparison. I don't know whether you actually heard anything different or not. Listening non-blind to something at one time and listening some other time is not a reliable way to make a comparison, but it's a likely way to detect N-rays.
Dear old Enid Lumley used to write for The Absolute Sound, and she once wrote that she could hear the effects of shining a flashlight along her loudspeaker cabling in a dark room. I can't prove that she didn't, but her description doesn't offer any proof of such a very unlikely effect.
-Bob
"Yes, it doesn't seem that you made an actual side-by-side comparison."So, you're drawing your conclusions based upon what seems. Never mind that if I said I hear the difference when putting roller bearings under the CD player, I've by definition (note the word "difference") said that I've heard the player without the bearings.
"I don't know whether you actually heard anything different or not."Ah, now we have something about which we're in complete agreement: you don't know what I heard. But this doesn't appear to stop you from making pronouncements about what can and cannot be without first investigating for yourself.
"Listening non-blind to something at one time and listening some other time is not a reliable way to make a comparison...So from this are we to conclude all the musicians that prefer say one brand of piano over another are just imagining any differences? Without a blind comparison are the differences heard by these trained and experienced musical ears not "proven" to exist?
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting and you're saying it isn't a reliable way for you , something with which there can be no debate (unless one were to ask you for "proof" of this).
If you are lucky, regardless of the conclusions you reach, one day you'll have 1% of Enid Lumley's curiosity and willingness to listen.To my mind, you've painted yourself into a logical corner. Do you have any numbers or blind test results that in fact prove you exist? Have you made any direct comparisons of your existence with your non-existence? Or are we to simply take your word and experience of self for this?
Hi Barry,I'm not drawing a conclusion, but simply stating that you haven't given anything to support your conclusion.
You have proposed that vibrations cause audible errors, and I have asked if anyone has done actual testing to see if that effect has been observed. You have told me both that you have and that you haven't, and I think that just confuses the issue.
The description of your testing is sketchy but suggests that you haven't exercised any controls to eliminate the placebo effect. If you've done double-blind testing where you would need to rely on sound alone and not prior knowledge to tell which CD player is isolated and which isn't, then please let us all know the results and how you executed the test. Or if you know of someone else's testing, please tell. I am intensely interested in what is and isn't audible. My curiosity about all things audio knows no bounds.
I've been in audio and involved with listening tests long enough to know that people--even experts--can perceive differences where none exist, especially if it is suggested to them that they should hear such differences, as in the green marker rage of the late 80's, or when listeners ascribe wildly different sonic characteristics to cables that haven't been changed. And it is all totally unrelated to prefering one piano over another.
-Bob
Hi Bob,"...You have told me both that you have and that you haven't..."
I never said I haven't. I've said I've listened and heard.
"I am intensely interested in what is and isn't audible. My curiosity about all things audio knows no bounds."I understand because we have this in common. Why not try a simple listening test for yourself to see if further investigation is warranted?
"I've been in audio and involved with listening tests long enough to know that people--even experts--can perceive differences where none exist, especially if it is suggested to them that they should hear such differences, as in the green marker rage of the late 80's, or when listeners ascribe wildly different sonic characteristics to cables that haven't been changed."I've had the same experience but don't conclude from this that all listening test results are invalid. I tried the green marker thing too but heard no difference with green or black markers or with the "magic" foil sold by one manufacturer. (Yes, rather than pronounce the idea as silly, I actually spent a few minutes listening for any effects but heard none.) But there were other occasions, like with vibration control where the audible effects are so pronounced, any experienced listener will hear them without having to resort to even an A/B test. These are the kind of differences that in fact are directly related to the differences between pianos I talked about in the earlier post.
And it is all totally unrelated to prefering one piano over another."I think it is completely related as both are derived from listening and not from any other type of observation. By the way, you didn't answer that (or any of the) question(s) I posed: Are the musicians imagining that difference between pianos? And if they're not, how do we know?
Barry
> I never said I haven't. I've said I've listened and heard. <Yes, at various times you said you did a test and other times you described just casual listening in lieu of a test and deemed that "good enough."
> I understand because we have this in common. Why not try a simple listening test for yourself to see if further investigation is warranted? <
Anything could show up in a "simple" listening test; that's a common sales technique to get people to part $$$ for Tice clocks and such pixie dust stuff.
What you proposed demands real, double-blind listening tests, which are not simple by your definition, although they are simple because they isolate the listening from placebo effect and other psychological influences. Do you know of any such testing? Should I assume you don't from your non-answer?
> I think it is completely related as both are derived from listening and not from any other type of observation. By the way, you didn't answer that (or any of the) question(s) I posed: Are the musicians imagining that difference between pianos? And if they're not, how do we know? <
But you said you did no test that relied solely on listening to identify which CD player was isolated and which wasn't. Trust your hearing at least enough to insist on double-blind listening.
I see a very high likelihood of a placebo effect in the description of your "test," similar to the various anecdotal testaments to green markers and other imagined ways to "improve" sound. That has nothing to do with prefering one piano over another.
-Bob
"But you said you did no test that relied solely on listening to identify which CD player was isolated and which wasn't."Please re-read my posts, or measure them or whatever. I never said anything of the sort.
(I said my tests consisted of listening both with and without isolation.) No wonder you don't trust listening tests. Heaven knows, printed words are a lot easier and those seem to be getting missed left and right.
"That has nothing to do with prefering one piano over another."
Why not?To my mind, you've painted yourself into a logical corner. Do you have any numbers or blind test results that in fact prove you exist? Have you made any direct comparisons of your existence with your non-existence? Or are we to simply take your word and experience of self for this?
Hi Barry,> (I said my tests consisted of listening both with and without isolation.) No wonder you don't trust listening tests. Heaven knows, printed words are a lot easier and those seem to be getting missed left and right. <
The "tests" by your own description were of the "I did this and later it sounded better" variety, which means that the likelihood of placebo effect was high; combine that with the strong possibility that there was no audible difference between isolating and not isolating your CD player, and I have to say I remain skeptical given your "testing" and lack of further evidence, and it remains in the "unproven, but unlikely" category along with the green marker thing. Even if you strongly believe that you heard a difference, I can't regard your "testing" as anything but inconclusive.
What makes you think I don't trust listening tests? I trust properly done listening tests and distrust sloppily done ones, and I've been involved with and studying listening tests for years. What do you know about listening tests?
> "That has nothing to do with prefering one piano over another."
Why not? <There are many things beside sound to prefer in a piano, as in audio equipment. It's easier to isolate the non-sonic variables in comparing sound systems than in comparing how a piano plays, but some people don't even try to isolate them. To some people, a more exotic-looking front panel on a piece of equipment will lead them to conclude that it sounds better.
> To my mind, you've painted yourself into a logical corner. Do you have any numbers or blind test results that in fact prove you exist? Have you made any direct comparisons of your existence with your non-existence? Or are we to simply take your word and experience of self for this? <
To your mind? Sorry, I can now say that doesn't matter much to me, Barry.
Trust your ears but use your head; trust your eyes but watch out for those who want you to bet money on optical illusions …
-Bob
Hi Preston," I have 3 point isolation spikes on all CD sources and all tube amps. Next is to isolate the digital components."
I know a number of folks who like the sound of their components when spikes or cones are applied. Spikes however, do not isolate, they couple (which is exactly the opposite of isolating).
To my ears, coupling a component, especially a digital component, has a completely different effect than isolating that component. In addition to the techniques of coupling and isolation resulting in different sounds, I find isolation more consistent and repeatable whereas coupling seems component dependent. If you want to play with this a bit, check out the link below for an inexpensive way to try the concept. If you like what you hear, you can always take the concepts further (for example by having some Hip Joints made by a local machinist, etc.).
Happy Listening!
Barry
Passive crossovers are the source of many, many problems : harmonic distortion, ringing, frequency response changes with level due to change of driver's impedance with heat, destruction of the dampening effect of the power amp on the drivers, etc. This list is not exhaustive.
As convincing examples of active systems, well, there is - ahem - mine (BSS MiniDrive 336, 3 power amps, Seas 10" / Seas 6" / Vifa 1" diy loudspeakers), Cabasse Galion IV (4-ways active, circa 1985, way better than the passive version), Meridian (circa 1990), Linkwitz Orion (very special : dipoles), and a few others.
A pity the list is so small.Yves
And mine :), Sony SRP-f300 DSP, three power amps. 2 TC Sounds 15" woofers in dipole configuration, focal midrange in 200Hz horn made from plaster and Visaton TL16 HF driver (and Smaart Live is used for in room meassurements).
Besides all the technical advantages active has over passive, it's also easier to build a active DIY speaker than a passive one. No worries about mechanical time alignement and differences in sensitivity. And of course inroom response correction.
You should check out the SPL audio passive stuff..sounds better than it does active.
Hi Yves,"Passive crossovers are the source of many, many problems : harmonic distortion, ringing, frequency response changes with level due to change of driver's impedance with heat, destruction of the dampening effect of the power amp on the drivers, etc. This list is not exhaustive."
No argument. But for the statement you made in the earlier post to be true, the speaker models you just mentioned should all be considerably better than anything else. I've only had experience with one of them and while it is clearly of very high quality, in my personal experience, I wouldn't describe it as "considerably better than anything else". But that's just me.
Happy Listening!
Barry
Well, for one "high-end" active loudspeakers, you have ten passive loudspeakers ; way more research and money are going to passive loudspeakers because they are easier to use and to sale to the general public. I am convinced that, if the playing field was more fair, active speakers would be the best.
A glimpse at that were the Cabasse Galion IV (4 drivers, 4 ways): they were made in passive and active form, with the same drivers and the same enclosures. The active ones used an active, specific analog crossover, four specific power amps, and an electronic correction of the woofer to lower distortion (by output / input comparaison and correction of difference).
The active version sounded way better (believe me, it was not a subtil difference). Ok, the difference of price was huge too.
Cheers,Yves
Hi Yves,I can see how a given speaker design can be radically improved with the use of an active crossover and dedicated, specially designed amps. I'm not surprised the difference wasn't subtle.
I wish other manufacturers would do something similar: offer a given design as passive as well as an active version with amps specifically designed for that speaker.
Regards,
Barry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
