 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Agree 100% posted by bdiament on July 08, 2004 at 10:29:13:
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
Follow Ups:
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 ]
