|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.130.117.241
With all this arguments about tweaking, I decided to post a few thoughts, You are welcome to disagree, but i simply want to state the philosophy which drives me.My first foray into stereo ( I would not call it high end) started in 1968 with my purchasing a set of Dynakit units: PAT 4 and St 120. I blew my budget on the TT buying an AR with the Rabco tonearm, though. Because of publicity, I bought a Bose 901 series I.
The Bose was the biggest hindrance to the advancement of my audio life. At 5% distortion, it concealed so much I could not discern any difference. Bought Monster when it first came out: nothing. Bought Fulton Golds, no difference.
Bought new Shures as they appeared: no difference: V15 type 2 to three, to four etc.
Borrowed a friend's Mark Levinson preamp: no difference.Then one day I turned my 901's around after seeing a pair of 801's in a disco. What a difference: I could actually hear detail. Taught me a valuable lesson: don't necessarily believe the factory.
Then in entering the business and meeting famous designers and manufacturers, taught me even more. These guys are all human. Some were brutally honest to my inquiries, puncturing many bubbles, some were more slick advertising rather than fundamental truths.
In short I learned to trust my own senses and thinking and most important: experience. Never take anything for granted.
Over the years I have made acquaintance with many great designers. They have literally opened my eyes, although i have had a lot of catching up to do: circuit designs, mechanical arrangements, etc.
Working at a Naval Shipyard was also enlightening. Its amazing what you can build from scratch. ( my largest physical project was a 40 by 25 foot deckhouse, complete with railing, ventilation, door ways, electrical run ways, so that all the installer needed to do was to drop the house on the deck and weld it up. Under budget and within the time frame. too.
Taught me to learn how to examine component design more carefully.
Truth is for the most part electronic designs have not had anything really new developed for the past 30 years (well Ok digital amplification maybe). Tube gear even longer.
I find all too often when you spend $75 K for speakers, you get many of the tweaks we have discussed, a bit in a nicer cosmetic package. For hose of us financially constrained, tweaking allows us a glimpse of that audio nirvana, but iff you are willing to keep an open mind and try the ideas.I believe the concept for this forum is to share ideas, no matter how outlandish they may seem. The trial is certainly up to you: you can happily ignore them. That is not the issue. I do believe sharing of ideas, though is paramount.
YMMV obviously
Edits: 03/28/15Follow Ups:
I'd have to say that the fact that you hung with Bose 901s for so long and continued to change everything around them, to no good effect, makes me seriously question your ability to ferret out, in a reasonable amount of time, the weak point(s) in a system and address them.
Please don't take this as a personal attack, because I absolutely do not mean it as such. However, it was *well* known in the audiophile community, back in the early 70s, that the 901s were absolutely mid-fi drek. Anyone with any sense of the physics involved would *have* to know that a multitude of cheap-ass 4.5" paper drivers running thru a bullshit equalizer do not, and CANNOT, provide anything close to a satisfactory musical experience.
Did it never occur to you to hook up a different set of speakers to see if the speakers you had were the weak link? Even EPI 100s or Pioneer HPM 60s would have cold smoked those Bose 901s. And they would have done so for less than 1/2 the cost.
I started selling hi-end hi-fi back in the mid-70s, and *every* salesman of merit knew that the the Bose 901s were just pure shit. How did you not know this? Again, I am *not* trying to denigrate you (honestly!!), but, based upon reading many, *many* of your posts, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to tweak sub-par equipment to rival really good equipment. This is a fool's game, at best.
IMHO, you would be soooo far ahead of the game if you started with pretty darn good gear and then spent your time improving upon that. And I would also counsel you to stop messing about with silly, fatuous tweaks (silly dots on your windows, hanging bags of rocks on your interconnects, etc.) and direct your efforts towards really improving the environment in which your system/speakers reside. You will hear MUCH greater improvement in your system's sound quality by improving the sonics of the room in which it is placed. This is NOT subject to debate, plain and simple.
Second to that is to be found by improving the quality of your source material. A well-recorded/mastered 24 bit, 96 KHz recording is all that is needed to recreate the original sonic event. Fiddling about with cork vs. rubber footers under your amp (or some such other Tom-foolery) is a waste of time and effort. IMHO, of course.[g] Rather, spend your money on top-quality source material - this will provide an ENORMOUS benefit!!
I realize that many will disagree with me, and may God bless them. But I stand by my pronouncements and have yet to have anyone prove me wrong on my major points...
Best Wishes,
-RW-
RW said, "A well-recorded/mastered 24 bit, 96 KHz recording is all that is needed to recreate the original sonic event. Fiddling about with cork vs. rubber footers under your amp (or some such other Tom-foolery) is a waste of time and effort."
RW also said, "I realize that many will disagree with me, and may God bless them. But I stand by my pronouncements and have yet to have anyone prove me wrong on my major points..."
RW, I disagree with you, but only because you're wrong. And I can prove you're wrong on perhaps all of your major points.
Moreover, there is not one shred of evidence that a well-engineered high-res recording is night and day difference over a well-engineered Redbook format recording. Which is the type of difference required for your hi-rez statement to be true.
As for your statement of fiddling with cork vs rubber footers being tomfoolery, well, I can demonstrate you are equally wrong there as well. To be fair, cork and rubber both fall into the "vibration isolation" methodology camp and since it's against the laws of physics to isolate anything from all sources of vibration simultaneously, that is indeed tomfoolery.
However, somebody dabbling with vibration controlling methodologies and executions has to start somewhere and it only makes sense to start there since that is where the vast majority are and where product is readily available and where the masses have settled on for their solutions.
I will not speak favorably for cork, rubber, or kitty litter, nor will I ever use the term "vibration isolation" in a positive light. But I can say and prove that the lack of proper vibration control induces more distortion than perhaps all other forms of distortion combined (impossible to prove on paper) and has induced the greatest performance-limiting governor on every last playback system. Proper being the key word here.
Within the audiophile realm, the notion of vibration isolation is ubiquitous and often misleading. However, the most notorious ignorance concerns the term vibration control for audiophile purposes. Vibration control devices and methods should be implemented as tools to manipulate resonances rather than try to treat them like an enemy. Compliant materials such as polymers/silicone can be a very valuable tool for system tuning purposes, especially when implemented with non-compliant material devices such as cones, discs, balls. IME, shifting the resonant characteristics of an audio device is the paramount objective rather than vibration deadening, or dubious vibration isolation approaches.
I like your summation. I firmly believe as you do that resonance control is manipulating the frequencies which are offending and perhaps transmuting them to more audibly pleasant ones.
Why a=waste the energy being generated? I find that using them is more effective in the long run
Thanks for your kind response, unclestu.
I should clarify that I find vibration damping to be a vital aspect of vibration control, but it's not the only goal. An experiment years ago with a wooden cutting board implemented for a DIY vibration control platform helped shape my perspective when it comes to vibration deadening vs. resonance manipulation. The cutting board featured a deep groove routed around the surface edge on one side of the board intended as a juice channel. It occurred to me that the groove could be filled with Blue-Tack for vibration damping purposes. It was amazing how bad the board sounded after filling the groove, so out the Blue-Tack went. Simple compliant footers positioned under the board, sounded much more musical as a result, with further vibration control devices placed between the top of the board and the component placed upon it.
Cheers, Duster
Many years ago, when I first tried bamboo cutting boards under lightweight digital gear (pro dacs and work clocks), it was a "holy smokes!" moment. Even something so lightweight could make a world of discernible difference....
I find the essential sonic signature of laminated bamboo boards to be an interesting thing to work with. In and of itself, laminated bamboo does not produce an interesting sound, but it behaves well as a plinth to provide a neutral sounding, non-compliant/rigid layer for compliant pads/footers to work against without adding coloration of its own. An impression of resonance dissipation seems to be involved in the presentation, IME. It's similar to carbon fiber composites in that matter. I find carbon fiber composites to sound intrinsically transparent compared to other non-compliant materials such as resonant metals or woods for vibration control purposes.
YMMV
I should have stated that the lightweight gear, of course, simply rested on the bamboo cutting boards via their rubber feet....nothing aftermarket.
What occurred was an overall gain in clarity without any change in tonality....much in keeping with your sonic descriptions. Considering that the smallest boards cost around $5 or $6, it WAS the proverbial bargain. And they were purdy....
"Vibration control devices and methods should be implemented as tools to manipulate resonances rather than try to treat them like an enemy."
Care to share an example of your manipulations of resonant characteristics is undeniably the one and only solution to cure or absolutely minimize distortions induced by under-controlled vibrations?
If so, please don't quote your buddy Herbie again as we've already gone down that path and without success.
BTW, how is vibration deadening any different from isolation? On paper, doesn't a dead vibration only result from isolation or damping?
OK, so I admitted my mistake. Is that a sin to do so? In buying my Dyna solid state kits also back in '68, I remember the salesman pointing out a Marantz 7 preamp for a few dollars more, but I wanted the latest and greatest transistors....LOL!!!! Transistors were in, not tubes, at least if you read the magazines....
I bought the 901 series I while I was in high school after the flurry of ad copy which accompanied it's introduction in 1968. Hey, first time entering high fi components, I was easily swayed by ads, which was my point.
I made a mistake, a big one as it was. I admit it. But I am not ashamed to say I made a mistake.
But one thing I learned which was a blessing in disguise: I learned from the experience.
Source material? I own 4500+ LPs. Virtually the entire RCA LSC catalog and the Mercury Living Presence, all originals including many 1s and FR1 pressings.My Deccas are very numerous and many are original pressings, (I don't count the Treasury stuff).
I owned and predicted some stuff well before they ever made HP's vaunted Super disc recordings. This is nothing to brag about. I remember advising, unbidden, Robert Pincus of King LP's about certain recordings they should reissue. He was skeptical, particularly for the musical content, but later admitted that certain recordings he did try were a rather large commercial success and funded other projects....
To sum up, hindsight is 20/20. We all have such incidents in our past. I am not afraid to admit my errors.
You're a bigger man for admitting your mistakes. And I applaud you for not going haywire and attacking me for my somewhat snarky post. I do admire you for the amount of time and effort you expend in trying to advance this crazy hobby. Would that I had the time to do so....
Best Wishes,
-RW-
stu
Anyone who has this obsession for 40+ years has done things of which they aren't proud. If you ultimately balance it out with positives, that's good enough.
You have too many records, by the way :).
I know people love them, but I always thought MLP was overrated sonically, although many excellent performances. In my LP past, I heavily favored Philips, and Telefunken when I could find them.
Tom E
I made another mistake, a typo; I own 45,000 Lp's....8^)
The MLPs while a bit brighter than most labels have the best dynamic range and were perhaps the most audiophile for its time. Robert Fine would do a sound check on the loudest passages and once set never touch the mike levels. Three mike recordings, left/right outriggers with a center fill. He would even record ambient noise in the recording venue so that when he spliced in movements the ear would not go into "shock" with the dead silence.
Early Philips (Hi Fi stereo label) and DDG (tulip labels) are great, and certainly they had some of the better musicians and conductors. They get very compressed in later years, however.
I like Deccas which even though everyone says uses the same masers as the Londons, have a distinctly wwrmer quality. They do use gain riding which can be very evident, however. I suspect the warmth is more due to the vinyl formulation they used.
c'est la vie
nt
You and I have similar backgrounds and histories, as probably do many users of this forum. I began building Dyna kits and speakers in the early 70's, and have continued that interest, even intensified it. My father was also a dedicated audiophile--I remember his setting up the living room so we could hear the first stereo FM radio broadcast with a radio in opposite corners, tuned to slightly different frequencies. He built corner horns, Karlson resonators, and his own amplifiers (tube, of course) and turntables, but died before stereo became popular.
So I have tried to carry on the family tradition, at least that one. I spend a lot of time building all kinds of equipment, fine tuning my room and my system, and I know that some of the features of my system are available on only the most expensive commercial equipment, if at all. That's why I build it, and why I am a tireless promoter of DIY audio. I share my ideas regularly in this forum and elsewhere.
As I learn more about electronics in general and audio specifically, I realize how this hobby, or obsession, has become infested with charlatans and shucksters whose only interest is making a buck. I quit reading audio press, for the most part, almost ten years ago. I find most audio advertising humorous nonsense and more dedicated to obfuscation than enlightenment.
Contrary to what you stated, there have been some remarkable developments in electronics in general, applied specifically to many aspects of audio. Miniaturization has led to having an entire amplifier on a chip no larger than a couple postage stamps, able to produce fidelity for a few dollars that was unavailable to all but the richest devotees 30 years ago. CAD, CAM, FEA and other computer simulations make available to any designer with a laptop what was very expensive and complicated 30 years ago. Indeed, sharing information such as contained in this forum was unknown 30 years ago. No print publication would have touched half the topics regularly covered here. Materials science has become more sophisticated, and there are manufacturing refinements and economies that make many exotic configurations available that didn't even exist 30 years ago. Carbon fiber? Metal film deposition? OCC copper? Teflon insulation? Bulk foil resistors? Ask Nelson Pass, John Curl, and many others, including amateurs, if any new circuitry has been developed or refined. There is a greater understanding in general of what causes distortion and how we hear it, although there are still factors of fidelity that remain to be discovered and cannot yet be measured. We're just getting started with 3D printing.
So, yes, informing and maintaining the community of audiophiles is important. We should all be willing to share our ideas, and be willing to accept criticism when those ideas are not so good. This is an asylum, but not a womb. Your mom isn't here to protect you. If you want a society where everyone gets a trophy for participating, there will never be any progress. Failure leads to success. Acknowledge it instead of pretending it doesn't happen. Learn from others, not just from yourself. Experimentation is critical, delusion is deadly. Evaluate your methods, admit your mistakes, grow up, move on.
Due to my recent comments, I've been insulted and called names. I make a careful effort to criticize ideas and actions, not people. I do not make personal insults unless I am personally attacked. I consider every idea on its own merit and try to separate the person from the post. I try to ignore what I think is unimportant or frivolous because there is nothing to be gained by criticizing it. I do not interfere with other's discussions unless I have something to offer. I believe in a rational exchange of reasonable ideas and opinions, although I do not support the promotion of bat-shit crazy notions and anything that is unsafe. Outside the box, sure; stupid or dangerous, not very productive. There should be some limit. When people are personally offended by having their ideas criticized, that's a shame. We all fall prey to it at times. And we all make mistakes. I apologize if my comments were personally offensive to anyone. I will not apologize for writing what I believe is the truth.
Peace,
Tom E
An amp on a chip does not mean the design is revolutionary and different. Yes material sciences have made great strides, but again they are actually not changing circuit designs. Much if not all, of these new components are merely parts substitution.It may not seem so but I do peruse the major catalogs fastidiously looking at new components (when I have time). Resettable fuses, been there, done that: ferrite sheet sized for IC's, similar.
My beef is too many people, like yourself, condemn without trying. Within your realm of experience it can not be so, so automatically it is dismissed and derided.
If your world is bounded by a electronics text book, so be it. That indeed is your prerogative. Some think out of the box, not matter how outlandish it may seem.
Rather than simply saying no. I am always careful to point out application and where I apply my tweaks. Sometimes I explain how I noticed a particular tweak so others can follow the trail, so to speak.
In actuality, being a dealer has certain benefits. I often go to customers homes and try the tweaks. and more than often I achieve rather amazing results with top line, highly expensive, state of the art equipment. In essence, the customer base gives me a pool of beta tester, so to speak. Only after meeting success do I write about it.
Now when I say I don't want to bother with naysayers, it is for a very simple reason. You are saying no without bothering to try. Now if you actually tried it, explained your placement and such and heard nothing, that is much more credible. To say it is impossible and then make erroneous statements does not help your cause any as when you seem to equate RF with EMI.
I am an old man. Got a few good years left, but I don't mind. I'd rather share than take things to the grave it does nobody any good at all. Arguing theory to me does not aid progress, particularly since audio seems to occupy the backwaters of most physics texts.
Shuckster?
LOL!!!!
when have I attempted to sell ANYTHING on this forum? Open your eyes! Yes, I wrote about crystals, but when Awe-d-o-file and Maher marketed their crystal tweaks, I did not grumble, nor did I object in any way, shape or form. That their apps does not match mine is one thing but I do not contradict them in any way, since apparently they work well for some.
I toss out my experiences in hopes others can carry on. I want to move forward not remain mired in the mud. Most, on most forums not just AA,'seem to be of the persuasion that if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it can not exist. ''
Well, sorry but I do not like thinking within the box. REMEMBER, you absolutely do NOT need to read any of my posts. Since it rises your ire, frankly I don't understand why you do so, particularly since you won't even try any of them
Edits: 03/31/15
Thanks for replying. Never said you were trying to sell anything here, although sometimes your posts resemble sales pitches. I guess that's just the way you express yourself. I used pejoratives to describe the industry at large which is rife with bullshit, certainly not you in particular.
You hear what you hear, and no one can argue that. I haven't read many of your posts, almost none about crystals, which I know, judging solely by the number of posts you make about them, is a topic dear to you. I am not ever going there because I have other priorities that make more sense to me. I will never mention it again. Carry on with your mission.
I read the driver mounting screw replacement stuff. I use plastic bolts on my tweeters and midranges, so I agree with most of that although I'm not sure the effect is even audible. Can't make much difference on woofers. Read the rope caulk on the baffle bit. Had a good laugh, but left it alone because it really isn't my style to harass anyone until they get dangerous, such as breaking safety ground, exposed circuitry, etc. If you hadn't interfered with my questions to DG, none of this would be taking place. But maybe it's a good discussion to have.
I have read very little about electronics from textbooks. I have written repeatedly, at the risk of boring the poor souls who read any of this, that I do often think outside the box, as much as I HATE that phrase. I have no formal training, so I am open to most new ideas. That's how I got over half my system built. There is very little conventional about it. But I do know about and respect science, and perhaps I am too rational to take some of the leaps I see described here.
I rely strictly on my (and others') sense of hearing to discern whether I have made improvements or not, but I change only one channel at a time so I can always make comparisons with a reference. I really try hard to make unbiased observations and critical evaluation. Although I, too, am old and my hearing is failing, I can still detect inner detail of the lower high frequencies and midrange, and spatial cues, as well as realistic tonality. I attend live concerts as a reference. I detest objectivists who rely strictly on measurements to evaluate fidelity. Wisdom takes science in its stride, then goes a step further.
If you are confident that a tweak is effective and you post details here, why do you feel it's necessary to offer a "scientific" explanation? You seem grounded in science, but what you put out here sometimes strains credulity. Perhaps, now that you seem to have a dedicated following here, you can simply post the tweak and pronounce that it sounds better, and that will be enough. I hear a sales pitch whenever the word quantum is thrown about. You don't need to sell anything here because it's all free.
And that's the beauty of it. Yes, we should all share, but we don't all have to accept what is offered, and we don't all have to agree that it's useful or practical. You want to try crystals, while I prefer trying caps or resistors. Any improvements these things make are incremental and should add up, but they might not. One risk you take with posting outlandish ideas and claims is that people will try them, detect no benefit, and give up when there are still other benefits to be gained via more, ahem, conventional means.
Another thing you risk by posting in a public forum is criticism. Again, I'm sorry if I was too harsh. I try to focus on ideas, but sometimes my hammer gets too big. But you must know that not everyone is going to accept your "out there" stuff, even without trying it. If your ideas are really that great, it's their loss. Don't take it personally, difficult as that is for all of us.
Of course the IC amps follow many of the proven design principles, but the fact that they're on an inexpensive chip (we're talking a single hamburger) and provide such a high level of fidelity at that low cost is revolutionary. Heard a chip amp? They're really quite remarkable when implemented correctly, and present lots of potential for tweaking. You want high fidelity at low cost, get your self a pair of LM3886 kits.
Peace,
Tom E
Actually non ferrous screws on a woofer are more audible. I presented my case for non magnetic screw to Carl Marchisotto of Alon( now Nola), He laughed and told me the magnetic field of his 12 inch woofers was easily measured 10 feet away. That was easily checked with a simple cpompass and later with a Lakeshore gaussmeter I scored.In older posts, I got into great arguments with Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica. Check out his explanations. In my mind and I deliberately challenged him on this, they were nonsense: pseudo scientific terms tossed out with really no science at all. The guy's no dummy, though, but he is misleading and I seem to see a more prosaic explanation being offered these days.
In presenting my tweaks I work long and hard to get an explanation , one rooted in real science, no matter how outlandish it may seem. If I don't know, I admit it. It's easier than making up BS
Why, you ask? Because it makes application easier and more effective.
With my current set up I get remarkable 3 dimensionality with even non audiophile recordings. One day I will post about the room treatments which make it possible and which are surprisingly inexpensive'
PS. I had contracted many years ago to custom build coupling caps from Southern F-Dyne (now part of electrocube). So I know a little about caps.
I am a strong advocate of diode decoupling, but when i post about it, no one listens or even tried the concept. But in my gear the decoupling diodes make a significant difference
Edits: 04/01/15 04/01/15
One day I will post about the room treatments which make it possible and which are surprisingly inexpensive'
can't wait for it!
:)
Your notions are absolutely correct! And I will continue to read what you write, knowing that it comes from someone who really cares about this hobby and is not afraid espouse his well-grounded and carefully formulated opinions. Good on ya, mate!!
-RW-
Tom E,
Feedback from testing a tweak is valuable. Positive observations by experienced audiophiles can take the tweak further forward and lead to cross-applications. However you do not post or test tweaks, do you? Your contribution is to make self-aggrandizing attempts at belittling the efforts of others rather than adding any information of positive value to the community like other experienced audiophiles.
Please do not suffer from the delusion that such a negative role has the social value of 'criticism'. Real 'critics' teach others through knowledge and insight, not by littering threads with extensive displays of ego and prejudice.
DG
I tried to be nice. I'll try again. I already wrote one pretty damn rude response to this personal attack, but I reconsidered and decided that's not very adult or productive, so I didn't post it. I suggest you consider your own comments before reacting with negative emotions.You never acknowledged the fact that I began my original post that started this whole thing, in response to your post about mounting felt to the front baffle, with a compliment about your tweak and about mentioning Madisound. Larry Hitch has been a friend of mine since before he founded Madisound. He and his staff have helped me and plenty of my friends build dozens of speakers over the years.
I guess you missed the alternatives I offered in my other posts, and you never addressed my concern about safety. Perhaps your "positive" contributions aren't really concerned with the possibility of electrocution. At least people will know whom to sue.
I wonder what it will take for you to see that I have plenty of experience with audio, building from scratch with my own and others' ideas. I have incorporated a lot of tweaks into my system, from vibration control to room treatments to upgrading components inside my commercial equipment, besides building my own. I probably spent more time deciding which resistor to use in the feedback loop of my amplifier (do you even know what that is?) than you spent buying your speakers. But every time I add a piece of damping or better connector I don't jump on here and tout it as the greatest development in audio and absolutely essential for the enjoyment of recorded music. I have shared the most useful information here and elsewhere. You won't see me post about extreme or untested tweaks. You will never see me advise people to apply grape jam to their interconnects to sweeten the sound. Only an idiot would do that. Everyone knows that grape jam creates too dark a sound, and that strawberry jam is preferable.
So you see, Dry, there are some tweaks that might not be suitable for sharing, or worth commenting on. That should not change the value of a person's life. Please chill just a little and let everyone express their opinion whether you agree with it or not. If you post on a public forum, you must accept the public's reaction.
Peace,
Tom E
Edits: 03/30/15
Tom E,
I respect audiophile experience that dwarfs mine (not a high bar) and daily observe how decades in this hobby can lead to both deeper knowledge/ perspective on the one hand and a potential for staleness from over-exposure that can turn into sour, 'know-all' negativity on the other. Assume that we are all first brought here by a passion for bringing the joy of listening to live music into our listening/ living rooms generally through improvements to reproduction techniques overlooked by manufacturers. Perhaps those using cynicism, skepticism, and mockery to disparage contributions of others that may have the potential to advance members' knowledge even a tiny step forward are showing how their over-exposure to the hobby has killed their passion. They then unconsciously set about raining, in some cases hailing, on posters whose reminder of their long-lost passion now excessively irritates them.
I post concepts/ideas that improve the sound quality with my system in this environment and the tweaks need to be adapted to best suit the system/ environment of others. Not being finished products, their individual implementation is the direct responsibility of those modifying them. When I managed to break a $267 LFD LE4 Interconnect PCB Board - Phono Block SGL 1043 when following a tweak posted here, that outcome had nothing whatsoever to do with the poster who remains blissfully unaware of it.
We all have different risk tolerances. Flagging the level of undeclared risk in a tweak comment is indeed valuable while being mindful that many are so initially intimidated by the whole exercise of opening up and tinkering with their equipment (often under warranty) that it can be over-stated so that they will never summon the nerve to start. That would rob beginners of remarkable improvements in sound reproduction at little cost to their nerves (when proceeding at their own cautious pace) and at modest expense.
Suspect that your much greater experience is the principal motivation for rubbishing my tweaks. You likely cannot believe that they can conceivably have any value so these concepts must be prejudicially dismissed out-of-hand without testing. I am no threat to your audiophile expertise whatsoever and would prefer friendly accommodation that would bring out the positive side of your considerable experience and leave us free to concentrate on enjoying this passion without distraction. It's up to you. And do share your unpublicized tweaks with us.
Peace,
DG
So you have passion and I have more experience. You keep making passionate proposals, and I will temper them with my experience.
No, I am not jaded at all. I still look for ways to improve the sound. Just finished making amp stands out of pieces of marble countertop I rescued from the dump, attached by a layer of silicone to plywood planks, all supported by two old sets of lightweight speaker spikes. End of vibration transmitted through floor, even though the amps sit within a few inches of my speakers.
Now I'm building a pair of back-loaded horn full-range speakers just to hear what all the fuss is about. Bought the Fostex drivers here on AA for half-price, and all the plywood was free when salvaged from a local building supply that closed and dumped its inventory in the parking lot! I am modifying the standard Fostex horn design because I've read they don't make the best use of the driver. Not just outside the box, a new box!
Jaded, no. Cynical, sometimes. More cautious than you are, always. I don't believe that any tweak, no matter what the extent, the cost, or the focus, is going to transform a system. You seem to regard every refinement as a startling rebirth, lifting "heavy veils" and so on. It just doesn't work that way. These are all baby steps, and they might all add up to something better, but it's not going to be a total makeover. I don't care how good or original or outside the box your tweak is. I have made plenty of complex or expensive changes and too many tiny incremental improvements to believe that replacing a few screws is going to lift veils. That's the part of your program I cannot condone. People read your stuff and expect the CSO to step out of their speakers into the room after they add a couple pieces of rope caulk. Doesn't work that way, of course, and so people get discouraged, possibly turned off completely to experimentation. If you wouldn't oversell these things, it would be a lot easier to accept your boundless enthusiasm, and more people might be willing to try your suggestions if you didn't promise such miraculous results from every one.
I encourage people to tinker with their equipment AND improve their room, which will probably pay bigger dividends than any amount of screw swapping. I also am conscientious to advise people to be careful, especially inside equipment, and to not alter any safety features. That is NOT ever an acceptable risk. Modern regulations sometimes go too far, but there are basic rules of safety that must not ever be violated. Of course, ruining a piece of equipment is always a risk, but everyone should realize that going in and be willing to pay the price. But risking safety should never be negotiated for improved audio.
Peace,
Tom E
In the 30 years of progress section, I forgot to mention an entire technology: digital storage and high resolution formats. What we can retrieve now from an SACD or blu-ray audio was unthinkable 30 years ago. I know the vinyl people will disagree, but our modern storage and retrieval far exceeds the original fidelity of analogue systems, with dynamic range and S/N that surpasses what one typically hears at a LIVE concert.
Also falling under the miniaturization category: SMT whereby an entire circuit of individual components can be condensed into a tenth or less the area it formerly required, with shorter signal paths and all the advantages that confers.
I'm sure there are other advances I've overlooked. There are plenty of downsides as well, but let's not dwell on those.
Peace,
Tom E
with most of what you say, but perhaps you should use more caution in describing every one of the technological innovations of the last 30 years as an "advance" in the reproduction of music for personal pleasure. Yes, those new technologies permit us to have smart phones and digital electronics, and etc., but the peculiar nature of what each of us regards as maximal aural fidelity to real music is not always well served by these modern technologies. To mount a highly complex circuit onto a tiny chip is a wonderment that all of us benefit from on a daily basis, but I probably don't want that chip anywhere near my audio system, except perhaps in a digital processor that I will use rarely. That's just my opinion, of course. You may think differently.
You are on the path of enlightenment and truth - good on ya!!
-RW-
Good on you Tom E and my apology to you.
Best to you,
pixelphoto (Marvin)
Thanks, Marvin. Your last post to me wasn't very nice, and I responded to it with something that was even less nice. I just deleted it.
Peace,
Tom E
Never forget my disappointment a few years ago on discovering that upgrading components, cables and speakers with respected names barely improved the sound quality. How could this be? Fortunately JD11 introduced me to this website where I deduced that, in all but expensive top-end products, component and speaker manufacturers deliver potential rather than actual performance. They put most of their money into design/ parts and economize on implementation so leaving us with this creative playground from which to gradually discover the full sound potential of their equipment mostly at little expense. But first there was the intimidating fear-factor of making some irreparable mistake when opening up equipment cases/ fiddling with parts to overcome. Dealer friends steadied the nerve and intimidation did not survive growing exposure to the reality that operating cautiously is unlikely to invite disaster.Listening to beautiful music at a much higher quality of reproduction is its own reward. Have observed three valuable side-effects of tweaking. First, a listening ear becomes a more discriminating ear that becomes a more discriminating ear that becomes a more discriminating ear... Secondly, the practice of listening with complete attention to the characteristics of the sound of the music inescapably develops a focus on the 'present moment' that is transferable. Thirdly, the breadth and depth of this creative field provides unusually healthy stimulation to an aging brain.
Am most grateful to all those who generously share their knowledge.
DG
Edits: 03/29/15 03/29/15
Agree with this wholeheartedly, Uncle!
In my forays into audio, with good ears, eager heart and very minimal pockets, I found real ideas and real friendship here.
Been away for a while and have lost the "bug", but still value the friendship and the ideas.
"Online" had "democratized" communication, but what it's truly primarily done is glorified and magnified opinion. That's just another opinion.... LOL
I'm hoping you 'catch the fever' once again, so we can all look forward to more of your thoughtful and informative posts. You and Al S were a really great team back in the day, and both of you were sorely missed by me and countless others. I know I always was happy to see your contributions, as they pushed the audio envelope and helped many of us to achieve better sound.
But even if you only participate in an 'observer' status, your contributions are not forgotten and your return is a very welcome thing, indeed!
Cheers! :-)
Thanks.
Hi. Stu;
Thanks for this posting and all your other postings!!!!!
That's why most of us are here: better sound, and for a lot less money!
Right on, Bro! :-)
Primary problems with this forum are the way some folks tend to react towards experienced tweakers who think outside the box, and towards posters who are innocently naive who simply need insightful information. Their posts are often met with personal attacks that become more about domination and self-aggrandizement rather than constructive audiophile feedback, like one might receive in a 3D reality face-to-face audio society meeting. It can be a beguiling thing to lose one's better nature via anonymity when participating in online forums. I like to think folks participation should be that of a desire to present a constructive perspective based on personal integrity and kindness rather than narcissistic indulgence, or simple rudeness for that matter. Thanks again for sharing, unclestu.
Some folks might miss the dual-meaning of the term asylum .
A mental asylum is one aspect of the word, while asylum from persecution is another.
Audio Asylum is best appreciated when both aspects are functioning well with equal impunity.
Folks should have the freedom to express audiophilia nervosa, without public ridicule from fellow AA Inmates.
my 2 cents
Thanks
One benefit of being harassed in AA forums is an opportunity to fine-tune insights omitted from the original post in contention.
After all is said and done, simply remaining on topic can be a winning score in the final tally.
Cheers, Duster
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: