|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.116.186.171
In Reply to: Re: "it sounds as if I'm finding more and more detail" posted by KlausR. on March 12, 2007 at 04:49:20:
...but advance with such an approach will be terribly slow IMO.I hear you on the perceived detail issue, this is a bear to deal with at times. The only reason I put up with it is my experience indicates that 'small' advances add up to something MUCH bigger over time and taken as a whole. Incredibly so. Over the last two years my audio dollars, excepting a tuner purchase, have gone nearly exclusively towards tweaks by Machina Dynamica, Xtreme A/V, and Herbie's Audio Lab. It has been VERY apparent that these products have improved system performance to an EXTRAORDINARY level. Nothing short of miraculous to a technological trogdolyte such as myself.
Follow Ups:
I think I'd qualify myself more as skeptical, rather than blinkered. I think that it's reasonable to want to see solid evidence before paying big money. No evidence, no money. "It has been reported" is not enough for me to draw my chequebook.The biggest impact on the performance of my system had the new living room with dimensions according to Bonello, the acoustically effective ceiling, the speakers themselves. No intelligent chip is capable of lowering reverberation time, no green CD pen is capable of spreading room modes appropriately, no myrtle block is capable of improving bad speaker dispersion. Get the most important part of the system, i.e. speakers and room, right, then forget about the rest.
As usual, YMMV, my 2 cents, IMHO.
Used responsibly I applaud it actually. I also honor the sanctity of a persons will. Again, if used responsibly.As for forgetting about the rest, that's your prerogative. My prerogative is to push the performance envelope as best I'm able. I've found some tweaks to be highly effective in this regard. There is nothing wrong with either approach as ultimately we have only ourselves to please. You're pleased. I'm pleased. There's absolutely nothing not to like there.
If I have the budget, "It has been reported" is enough 'evidence' for me to investigate a given product if I feel sufficiently impressed with the person providing the recommendation. Just yesterday I had a friend contact me regarding his experience with the Acoustic System Resonators. He was wildly enthusiastic over the results he had obtained. Because of my regard for his opinion I would put them on my things to check out list, had I the means. Unfortunately I don't. He described the improvement as being 300-400% which of course is essentially meaningless except to say big. My own experience with some home brewed resonators incorporating Machina Dynamica Brilliant Pebbles have yielded some truly fabulous results as well.
Is there a point to all this? I'm not sure. ;-)
I think Alvin Firpo said it best when he said "You do what you do, I do what I do." Be blessed my friend.
Finally, I of course have to ask, "What are the Bonello dimensions?"
Bonello : A new criterion for the distribution of normal room modes,
JAES 1981, p.597For optimum room dimensions the following conditions should be met:
1. The curve spectral density of modes vs frequency should increase monotonically. Each one-third octave should have more modes than the preceding one.
2. There should be no double modes. At most, double modes only in
one-third-octave bands with densities equal to or greater than 5.
Schroeder : The "Schroeder frequency " revisited, JASA 1996, vol.99,
p.3240The Schroeder frequency fc is the frequency above which the standing waves are so closely spaced that they do not substantially affect the sound. It is dependent on room volume and reverberation time. The larger the room or the shorter the reverberation time, the lower that frequency. A low Schroeder frequency tends to make the frequency response smooth over a wider range.
The Schroeder frequency marks the transition from individual, well
separated resonances to many overlapping normal modes. It is
calculated as follows :fc = 2000 sqrt T/V
T = 60 dB reverberation time in seconds
V = Room volume in m3which has a a consequence that at least three resonances fall within the half-power bandwidth B (B = 2.2/T) of one resonance at frequencies above fc.
I choose to use Bonello rather than any of the other proposed methods (fixed ratio, Golden Ratio, Walker) because it's in line with the concept of the Schroeder frequency: the number of modes per 3rd-octave band rises up to a point where there are that many modes per 3rd-octave band that the individual mode is no longer distinguishable. Thanks to the acoustically effective ceiling our living/listening rooms has a (calculated) reverb time of 0.4 - 0.5 seconds which results in a Schroeder frequency of about 138 Hz.
Were you able to make any meaningful comparisons between your new room and the previous environment?
In this case it was not possible, since the construction of the new room included demolition of the rear wall of the old room. However, the old room was quite bad in all relevant respects, it was/is smaller, non-symmetric in the acoustical sense (left wall bricks, right wall bottom-to-floor windows, all surfaces acoustically hard, the speakers were on the short wall close to the side walls. Room treatment was not possible, that's why I bought those speakers since they were able to address some of the problems.
I trust you are satisfied with the new room. You seem to get involved with some pretty interesting projects. How would you describe the results you've obtained? Sadly, unless I move into new quarters at some point, I'll never have the opportunity to investigate these for myself. I'm still interested in learning about the details however, just in case.
The new room is better in all relevant aspects, reverb time is low such that intelligibility is outstanding, no more smearing, no more room boom. The overall response is much smoother due to the lower Schroeder frequency, so far I could not detect any room modes, and even if, my speakers allow for room correction, so it would be a matter of minutes to get rid of the mode. The speakers themselves provide crystal clear sound, without any stress or strain, even at elevated SPL.The speakers are on the long wall, so no more side wall reflections, thanks to the ceiling no more ceiling reflections, thanks to the good speaker dispersion the floor reflection is not really a problem. Definitely, the time I have spent in reading all those stuff about speaker design, psychoacoustics and room acoustics was well invested.
nt
but beware, except for the turntable, it's all studio gear, including the infamous "Perfect.Period." preamp:-)
...there being more than one way to skin a cat. And thanks for the invite, if I'm ever in your neck of the woods, I will be SURE to look you up.
you will have to hire a boat instead of a car:-) Amsterdam airport is at 6 m below sea level, our place is at -2. And our house doesn't float yet.
...and don't know when the opportunity will present itself again. But if it does, I'll be over to your place with bells on, provided you're still above water that is.
I go to a movie on a say-so, I try a new beer on a say-so, I read a book on a say-so. If I wait for all the "evidence" to mount and for the peer-reviewed journals to print it, the movie will be off the screens, the beer may become nla and the book available only in some cheaply-made paperback. Plus, everyone else will already have experienced them and be uninterested in my desire to discuss.People such as your antagonists seem never to enjoy themselves -- or the learning experience.
ii
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Your words.Having read the whole sorry JREF saga I am left wondering how you were so nervous about the exact, precise and totally stress free test conditions that you blew away $1M rather than do the test their way.
You could have walked it, Wellfed, with such EXTAORDINARY differences.
Specifics please.I can see where someone, so inclined, would buy into the picture Kramer took pains to create. What I don't understand is why they seem unable to see Kramer's egregious behavior.
Let's start with this, why do you think Kramer would feel the need to lie about our dealings, particularly asserting that he hadn't heard from me in a timely manner when he, in fact, had received correspondence from me just the previous day?
Kramer certainly comes across as a right PITA and very arrogant. Life is full of such people.You were after One Million Dollars!
However you never really got the hang of the idea that you were up for taking THEIR money and had to play by THEIR rules.
You were after One Million Dollars!
With endless delays and arguments about one or two markers, observers, videos, hiding the equipment etc etc you progressively came across as nervous, unsure, petulant and not at all confident that you could win unless everything was exactly perfect to your satisfaction or you could not hear the EXTRAORDINARY differences.
You were after One Million Dollars!
It ended up with them losing patience (remember most of the applicants are kooks so they must get very fed up with this!
Now you seem hung up on the assertion that Kramer lied to you. Maybe he did, but so what?
If you think they didn't want you to take the challenge it can only be that they believed you could win.
You did ask, and that is how I view it, without goig back and reading the whole thing again.
That's pretty much the way I saw it and I was there, watching it "live" thoughout the whole ordeal, even the threads that got deleted. It was one of those "watching a train wreck" sort of things.I think the bottom line is that they got tired and frustrated with Wellfed's demands and prerequisites and then realised he was not going to play by their rules (it's their money). That's when the whole thing fell apart and the back and forth between the two personalities got started. There were apparently alot of crossed communications and I don't think that breakdown helped things either.
I'm not defending Kramer either as he did come across as rather an ass but I can imagine his frustration after the overwhelmingly long period of time all this occured.
The crazy thing is THEY weren't willing to abide by their own rules. Specifically regarding dates. Their rules state that the testing need be accomplished within 6 months of the application date. I proposed test dates within their guidelines that were rejected for no other reason than they wanted to see an earlier test. They wanted reasons for everyone of my requests, they refused to provide me with any reason for their preferences. As per their usual policy they would take the contentions that arose and spin them in a way to make the applicant look bad. I never, EVER waffled on the dates I desired to be tested on. Is that the impression you were left with? Hell no. Kramer was more than just a "PITA", he was, and presumably still is, a conniving scoundrel. Trust me on this, with God as my witness, I would NOT say that about another human being lightly. I saw evidence after evidence of this in my dealings with him.It is unfortunate that I had events on my schedule at that time that I was not willing to compromise my enjoyment of by dealing with one so wicked. Had I not, I would have seen the 'process' through to the bitter end to expose the man for what he is; no good.
Sit down in a chair in a room with a stereo system and prove you can identify CDs treated with the Intelligent Chip. That's all.
So which rule(s) did I violate in the process of trying to get to that point?
Nowhere did I say you violated any rule(s). They simply wanted you to make up your freakin' mind about your "needs" to do the test and you could, or would, not.You carried on the same type of mind-numbing back-and-forth you're doing right now and THAT'S why the test fell apart.
Why would Kramer lie to you, about me? Why would he wish you to be deceived in the matter? Why would you choose to remain deceived by the guy?
a
Nothing more to add, really.
You are believing a lie if you accept things as they were made to appear. I'm surprised and disappointed too that you are willing to let a bald-faced lie slide past you so easily. One of life's mysteries I guess.
And I'll give you that it was, since there is no real evidence either way, just opinions (put me right on that one),Anyway, by that time the body was already a corpse and long beyond redemption.
It must be very difficult for your ego to accept that you blew $1M through intransigence. So now (ie since it happened) you claim your were cheated, lied to, etc.
Do you think you are blameless? Do you thing your behavour was OK?
Next question:Assuming Kramer lied in the instance noted, do you think that kind of character would have manifested previously in our dealings?
Hint:
It did.
Next question:
What does this say about the negotiation process?
It must be very difficult for your ego to accept that you blew $1M through intransigence. So now (ie since it happened) you claim your were cheated, lied to, etc.
My allegations are not new Cliff. If you check the JREF record you will see where I point out, or hint at, misdeeds on the part of Kramer quite early in the negotiations. Bear in mind that I showed restraint in this area because I was, in fact, trying to negotiate fair conditions in which to be tested. If you would look at the record you will see where I had little concern of the protocol itself and great concern over fair conditions, closely approximating my typical listening sessions as much as reasonably attainable. Do you think Kramer's call for me to have my back to the system fair or reasonable? Do you consider wearing a blind fold for the greater part of 5 hours per test (not iteration) reasonable? Even the deceived folks over at the JREF Forums were starting to become ill over his pronouncements.
Getting back to lies, and we've discussed only one so far, what is the intent of a lie? Is it not to deceive? Why would Kramer choose to deceive those following the proceedings?
Regarding my behavior, like everyone in a heated situation, I said things I'd preferred to have stated differently in hindsight. Let me tell you, manipulating connivers have a distinct effect on a person.
...but that FACT is not terribly germane to our discussion on the level we are at this moment.Let's personalize the question we're currently working on a bit and see if that helps matters along any.
Why would Kramer attempt to deceive Clifff, Ken Perkins, and AJinFLA, among others? I realize that we can only speculate.
...turn the system around and face the speakers to the corners. Good grief!
I've been hung up on that point since at least April 26, 2005 when I suspended negotiations with JREF because of Kramer's continued shenanigans.The "so what" involves Kramer being unable to negotiate his way out of a paper bag. If my experience is any indicator, and it should be, the JREF Challenge is a hoax perpetrated on humanity. I can, and will, point out many egregious acts if you are willing to listen. I wouldn't expect anyone to re-read the whole record, but at least look at the facts individually as they are presented.
I had been in a battle with Kramer over bad faith negotiations. I told him that I would suspend negotiations if that continued. His response was to lie to those following the matter and say that I had been remiss in contacting him. As a starting point with this discussion, why would he do such a thing?
You can get this Cliff, if you are willing to try that is. If we can't get past this lying point, any further discussion on the matter would be fruitless IME. I would like to find one person, with the objective bent, that is truly interested in learning the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
...in fields far apart from audio. The Challenge is pure PR.
"Kramer's egregious behavior"You'll have to specify that because we don't see it.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: