|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.227.128.246
In Reply to: RE: Absolute phase/polarity posted by Inmate51 on August 03, 2013 at 15:38:46
The trouble is they are all about measurements. It wouldn't surprise me too much if nobody in either organization has any idea what he's listening to or has ever tried to hear the difference in polarity. And since they aren't standards groups they presumably would have no real concern about polarity one way or the other.
Follow Ups:
I've been an AES member for decades. Its focus is the sound, as well as the role of measurements in designing and evaluating gear, studios, pro sound installations, and broadcasting. If you dig into the AES e-library, you will find a huge concern with the relationship of measurements to what we hear. (They have a bunch of Heyser's papers for example. Also, their big-deal event at the annual conference is the Heyser memorial lecture.) The other giant organization, the IEEE, *is* more concerned with standards, but then standards is their business.
BTW, for audio geeks in New York, the AES convention will be at the Javits center Oct 17-20. A ticket to the full conference is expensive, but you can fill up four long days from the couple hundred technical sessions they offer. You can also meet and talk with the engineers, producers, designers, and manufacturers. There are studio visits available during the run; Electric Lady Studios and WQXR come to mind from recent years. Two years ago Tom Fine showed slides and home movies of Bob and Wilma at work, someone showed film of Layton/Mohr tracking sessions, and Dae Bennett and Phil Ramone did a great show on the tracking sessions for Tony's "Duets" records. (Tony was sick that day, and couldn't be there, which was a shame.) A panel session of producer/engineers paired long-timers Tony Visconti and Bob Power with a couple young successful newcomers - that old-timer versus hot-shot format gave a vivid picture of what has changed in recording, and what hasn't. Doug Sax's mastering session on the loudness wars some years back really framed the argument that was, up until then, somewhat nebulous. Most of the schedule is on the AES site, and the rest should be filled in next week.
WW
New Orthophonic High Fidelity
"...but you can fill up four long days from the couple hundred technical sessions they offer."
I can barely contain myself.
nt
New Orthophonic High Fidelity
I would hope that you, as a manufacturer, are a member of one or both organizations, and have voiced your concern to them, and that you learn from papers presented by researchers in applicable fields.In any case, isn't the "debate" among audiophiles regarding the audibility of polarity/phase reversal really about quantifying - measuring - its audibility, via a statistical analysis of results under controlled conditions, rather than through anecdotal stories or off-the-cuff "tests"?
I'm not sure why a manufacturer would pooh-pooh measurable science in favor of - what?
If you know of a professional organization which has better science presented in its publications, please tell me.
Edits: 08/04/13
"I would hope that you, as a manufacturer, are a member of one or both organizations, and have voiced your concern to them, and that you learn from papers presented by researchers in applicable fields."I suspect they wouldn't think too much of me, either, you know, as someone much more interested how something sounds than how it measures.
"In any case, isn't the "debate" among audiophiles regarding the audibility of polarity/phase reversal really about quantifying - measuring - its audibility, via a statistical analysis of results under controlled conditions, rather than through anecdotal stories or off-the-cuff "tests"?"
No, actually the debate is about the differences in sound. I.e., is it audible, to what degree, what is it about the sound that changes? Things of that nature.
"I'm not sure why a manufacturer would pooh-pooh measurable science in favor of - what?"
Uh, in favor of how it sounds. In case you can't tell yet, I'm not real big on measurements.
"If you know of a professional organization which has better science presented in its publications, please tell me."
To be honest, I'd be much more interested in the opinion of someone who is rather experimental and who also knows what he's listening to.
Edits: 08/04/13
"No, actually the debate is about the differences in sound. I.e., is it audible, to what degree, what is it about the sound that changes? Things of that nature."
Yes... Statistically verifiable and measurable differences, done under controlled conditions, partly to learn about what's going on, and partly to remove some of the mystery about what we can hear, how we hear, how that affects the design of audio products, rooms, systems, etc., etc.
Oh, like Monday morning quarterbacks. Sure, there's always a place for those measurement guys. By the way, what did those guys ever conclude about high end cables, you know, under controlled conditions? Besides, I thought the whole world loves a mystery. Why spoil it?
Besides, I thought the whole world loves a mystery. Why spoil it?
It depends what you’re doing, an “air of mystery” can be great for selling things and a real roadblock to advancing or improving the state of the art.
Tom, get back to me when AES or ASA or whoever comes up with a scientific explanation for high end cables, directionality of fuses and wire, coloring CDs, Schumann Frequency Generators, Crystals, Mpingo discs, demagnetizing CDs and LPs, ionizers, WA Quantum Chips, tiny bowl acoustic resonators, etc. If you tell me those organizations have better things to do I will totally understand. Wink, wink. Meanwhile sit back and enjoy the mystery.
Edits: 08/05/13
Actually, it's not the organizations which do the research, it's the members, who are typically manufacturers or university researchers.
The orgs are merely a means of promoting research and disseminating the results to the professional world for consideration. They also promote the establishment of standards.
The AES and ASA also invite comments which point out flaws in published technical papers, and those comments are also posted in subsequent issues of the journals. Given your "manufacturer" adversarial stance to these organizations, I'd expect to see numerous and credible critical comments from you with regard to the content in their journals. Please, can you cite any?
Meanwhile, how about you post some verifiable and repeatable results from your audio research and products?
:)
Why do folks always demand test results or some such thing from manufacturers? There is no such onus on manufacturers. Have you never heard of third party independent verification and validation? What do you think would happen if military weapon systems were not tested by a third party? Do you think the military should just accept whatever data or test results the contractor provides at face value? So, what's next, demands for controlled blind testing? Wink, wink
Edits: 08/05/13
"Why do folks always demand test results or some such thing from manufacturers?"
First of all, "folks" don't "always demand" test results or "some such thing".
But it does seem like a reasonable enough request, especially when the "science" behind a product isn't generally well-known. And, it helps to take the "snake oil" aspect out of the picture and give the product some credibility.
So, what exactly do you manufacture? Snake oil?
"But it does seem like a reasonable enough request, especially when the "science" behind a product isn't generally well-known. And, it helps to take the "snake oil" aspect out of the picture and give the product some credibility.So, what exactly do you manufacture? Snake oil?"
I prefer to characterize my products by saying the science behind them isn't generally well-known.
:-)
Edits: 08/06/13
"I prefer to characterize my products by saying the science behind them isn't generally well-known. "
Well that would make them perfect for an AES technical presentation then.
When a manufacturer develops something “new”, one of the best ways to get technical credibility is to do a presentation showing how it works to other engineering types.
Assuming one can explain how it works (a requirement to engineer something) , it is one of the best ways to rise above the “kenoki foot pad” level of credibility / marketing.
The Kenoki foot pad was an example of a product which had a faithful following of believers who were disappointed when it was revealed that the “impurities” that leached out of your body, were actually contained within the pad and in reality it did nothing that was claimed.
The faithful were simply duped by what they wanted to believe the pads did.
A plausible sounding explanation and result that requires belief, is not the same as something based on a demonstrable scientific principal.
In other words, things based on scientific reality generally withstand the examination when exposed to the light of day, while phonies recoil from the same scrutiny
Nothing much grows in the dark, Tom
{Smile}
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Hey, Tom, anyone is free to try my products, which number twenty something, plus there is a 30 day guarantee fir all of them. I don't even mind if they emply controlled blind tests ir any type if tests they desire. I suspect orgs such as AES actually have no interest in pursuing new technologies, otherwise they would almost certainly have contacted me by now. Ditto ASA. Of course, it's possible the organization, or rather the individuals in the organization, might claim that they never heard of me or my products. And that response would certainly be understandable. Furthermore, I suspect once you raise the specter of quantum mechanics and things that don't operate directly on the audio signal, so-called audio experts are a little leery about getting involved, it's just not good for business, if you see what I mean. Business as usual, I should say.
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
When I first met John Curl in Montreux many moons ago, and he was going to assist in teaching me some things, the first thing he asked was "Do you know your differential equations?". At that moment, I knew I was in over my head, 'cause I didn't even know what a differential equation was.
:)
I taught John Curl how the Intelligent Chip works. You know, quantum mechanics. I tried to explain it to Jack Bybee, but he admitted his quantum mechanics was about 50 years out of date.
I am not sure you have the right image of what they do.
They do not seek out new things to review or act as a “police” agency, it is a place where the people with the discoveries can present them and explain them in hopes that they will be recognized as a breakthrough or as a technical explanation of how they work.
The audiences are the most technical people in the industry so even presenting there says something.
Also, since there are physicists who are into audio and even work for audio companies, there would be little risk presenting things using quantum mechanics as long as the explanation was consistent with what is known about that.
This is not the place to BS people however or to present something which cannot be supported based on engineering / physics .
If you can present a test where people that didn’t know what they were hearing could hear a difference between X and Y that would also be the basis to present a less tangible explanation.
Fwiw, I have demonstrated several new loudspeaker transducers and technologies live at both AES and ASA and found them to be very receptive to “new things” and an attentive curious audience.
I am an invited participant on a panel discussion on intelligibility for the next one in NY if you happen to present, I’ll look you up.
If you want to step into the next level of credibility, this would be a great thing to consider.
10-4 Tom.
I remember being at an AES convention in L.A. back in the 70s, when Dan Dugan presented a paper on his automatic muting feature for live sound mixers for conference PA systems. And then there was Cecil Cable who described his "foot-fall" device to make repeatable foot fall noise measurements for building construction spec verification. Oh, and someone who showed that tire/road noise was a greater sound source than engine noise with regard to vehicle environmental noise. And let's not forget that guy Matti Otala with his paper about crossover notch distortion in amplifiers. 'Course, then there's also the team of Stanley Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy.
And, that Richard guy. What's his last name again? Oh yeah, Heyser. And listening to John Hilliard go on and on about loudspeaker design, well, ...
What a bunch of closed-minded people!! ;) I can see why Geoffkait wouldn't want to hang out with any of them.
:)
...cables do not, and never will, "sound different". He exercised his ignorance extensively at the AES 91st. Just sayin'.
P.A.
Dick Heyser is one of my audio “hero’s”, I only met him once and didn’t say much (not wanting to put my foot in my mouth) but came away felling lucky to have been among audio giants that evening.
I have had a TEF machines for about 25 years now and between it and Dick’s writing, I could never have designed these loudspeakers without him.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nmmmdtum82lyig9/QnEaYWlnDE
As Don Davis once said, we stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us.
Armed with the truth, on need not fear the outcome of technical scrutiny.
Hey Tom, that's very cool that you had a chance to talk with Richard Heyser. People like he and John Hilliard (who I had lunch with, along with Cecil Cable and Ron Streicher), Don Keele, Harry Olson, and others are like rock stars in the audio world.
:)
I'm pretty sure I have the exactly the right image for what they do. If you can access the archives of the Journal of Acoustical Society of American there was a kind of tongue in cheek article on Machina Dynamica, my co., around six years ago. I am pretty sure that article illustrates my point perfectly. Old and in the way I think better characterizes that sort of mind set, you know, rather that open-minded and curious, two requirements for real scientists the last time I looked. Why would I put myself in the position of beng peer reviewed by an organization that is no more tolerant, open-minded, or curious than say Hydrogen Audio or DIY Audio?
Edits: 08/07/13 08/07/13
"If you can access the archives of the Journal of Acoustical Society of American there was a kind of tongue in cheek article on Machina Dynamica, my co., around six years ago. I am pretty sure that article illustrates my point perfectly. "
No doubt, you wrote a response to the article, and they published it. Both the AES and ASA are in the habit of publishing replies from the author of an article or from the subject person/company of an article. What did you write to them as a response?
I did not respond to the article, actually. What could I possibly say? That's kind of the whole point.
"I did not respond to the article, actually. What could I possibly say?"You could have refuted untrue statements, and clarified the rationale of your science. It was a perfect opportunity to speak to the professional community and earn credibility.
Geoff, really, if you don't have a leg to stand on, scientifically, just say so. But don't go around bad-mouthing other people who clearly know what they're doing - it makes you look silly and petty.
Edits: 08/07/13
I think you probably need to read the article before you go accusing me of anything. Your attitude is well just as silly as AES, if you don't mind my saying so too much. You do realize dismissive attitudes are not very scientific, don't you?
Edits: 08/07/13
No, I haven't read the article. What article? Can you point to it? I'm not going to sit here are try to find "an article" from "about six years ago" when you've not even cited a title or an author. When you do, I'll look into it.
For now, I'll reply to this:
"Your attitude is well just as silly as AES, if you don't mind my saying so too much. You do realize dismissive attitudes are not very scientific, don't you? "
Silly as AES? Dismissive attitudes? Who's being dismissive and not very scientific here, Geoff? I'm aware that you've been laughed off at least one other audio forum. Here's your chance to step up and set the scientific record straight with regard to yourself and professional associations. Simply scoffing at others isn't doing you any good.
:)
As it turns out the letter that appeared in the Journal of Acoustical Society of America can only be viewed by logging into the ASA archive. Will you take my word for it? Being snide and dismissive is not being scientific, even though you apparently think so.
give me some data such as author, title, volume no., issue no.
Klaus
"A short history of bad acoustics"
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1807 (2006); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2336746 (9 pages)
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in.
Here's the part of that article where Machina Dynamica is mentioned:
#########################################################################
B. Snake oil for the ears
The fact that the human auditory system is connected to the human brain makes it a marvelous subject for study, but it also means that we are capable of being fooled about what we are listening to. This, among other factors, has made objective assessment of subjective listening experiences very difficult, and easily swayed by suggestion, a fact that is exploited by many purveyors of devices that purport to improve sound.
Architectural acoustics was prey to a form of this delusion as recorded by Sabine (stretched wires in churches, court rooms, theatres).
Many readers will know of the long debate over the importance of Stradivari’s varnish to the sound of his violins. Consider, then, the claims made by luthier Dieter Ennemoser for his C37 varnish.
Once the sound has left the loudspeaker it still needs to survive transmission through the room.
"Brilliant Pebbles is a unique room & system tuning device for audio systems and satellite TV. Original Large Brilliant Pebbles is a 3-inch clear glass bottle containing various minerals/stones. A number of highly-specialized, proprietary techniques are used for preparation/assembly. Brilliant Pebbles acts as both a vibration “node damper” and EMI/RFI absorber via various atomic mechanisms in the crystal structures. On the floor in room corners, Large Brilliant Pebbles reduces comb filter effects caused by very high sound pressure levels that occur in the corners when music is playing. Large Brilliant Pebbles is also effective on tube and solid state amps, on speaker cabinets, on armboards of turntables and on tube traps and Room Lenses."
The doyen of this field is Peter Belt, whose products have a small but devoted band of followers who seem to be convinced beyond doubt that their listening experience has been enhanced by the use of his products. And how could they not, after all. If the actual effects of these foil strips, jars of stones and varnish might seem negligible the prices charged for them are certainly not; readers are invited to guess what they might be before investigating for themselves. Of course, the actual value of any such device can be separated from the psychological effect of its presence and price on the listener by careful double-blind testing. Sadly this is strongly resisted by a significant proportion of the audiophile community. Until it becomes commonplace it will be hard for those who seek to improve Hi-Fi systems by legitimate means to distinguish themselves from those who just sell false hope. As a last psychosociological note it is worth pointing out that such devices are given short shrift in the world of professional audio systems, where the audience neither knows nor cares what has been done to the equipment, and is therefore immunized to the power of suggestion.
#########################################################################
What could you possibly have said in a letter to the editor? Maybe you could have provided some solid evidence that the devices work as claimed? Maybe you could have provided some solid scientific/technical explanation about how they work?
Klaus
"Of course, the actual value of any such device can be separated from the psychological effect of its presence and price on the listener by careful double-blind testing."
You are falsely conflating "value" with "physical effect". Value is an economic concept, not a physical one. As such, a product has value according to the subjective judgement of a purchaser. There is no objective standard of value, as the value of an object varies as a function of time, place and person.
If someone is happy with their purchase of an audiophile doodad, that product has value to them. (You may think they are a fool and they may think you are a nerd. Such opinions are of no value or physical effect.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Good question. Most likely, considering the audience, the less I say the better. The mainstream audio industry was not ready for the intelligent chip or crystals 8 years ago. I hate to judge things too quickly but I suspect it still isn't. As you know I did provide solid scientific explanations for how they worked - eight years ago!
“As you know I did provide solid scientific explanations for how they worked - eight years ago!”
As you know I had contacted Altewischer himself, and he and his colleagues were laughing back then and must still be laughing.
Altewischer, Nature, 2002: “Experimental realization of quantum entanglement is relatively easy for photons; a starting photon can spontaneously split into a pair of entangled photons inside a nonlinear crystal.”
This using a 240 mW krypton-ion laser beam of 406.7 nm wavelength, which isn’t exactly the wavelength of a CD laser! And a photon being split in two isn't exactly the same as two photons encountering each other on a random basis!
A solid scientific explanation? In your book maybe, not in mine. Get your explanation published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, or in Nature, or in Science, then, and only then you may call it solid.
So I'd say, no, mainstream audio industry professionals are no more ready today for such gadgets than they were 10 years ago, and for good reasons.
Klaus
Nice to see nothing has changed. No surprise here.Of course the important thing is if milk squirted out of Altewischer's nose when he laughed.
Mainstream professionals? Now there's a group in need of a serious makeover. :-)
"Just what makes that little old ant / Think he'll move that rubber tree plant / Anyone knows an ant, can't / Move a rubber tree plant / But he's got high hopes..."
Edits: 09/13/13
"Mainstream professionals? Now there's a group in need of a serious makeover. :-)"With or without the smiley, you've dismissed the scientific community in several of your posts. Yet, you have completely failed to offer even a single shred of evidence to justify doing so.
What exactly is it that disqualifies people like Hilliard, Lansing, Heyser, Toole, Small, Thiele, Linkwitz, Curl, Beranek, Otala, and many others from earning your respect for their work?
For some inexplicable reason, you cling to some notion that the scientific community is misguided, yet you offer no coherent explanation as to why, nor do you offer any evidence that your so-called "solutions" do anything other than to affect the psychological disposition of the buyer and to line your wallet with money from unsuspecting and gullible customers. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Edits: 09/13/13 09/13/13
You forgot the pseudo skeptics' favorite admonition::"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The inmates are restless.
Smiley face
Edits: 09/13/13
"You forgot the pseudo skeptics' favorite admonition::"
Actually, I didn't forget anything, Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica.com, except to mention Geoff Kait and Machina Dynamica.com.
I wrote exactly what I intended to write.
And of all the opportunities you've had to state your case for your machina dynamica "products", Mr. Geoff Kait, and dismissing the audio & acoustical professions, you still fail to offer even one coherent thought which backs up any of your assertions.
I'd be happy to reply to anything you say of substance. Until then, Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica, you have no, none, zero, credibility, and, as I wrote in a previous post, you should be ashamed.
I couldn't possibly respond with less substance than that. Mainstream professionals everywhere must be getting a little nervous.Have you considered taking a nice cold shower?
Edits: 09/13/13
I guess you figure that would make you equals.
Your oh-so snarky comeback is now awaited. 1, 2, 3, ...
How could I possibly out snark the old snarkmeister?
You're doing it again - no facts, nothing substantive, no meaningful reply. Have you got an "article" (now a "letter") title, author, issue number, or ANYTHING to go on? (If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you have the entire text practically at your fingertips.)And, no, I'm not going to take your word for it. You've already called the AES "silly", you've changed your characterization of the ASA piece from "article" to "letter", you've called me "dismissive" when you've done the same to two of the top audio and acoustical professional associations without anything to back up your assertion, you've called me "snide" when all I've done is ask for something - anything - that means anything. But you continue to spout nothing but vapid platitudes and meaningless assertions.
Why on Earth would anyone take your word for it?!
Edits: 08/14/13
"I suspect orgs such as AES actually have no interest in pursuing new technologies, otherwise they would almost certainly have contacted me by now."
Oh yea, that's bound to be it.
Perhaps if you were to join and offer to present a paper?
Just a thought...
Rick
That's so funny. Apparently I have more experience with both AES and ASA than either of you guys. I'll go out on a limb and say that both organizations are simply old and in the way of real progress, preferring to rest on their laurels.
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: