|'); } // End -->|
I was just informed via email the Space Coast Audio Society here in the Central Florida area will be having a special SCAS meeting on this Saturday, 2-3-07, late evening starting at 9:30 PM.
According to Chris it will be at John's home and will feature a second visit with Darren Censullo of Avatar Acoustics. He will once again apply the Resonator room treatment products as he did at Mike's in November. The Resonators are quite small (wife friendly) and a good number of us (members of SCAS) were positively impressed with what we heard at Mike's. He will also bring some other products for auditioning, expect a high-end CD player from AMR.
If anyone here is near Central Florida and wishes to attend they should contact Chris Vogel. His email address is listed in Stereophile as the contact person for Audio Societies who wish to have their meetings published in Stereophile.
Thank's for the short notice TB54. I would really have liked to see...excuse me, *hear* the resonators in action. Maybe next time. Perhaps you could convince them not to have it on Superbowl weekend next time?
BTW, is this Space Coast Audio Society (SCAS) in any way related to the Space Ghost Coast to Coast Audio Society (SGCTCAS)?
Beyond me why someone would set it up on that date and time. They must be football haters.
Now if you and tubeguy were there I'd wager there would be a lot of action and maybe some good hits!
I think I'll try and form a club down Miami way. We will call it SOTA. Spaced Out Tanned Audiphools.
R57 - Now if you and tubeguy were there I'd wager there would be a lot of action and maybe some good hits!
Nah. I'm a lover, not a fighter. TG54 OTOH, describes himself as some sort of tied up raging pitbull. Something quite difficult to reconcile, with him also being a missionary.
I do enjoy music, both live and reproduced. Can't see it quite as the life and death struggle or good vs evil as TG54 does. More just a hobby for me. Especially the speakers part. You know, the least important one...
I am just getting into speakers. I have a lot to learn. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is now clear that I would have been better served to start with speakers.
I'm a lover too. Perhaps that is why I couldn't afford to address speakers before. But now that the divorce and subsquent high maintenance GF is over, and the kid is almost through college, perhaps I will have some discretionary funds!
Now if I could only decide on a crossover. The thought of op amps and going digital is too much to bear. I have to reconcile that with the reality that room compensation, time aligment, phase coherence, and all of that stuff that I don't understand well enough, is most easily addressed by such technology.
Perhaps you have some words of advice? I'd like to understand the pros/cons of FIR filters better.
R57 - I am just getting into speakers. I have a lot to learn. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is now clear that I would have been better served to start with speakers.
Actually start with the room. Then decide on the speaker design
R57 - Now if I could only decide on a crossover. The thought of op amps and going digital is too much to bear. I have to reconcile that with the reality that room compensation, time aligment, phase coherence, and all of that stuff that I don't understand well enough, is most easily addressed by such technology.
I take it that you only listen to analog? Even if you do, your stored electrical signals have most likely already been passed through op amps in the recording studio. Do they all sound terrible to you? Needless to say, if you listen to stored signals on CD, you are already in the digital domain. A good place to be for the aforementioned "stuff" that can transcend your music reproduction experience from the ordinary to the extraordinary.
R57 - Perhaps you have some words of advice? I'd like to understand the pros/cons of FIR filters better.
It is better to focus on the forest first rather than the tree. I use IIR filters myself, although FIR could be in my future since I do use and prefer coincident drivers. Zero phase shift filters have their limitations as do the non zero phase approx 2nd order bandpass transducers they are applied to. Linkwitz has a nice little write up on his huge web resource (link). The entire site is like a speaker building encyclopedia. Well worth the days of reading it would take to traverse.
My advice is after determining your budget, decide based upon where your speakers can be placed in your room, what type of design to go with. Then SPL requirements vs frequency. There is no one solution. Rather, there are quite a few. I chose correlated drivers (by wavelength) controlled directivity (cd) with some rear wave spatial enhancement (Open Baffle, dipole), coupled to pressure sources (monopoles) where room modes are sparse (below 40hz). If the room is smaller or you prefer a less 3D (with lots of depth) image, then perhaps something with a high front to back rejection ratio with correlated drivers such as a horn (like Danleys Synergy) or a cardioid coaxial (like the Gradient Revolution or some ME Geithain) with dipole or cardioid (cd/ -4.8db less power)radiation throughout the modal region of the room. I prefer maintaining Directivity Index all the way down into the very low bass. You may not.
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
My room is impossible and short of putting up a movable room divider setup like they have in large conference centers I can't see how it could ever be optimum (L-shaped with many openings).
Yes I am an analog guy and yes you are right that long before I get my hands on the software all kinds of things have been done. So yes in many ways it is silly of me to not consider a digital based crossover with EQ. Even moreso given the room problems.
I don't know the lingo well enough to understand all that you have said with regards to speaker types. At this point I am running a mid-range on an open baffle with a CD horn with compression driver for the top end (audax pr170mo and 18sound xt1086/nd1090). Bass is yet to be decided but for reasons you mentioned I'd like to try open baffle (which would also require EQing). I can live with -3db around 35 hertz and don't require flat to 20 hertz.
So as I say I have much to learn and am certainly likely to make some bad decisions along the way. Hopefully if I ask enough guys enough questions I can limit them. Of course I need to learn enough to know who's advice to pay attention to.
I guess I have gotten spoiled with the tube forums because we are more inclined to look at someone's schematic and make suggestions or even redraw it if needed. Even the commercial guys post schematics of their successful designs. Speaker guys seem to be a little more close mouthed. No doubt due to the amount of R&D time invovled.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
Is the "Resonator room treatment" a reference to the Acoustic System resonator product? Also, does the "good number of us" in the following quote include you personally?... it reads that way... the quote:
"The Resonators are quite small (wife friendly) and a good number of us (members of SCAS) were positively impressed with what we heard at Mike's."
You asked: Is the "Resonator room treatment" a reference to the Acoustic System resonator product? Yes, I do believe that the "Resonator room treatment" is indeed a reference to the Acoustic System resonator product. That's why I brought it up, just in case anyone near this area would like too see and hear for themselves, these devices in action. But I haven't verified this with Chris as of yet.
But no, the "good number of us" in the following quote does not include me personally. It wasn't meant to read that way. The quote... "The Resonators are quite small (wife friendly) and a good number of us (members of SCAS) were positively impressed with what we heard at Mike's." ...was taken from the email I said I received. I don't belong to the Space Coast Audio Society (SCAS) I belong to Central Florida Audio Sociey (CFAS). Sorry for any confusion.
that helps clear up the apparent confusion given what you have said about the product in a previous post.
The only thing I don't understand is the motivation for your (poorly constructed) post. Is it an understated jab at the Space Coast Audio Society (SCAS), or maybe posted so as to give the typically crude "objectivist" crowd an opportunity to heap scorn SCAS?
Forgive me for fearing such nefarious intent but after all the Acoustic System resonator product was one of the products that you specifically mentioned in the post that you concluded with the following rather melodramatic statement:
"OMG! It's the blind acceptance of 'audio' devices like this that keep the Objectivists from ever taking Subjectivists seriously. Are we revisting the Tice Clock all over again?"
Even if you don't wish to comment on the purpose of the post it seem only fair IME, based solely upon the sentiments expressed in you previous post, to suggest you see the SCAS as engaged in the something at least analogous to "... revisting the Tice Clock all over again".
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
First I really appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt on this issue. I have a love/hate relationship with internet forums. I usually believe I'm making my posts crystal clear as to what & why I'm posting on that topic ONLY to find out to others it wasn't clear and appeared as if I was implying something differently. The motivation for my post was simply this. To afford anyone near the Orlando, FL area an opportunity to listen to the Acoustic System resonator product for themselves and draw their own conclusions based on that experience.
It wasn't intended as an understated jab at the Space Coast Audio Society (SCAS). From what I've heard about the members of SCAS from members of CFAS they're a good group of guys, besides I really like Chris (the only member I really know) so I wouldn't do anything to intentionally hurt him or them. Nor was it posted to give the typically crude "objectivist" crowd an opportunity to heap scorn SCAS. Hell those in the objectivist crowd that are typically crude don't need any help from me to be that way, do they? I figured it could give someone from either group a chance to meet with some other music lovers and listen for themselves and then as the Oracle told Neo "Make up your own damn mind!" I go to CFAS meetings and don't always agree a tweak or component is an improvement. So hearing or not hearing an improvement isn't going to be an issue.
I forgive you for fearing such nefarious intent on my behalf. I can see how someone of lesser character, after naming the Acoustic System resonator product as being one of the types of products they believe leads to: Objectivists from ever taking Subjectivists seriously, could have had a devious motive for making this post. I'll also readily admit I said: Are we revisting the Tice Clock all over again? But you're forgetting I qualified that remark with: OMG! It's the blind acceptance of 'audio' devices like this... Anyone who listens for themself and makes a decision based on that listening is no longer guilty of blind acceptance of an audio device. Their opinion is now based on experience, no matter what others think of that experience, it's NOT blind acceptance.
Since making my original post I've read morricabs explinantion of the Acoustic Resonators work. I've also read the link you provided as well. I now see these devices in a different light. I'm still skeptical, but believe it's possible they do as the manufacturer says they do. I'd just need to hear this "improvement" for myself before investing any of my money buying them.
Hopefully I've now commented sufficiently on the purpose and the intent of my post. It was simply to give anyone who lives close enough a chance to hear for themselves what these devices are capable of. Perhaps they'd be like the VPI "Magic Brick" ---it amazed me after I heard what it did, even though my intial impressions apon seeing it was ONLY a fool would buy one of these!
Yes, why don't we keep an open mind in giving a fair audition trial of those costly Acoustical Resonanators in home environment.
I may be going down to South Beach, Miami for one weekend in May.
If your audition report sounds encouraging, is there any chance of listening to those resonators in a Miami distributor showroom ?
Of course, auditioning them does not mean I would go for them considering their lofty prices vs however good sound they may deliver.
that when you say "... the blind acceptance of 'audio' devices..." it is clear you explicitly exclude "Anyone who listens for themself and makes a decision based on that listening...".
Now when we look at the full quote again, i.e. yours ...
"OMG! It's the blind acceptance of 'audio' devices like this that keep the Objectivists from ever taking Subjectivists seriously. Are we revisting the Tice Clock all over again?"
... you'll of course admit that the Objectivists idea of "blind acceptance" is decidedly different than yours! While this hardly warrants saying you yourself should know this better than most, i.e. take the continued skeptism of many Objectivists to accept your testamony of cable differences despite the fact that you claim to have conducted blind tests no less!
You'll not convince those Objectivists, and in fact were you more astute an observer you'd note that the reaction against evidence of common audiophiles observations is proportional to the very strength of the investigations. I can think of no greater example of this that the near violent reactions against Jon Risch's careful studies in the DBT field, a reaction that continues to this very day as witnessed by the raving convulsions one can elicit from that deadbeat RBG in reaction to mere mention of the Risch work.
And what of Peter Aczel's moronic comments about it being impossible for well designed amplifiers to sound different (if not driven to clipping ya-da-ya-da)... but aren't there published DBTs that have demonstrated such differences?
Really any effort to reach the RBGs and the Aczels is the very definition of an exercise in futility! Think about it, suppose tomorrow some indisputable evidence of the things these nuts have been denying for decades should wash up on shore, what then?, would you expect a polite "Oops it appears I was maistaken." !!!LOL!!! Not bloody likely! The best you could hope for would be their disappearance, but more likely they'd continue on with their nonsense even in the face of the evidence!
I guess having come from being an Objectivist in my early days as an music lover/audiophile a part of me hopes there can be bridging of the 2 different camps via some common ground.
However your post makes sense and taken in the light of comments from OBJs like POLLYinFLA it serves to make your statement seem all that more true to me and thus my attempts all that more futile.
Oh well, I tried...
TG54 - I guess having come from being an Objectivist in my early days
Some folks obviously believe that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will eventually be accepted as truth.
WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs.
Some even begin to believe their own lies. They acually convince themselves.
If you were an objectivist, then had severe brain damage from an accident, then I suppose this sort of scenario *could* have occured.
Otherwise, you were always a subjectivist. You just didn't know it.
Your constant refusal to accept that I was an Objectivist who turned Subjectivist in no way lessens the fact that this is indeed the TRUTH! Your inability to accept that fact that once I learned to trust my ears and what I heard over measurements printed on piece a paper is simply due to your need to believe you hold the ONE TRUE WAY to audio nirvana. So POLLYinFLA I suggest you look at your own advice and realize that you've begun to believe your own lies and have actually convinced yourself you're telling the truth, when you're not!
The reality is this I WAS an objectivist, I believed all "properly designed" amps essentially sounded the same, I believed all "properly designed" wires sounded the same and I believed tubed equipment was an inferior technology that couldn't possibly sound as good as solid state audio components could. You're 100% incorrect in your beliefs that I had severe brain damage from an accident. What really happened was I decided to have an open mind (unlike you) and listen for myself and come to my own conclusions. Doing that showed me most, not all "properly designed" amps be they tubed or solid state do NOT sound the same, most not all "properly designed" wires do NOT sound the same and some, not all tubed equipment sounds better than solid state does, but the very best tubed equipment definitely sounds better than solid state does! Even more than that the very best tubed equipment provides the most realistic replication of live unamplified music I have ever heard! As hard as it is for you to accept this, tubed equipment is NOT was an inferior technology. It can sound every bit as good as any solid state audio components does and the very best tubed equipment represents the SOTA in audio amplification today.
Sorry to burst your bubble POLLYinFLA but I wasn't always a Subjectivist, but I am one today. No matter how much you lie to yourself and deny this it's still remains the truth. Perhaps if you cleaned out your ears and bought a decent soild state amp, instead of using that Pro QSC crap, you'd also realize not all "properly designed" amps be they tubed or solid state essentially sound the same, most not all "properly designed" wires do NOT sound the same and some, not all tubed equipment sounds better than solid state does, but the very best tubed equipment definitely does.
I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist,
tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better,
SQUUAAAAAAAAWWKK, flap, flap...
The saga continues...
I know the truth, you rambling ranter of bird-brained, bumbling twit tales. Clean all the crap from the bottom of your bird cage, it's getting stuck in your ears!
For some stange reason that only makes sense in POLLY's Parrot Paradise you seem to believe that repeating the truth that I was (past tense) an Objectivist, who now realizes tubes (usually) sound better that solid state amps, somehow makes this statements an untruth.
What amazes me most is you that you honestly think you're witty and humorous. But the reality is you come across as an idiot with nothing intelligent to say. So rather than keeping your mouth shut with the hopes that you might seem intelligent for doing so, you just berate and disparage anything that doesn't agree with your POV. In your warped mine you believe you're this hot shit in a champagne glass. Unfortunately the sad truth is you're only lukewarm diarrhea floating in a dixie cup.
If I'm lucky I'll never have the displeasure of actually having to meet you in person...
"The reality is this I WAS an objectivist, I believed all "properly designed" amps essentially sounded the same, I believed all "properly designed" wires sounded the same and I believed tubed equipment was an inferior technology that couldn't possibly sound as good as solid state audio components could."
This part of your problem! Like a saying I grew up, "half truth is no truth at all". I suggest that you read Peter Azcel comments on the conditions that need to be satisfied for two different types of amplifier sound identical through the same set of speakers, goes without saying playing in the same room.
Secondly, the fact that tube technology is obsolete technology and certainly is inferior in certain respects, however sounds good is a totally different criterion, for example, LPs are an inferior music carrier than hirez digital in absolute objective performance terms, but many people prefer its sound, the issue is that the preference cannot be traced by performance superiority because it is not.
But I've read Aczel's comments on the conditions that need to be satisfied for two different types of amplifier sound identical through the same set of speakers. I've also read his biggest blunder of all, i.e. “The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio” it is good for a laugh though... I find Aczel to be a joke! P. Aczel & J. Hirsch are twins sons of different mothers.
Although I greatly prefer CDs for their ease of usage, non pops, ticks and surface noise I don't know that I can agree that LPs are an inferior music carrier than hirez digital. You like many others here seem to believe measurements tell it all. I just cannot believe that. There's something when the ear/brain is used as the final arbitrator as to what does and doesn't sound like live unamplified music in absolute performance terms, that measurements cannot detect.
The real issue is the ear/brain combo is NEVER fooled into believing live music is recorded and recorded music is live. It seems to be quite capable in this area, so I disagree that the preference cannot be traced by performance superiority, because I disagree as to what constitutes superiority in the first place. I'll trust my ears before a mic and a piece of test equipment any day of the week. There are papers that indicate that the way the ear/brain combo hears (via masking and other traits) is a lot closer to how SETs replicates music than a solid state amp does. So if an SET replicates music in a way that closer replicates how the ear/brain combo hears it would present a more accurate reproduction of music to a given ear/brain combo. Yet at the same time to a mic and piece of test equipment the solid state amp would sound more accurate!
Sorry Hobby but mics and test equipment don't do my listening for me! My individual ear/brain combo and the psycho-acoustics invloved do. They say SETs sound more like live unamplified music than any other audio toplogy they've ever heard. No matter what belief system I started out with my present belief system has enabled me to assemble a system that provides me with an overwhelming sense of enjoyment and immersement of music that not ONE of my previous solid state based systems ever came close to doing...
You're free to use your "properly designed" solid state amps to achieve whatever levels of accuracy the mics and test equipment tells you you've achieved. Me? I'll stick to the path I'm travelling. I've discovered few if any who ever find this path ever leave it...
> If you were an objectivist, then had severe brain damage from an
> accident, then I suppose this sort of scenario *could* have occured.
> Otherwise, you were always a subjectivist. You just didn't know it.
I have always had problems with audiophiles using the terms "objectivist" and "subjectivist" because people who consider their subjective experiences of sound are not in conflict in any way whatsoever with those that consider what is going on objectively. There would have to be something pretty weird about the world if this was not the case.
The conflict seems to arise for two reasons: "subjectivists" have incorrect beliefs about what is going on objectively and lack the simple intelligence to recognise what is subjective and what is objective and "objectivists" often appear to want the sound impinging on the ear to be the reality rather than what is perceived.
TG54 describes himself as previously being an "objectivist" and by this I suspect he means that he took published figures about objective performance and projected all sorts of attributes onto them that they did not possess concerning how nice his hi-fi would sound. Now if there are to be "objectivist audiophiles" this seems a pretty accurate description to me since the focus of interest is objective data and he must hold audiophile beliefs (i.e. scientifically invalid beliefs) in order to do his projections. Reasonable?
The real distinction, as ever, is between those that hold incorrect beliefs about what is going on and those that are better informed about what has been established. This is not subjective versus objective (no conflict) but ignorant versus educated/informed (conflict at least while the educated remain engaged which usually isn't for long - see Wikipedia for example).
Do you consider yourself to be an "objective audiophile" or a "non-audiophile"? If the former, what meaning do you attach to the terms audiophile and objective?
I'm neither. I'm just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.
> I'm neither.
If you are an audiophile and you are not an "objective audiophile" then you can only be a "subjective audiophile". That is TG54s tribe and I am not sure he wants you as a member.
Seriously though, being happy to call yourself an audiophile is of interest because it indicates some consider the word to simply mean "audio enthusiast" without necessarily being a believer. It doesn't have that meaning among my peers where it would mean believer.
I've met up with a very few objectivists that changed their views when they finally allowed for possibilities. Mostly the "recruits" are skeptics with no scientific background, such as myself. Back when I first got involved with audio, I was told cables made large differences in sound and I walked away with Monster M1000i mk II interconnects and Monster speaker wire (forget the model) and I couldn't hear a dime's worth of difference, as I suspected I wouldn't.
As my listening skills improved, I learned what to listen for and could hear differences some of the time... and I should point out that I do NOT hear differences in all wires. Far from it. Nor all amps or anything else. Very little in this world is everything or nothing. That's the problem I have with Objectivists - they think in black and white and the world contains so many different colors. But I digress....
Anyway, it's doubtful that you'll ever gain new recruits by posting on the internet. They have to figure it out all by themselves. I was the same way. And hey, if they never figure it out, they're the ones missing out, not you. You can only take care of folks that want to take the steps to take care of themselves. To coin a phrase, you can lead a horse to water but you can't force his head into the pool. And if you do, he is more likely to drown than he is to drink.
I've met up with a very few ghost non-believers that changed their views when they finally allowed for possibilities. Mostly the "recruits" are skeptics with no scientific background, such as myself. Back when I first got involved with ghost chasing, I was told that superstition made large differences in sound and I walked away with Monster M1000i mk II ghost goggles and Monster speaker wire (forget the model) and I couldn't see or hear a dime's worth of difference, as I suspected I wouldn't.
As my ghost hearing/seeing skills improved, I learned what to listen for and could hear spooky sounds some of the time... and I should point out that I do NOT hear differences in all houses. Far from it. Nor all amps or anything else. Very little in this world is everything or nothing. That's the problem I have with Objectivists/ghost non-believers - they think in black and white and the world contains so many different colors of ghosts. But I digress....
Anyway, it's doubtful that you'll ever gain new cult recruits by posting on the internet. They have to figure it out all by themselves. I was the same way. And hey, if they never figure it out, they're the ones missing out, not you. You can only take care of folks that want to take the steps to take care of themselves. To coin a phrase, you can lead a person to a poolside seance but you can't force his head into the pool. And if you do, he is more likely to drown than he is to see ghosts.
Whining about "objectivists" won't do it.
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You seem to mistakenly believe that others MUST prove things to you. No one here needs to prove anything to anyone but themself. Once they have listened and deteremined for themselves they hear a difference their "job" is done. If they like what they've heard and feel it's an improvement they may at that time wish to share it with others here. If someone here reads these comments and wants proof of what they say they've heard, that person who want proof, needs to get of their lazy ass and provide the proof they need for themself.
Anytime an audio component or tweak is added to a system there either will or won't be a noticeable difference. In the event that a difference is heard it can either be a detrimental or an improvement. Since everyones hearing is different no one but yourself can determine whether or not your individual ear/brain combo is sensitive enough to hear what another individual can hears. In addition only you can decide for yourself if the change (if any) is detrimental or an improvement to you as an individual.
Pat D you always want to take the unproveable null postion. Then you demand others provide prove what they say is true. You seem to feel that others have some burden or obligation to prove what they hear to you. However I say once they've told you want they've heard they've done all they need to, i.e. they've shared a potential improvement with you. If you want or need proof, before accepting the validity of their post, then get off your lazy behind, do some leg-work and get it for yourself! No one is under any burden or obligation to provide you with proof of anything. If you don't wish to accept their comments about a potential improvement you can make to your audio system... don't! If you want proof of their comments then get it for yourself.
"Pat D you always want to take the unproveable null postion. Then you demand others provide prove what they say is true. You seem to feel that others have some burden or obligation to prove what they hear to you."
Nope. You still haven't got it right, but then at this point I can only conclude you aren't interested in doing so.
The burden of proof is on the person make the claim of audible differences. For example, you so far have failed to prove you can hear the difference between your expensive Nordost cables and ordinary heavy gauge speaker wires. That's the fact. You apparently don't like it but that's the fact.
I am not making unlikely claims of audible differences. Therefore, I don't have any to prove.
As to whether anyone has an obligation to provide proof to others, well, yes, sometimes they do have an obligation. Many products are subject to strict standards. I dare say the prescription drugs you use have been subject to rigorous testing and approved by a government body.
As to how this would apply to audio, well, the FTC doesn't seem interested in claims for audio products beyond amplfiers performance and such things. But some have plausibly argued that claims for the improved audio performance of special and expensive audio interconnects and speaker cables, among other things, would technically come under the jurisdiction of the FTC as far as manufacturers and sellers are concerned.
Now, neither I nor anyone else has the time to determine whether every product on the market makes an audible difference, we all have to choose which ones to try out. One can try to do so on the basis of reliable information or not.
Pat D replies to my comment "Pat D you always want to take the unproveable null postion. Then you demand others provide prove what they say is true. You seem to feel that others have some burden or obligation to prove what they hear to you." With this response: Nope. You still haven't got it right, but then at this point I can only conclude you aren't interested in doing so.
I have it 100% right Pat. Neither I nor anyone else here is under and burden or obligation to provide you or anyone else with any proof, period. Your constant rant that The burden of proof is on the person (who) make(s) the claim of audible differences. is incorrect. Your claiming we have to provide you with proof does NOT make it a true statement. As I told you before when I or anyone else here on PHP talks about an improvement we've heard, we've done all that we need to, i.e. share with you and others a way to possibly improve your audio system. You can either accept what we've said or you can reject it until you have proof it works. But if you require proof it's up to you o' lazy one to provide that proof for yourself. Absolutely no one is under any burden or obligation to provide it for you.
For example, Pat you want so desperately to believe I have failed to prove I can hear the difference between my Nordost cables and ordinary heavy gauge speaker wires. But once again, as is typical of you, you're wrong. I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I definitely hear the difference between my Nordost cables and ordinary heavy gauge speaker wires to the ONLY person to whom this really matters, me! That's a fact you apparently don't like to hear, but Pat it's the fact non the less. If on the otherhand you'd like proof of this fact for yourself, I'll suggest yet once again that you get off your lazy ass, do the legwork and provide it for yourself. We all know of of course you'll have 100's of excuses why you won't or shouldn't have to do this. But PLEASE understand I'm under to obligation to provide you with any proof of anything.
Pat you rightly state that because you're not making any claims of audible differences, that means you don't have anything to prove. I'd like to point out this is just par for the course for you. You ALWAYS take the unproveable null postion and then demand others provide proof to you. Sorry Pat but I and apparently many others here have grown weary of your constant demands. If you want proof, find it for yourself.
As to whether anyone has an obligation to provide proof to others, your mistaken when you claim (concerning audiophiles) well, yes, sometimes they do have an obligation. You try to support your postion by using example that have absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're talking about music lovers expressing their opinions on what makes an improvement in their audio system and whether or not they're obligated to prove what they hear to you. In a lame attempt to "prove" you're due this proof you're always demanding of others you use the example of the FDA making a drug company provide proof their new drug (which could possibly kill someone) is safe... how pathetic you're getting. I tell you what Pat when you can prove that some music lovers tweak is possibly life threating if attempted by others, I'll agree they should provide proof of it's safety before others attempt to duplicate what they've heard. However in the meantime please attempt your misleading prescription drug analogy with someone else who takes the bait more easily than I do.
You can also take your FTC arguement and shelve it until the FTC comes down on your side. For as you stated the FTC doesn't seem interested in claims for audio products beyond amplfiers performance and such things. One can argue that claims for the improved audio performance of special and expensive audio interconnects and speaker cables, among other things, would technically come under the jurisdiction of the FTC as far as manufacturers and sellers are concerned, but until that happens it's a moot point. You just need to actually do something besides constantly taking the unprovable null point and get up off your lazy behind and prove things to yourself for yourself.
Like you Pat I don't have the time to determine whether every product on the market makes an audible difference. So do what I've been telling you to do. Get off your lazy ass choose which ones you wish to try out and provide the proof you need for yourself. Just stop demanding everyone else do for you what you're too damn lazy to do for yourself! We don't owe you anything. Consider it a blessing that we share what we klearn with you in the first place...
> If you don't wish to accept their comments about a potential improvement you can make to your audio system... don't! <
We share these improvements in the hope that they may enrich someone else's life as they have enriched ours. If someone doesn't care to try it, it's their loss, not mine.
See, the real issue isn't whether or not WE hear any differences - it's whether the person demanding the proof will. For that, they will have to try it themselves, not worry about what other people can and can't hear. I've proven what I hear to the one person whose requirements, preferences and abilities I'm forced by either divine intervention or fate to worry most about - me!
> suppose tomorrow some indisputable evidence of the things these nuts have been denying for decades should wash up on shore, what then?, would you expect a polite "Oops it appears I was maistaken." <
If you have the chance, try a couple observations.
Sound radiated from an acoustically small source falls off to 1 /4 the level each time you double the distance (following the inverse square law). Thus, if you were to walk up to one and listened carefully from 1 foot for ringing (the action of a resonator) and hear any, then you can figure how fast that sound will fall in level as you move back the listening position.
Also, it is likely the mfr would not recommend touching the resonator using some blather about changing its properties and dissipating the magic.
If the resonator is treated like a musical instrument or other resonator which can be touched by mortals, then stand blocking others view and see if anyone can tell when you touch it (killing all the resonance).
As every audiophile knows, EVERYTHING is audible.
It is possible some people could hear when a fly landed on a resonator.
I already know of one audiophile who heard a mouse walk across his speaker cables (they were too thick to jump over), knows when his cat is sleeping on top of his amplifier, without looking, and he never says silly things like: "Even my wife could hear the difference.", so I assume he knows what he's talking about.
Now if someone touched one of them there resonators, wouldn't they start resonatin' too?
Why Richard he said, step right in, I’ve seen you around the Shopmax-O-Plex before, obviously you have above average ears to know about Dr Bent’s Blather oil.
You know the first time I tried it, I thought wow, how could it get more real than this. Yet (motioning, please have a seat, no right there, a little more to the left) Dr Bent has come up with an improvement and yes while it’s a bit more expensive, trust me, it is the real deal (the lights smoothly dim inexplicably).
We began with the traditional eLPee preparation ceremony (totally ignoring a very puzzled looking teen peering in the door of the demo room) followed by the slow “preying mantis” procession to the 4.5 ton rotary plinth to play the thin black jewel. A gorgeous player was used with a platter made of a stone from the same quarry as the Stone Henge blocks, hence the name, weight and of course the very solid early druidic sound.
He said the huge shiny black stone never stops turning but I’m sure it must when the power goes out.
We listened more and talk hifi, he moved everything just so to compensate for my position on the couch, body shape and even my clothing, it was wonderful, the oil flowed freely, the sound swirled around me, I heard everything he described, it felt wonderful knowing I was listening to a quarter million dollars in audio tweaks and cables alone, everywhere I looked were pebbles, blocks, clocks, cables as big as garden hoses and other cool stuff.
All to soon, a terrible sound broke the mood “HEY…I’ve been looking all over for you" UHHH...sorry guess I shut my cell phone off. "I should have known you would be here. We have meat we have to get into the fridge, leave your toys and come home., eeew what’s that smell, have you been into the oil again with your hifi friend, ugh, I just don’t understand you guys with that oil, when we get home its right into the shower for you mister. ”
A short while later……….
Ah,..come in, what is your name?….Ah Clem.
Come have a seat, no a little to the right.
This radio drama does not represent the views of the management or the Union of Scientists United for Government Grants.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: