|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.238.54.18
In Reply to: Re: My POV posted by john curl on March 22, 2007 at 10:03:56:
You know way, way more than I do about audio, okay? No reasonable person could doubt that, and I certainly don't. You've forgotten things I may never learn.I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations, which, frankly, make the industry and hobby seem tired, tradition-bound, the last refuge (along with cigars, Bordeaux, and other luxury consumer items) of over-privileged old white guys (a description that would fit me pretty well except that I'm only modestly over-privileged and I'm not particularly old, though I'm not young either.)
John, you're royalty in this world; I bow down before you. But that doesn't make you right. And that's what makes it fun.
Follow Ups:
> > "I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations," < <I would go along with and be quite OK with your description of a "fresh perspective" and "a refusal to accept these status-quo explanations" if I did not see you being HIGHLY SELECTIVE in this "refusal to accept these status-quo explanations".
You see Jim, I do not see you challenging John Atkinson's use of the Myrtle Wood Blocks. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "vibrations" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Wes Phillips use of the Shakti Stone. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "electromagnetic field" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Michael Fremer's use of the Furutech or Acoustic Revive de-magnetisers on vinyl records. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "magnetism" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Nordost and their liquid which they suggest people apply to the LABEL side of a CD and to the outer insulation of all cables. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "static" - a word you have heard of before in science ?"
I do not see you challenging Sonus Faber and their 'special lacquer' which they apply to their speaker cabinets and which they describe as 'friendly to audio'. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "resonance" - a word you have heard of before in science ?I do not see you asking John Atkinson "By what mechanism are the Myrtle Wood Blocks altering the audio signal ?" "Why do the Myrtle Wood Blocks have to be used in threes and why do they have to be the shape of the Golden-section ratio 'magic' dimensions ?"
I do not see you asking Wes Phillips "By what mechanism is the Shakti Stone having an effect ?"
I do not see you asking Michael Fremer "By what mechanism is the de-magnetiser altering the information stored on the vinyl record ?"
I do not see you asking Nordost "By what mechanism is your liquid affecting the sound ?"
I do not see you asking Sonus Faber "By what mechanism is your 'special lacquer' affecting the sound ?"I, personally, can accept that all these things affect the 'sound' because we (Peter and I) have been there, done similar things, heard the effect !!
In an earlier reply you stated that you thought that Richard Feynman would yes, probably, have been curious enough to have tried many of the things referred to as 'changing the sound' in audio, might have heard an improvement in the sound but then, eventually,
"would have concluded, after further investigation, that this was still more evidence for the power of suggestion and the fallibility of human perceptions. And he would have found it fascinating. He might even have tried the photo-in-the-freezer thing...but it would have been, for him, an experiment in the freakiness of human perceptions and the power of suggestion. And he would have found that no less interesting than if the effect had been real."
My understanding of Richard Feynman would suggest otherwise. That he would have gnawed at it like a dog with a bone, then, still not able to come up with an explanation would have placed the problem 'on a shelf', but would have returned to it again at some later time, taking it down from the shelf, dusting it off, looking at it again, because it would have niggled him !!!
It would have niggled him that he did not have an explanation - because this is what good scientists feel !!My reading of Richard Feynman is that he would not have so readily dismissed so many diverse people's observations as "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing." I see him as too great a scientist as that and too great a teacher of science as that.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May. There's a lot here to reply to. I probably won't have time to deal with all of it, but I'll give it a try.Please understand that when I say I have a fresh perspective, that's not some schtick I have adopted. Not unlike your theories, it's an after-the-fact observation, a tentative, interim assessment.
Your list is a curious mixture of things that make no sense--for which no mechanism is conceivable--and things that are fairly reasonable from a mechanistic perspective--which is to say that a lot of scientists wouldn't believe it would be audible, but most would acknowledge that there's a chance because potential mechanisms DO exist. So what you dismiss with a sneer as "my having heard the word once in science" (which if I were more sensitive I would find offensive, having spent many years struggling to understand the theories--by Feynman and many others--that you have encountered, if at all, only rendered into prose accessible by people who haven't paid their technical dues. But I digress) is in fact an awareness that, though it would require further study to determine whether the effect is real, there are cases in which it is at least POSSIBLE that it's real, and then there are the utter absurdities, like the chip and photos in the freezer and generalized, ethical "threat fields" that work the same way for chemicals as they do for e/m fields.)
If you think I'm intentionally avoiding offending anyone, I'l dispense with that right now.
myrtle wood blocks: may high-end manufacturers incorporate anti-mechanical-resonance technology in their designs, most often a big chunk of metal. A lot of attention is paid (by more skilled designers) to where their circuit boards are supported (i.e, whre you put the screws). Why? Because (as is well established and not the least bit controversial) mechanical vibrations do affect the performance of electronic circuits. I think people would find that those designs that pay the most attention to vibration control are improved the least by wood blocks (myrtle or otherwise). Supporting a component on wood blocks is a vibrational band-aid, and a reasonable ones. Does the type of wood matter? That seems a lot goofier, but I defer judgment on that out of respect for the accomplishments of Charles Hansen. "Golden ratio" dimensions? I don't believe this makes any difference at all. Marketing. And yes, I know about the Cardas connection, and their cables. (BTW, I bought some Jenga blocks a few weeks ago and tried them out. My son loves to play with them, but I haven't heard any effect in my system.)
* Shakti stones. Having played with these literally for years (along with the onlines) I'm a bit less charitable about these--but, again, theres a clear and obvious mechanism. They're a poor value, but they DO work. They don't do anything that (eg) a big glass of water wouldn't do, but who wants to put a big glass of water on top of their expensive preamp? (probably there are other materials that work just as well) Again, it's a band-aid. Well designed equipment is, well, probably not completely immune to RFI, but mostly immune. Do they work? I've never concluded that they affect the sound in my system--and I've listened to A LOT of different stuff, but they certainly reduce RFI, if only by a very small amount. Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio.
Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong.
A special lacquer on a speaker cabinet shouldn't make any difference except for speakers (like, I think, those Bosendorfer thingies--are they still around?) where the cabinets are SUPPOSED to vibrate as part of the characteristic sound. I've not listened to Sonus Faber speakers to any significant extent, but my impression is that their cabinets are very solid and non-resonant. If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference. I suspect this is a marketing claim, intended to exploit an implied connection to the fine Italian string instruments some of their speakers are named after. Notice that "friendly to audio" is pretty vague. An empty claim.
Nordost liquid? Never heard of it, never tried it. A static charge on speaker cables could affect the sound in principle, but I doubt it.
As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. I'm pretty sure, though, that he would not have shared your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason. You seem not to understand--even after I (and no doubt others) have explained it repeatedly, that it's uncontroversial and (in human terms) universal. Feyman would, I'm sure, have had far less trouble than you accepting this. If you could only get past this, you would see that the mystical explanations you dream up are unnecessary. Feynman would have seen that right off.
> > As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. < <Actually Jim, we have a pretty good idea...
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
- Richard Feynman
A very quick reply Jim.
With reference to what you call my snide remarks. I USUALLY try to cover my tracks to avoid any misrepresentation of my comments by saying "I am exaggerating here merely to make a point". I apologise for forgetting to do this.
Re Shakti Stones:-
> > "Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio." < <I made the point of stating that I accepted and believed that all the people I mentioned HAD heard what they said they had heard. I have no doubts about that - so I do not challenge their descriptions.
> > "Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong." < <I don't think Michael IS wrong about what he heard. I just don't think that the demagnetising is altering the information on the vinyl record. I think there IS something else going on. I believe that the improvement in the sound (the additional information Michael heard) was already in the room - that demagnetising the vinyl record changed the environment which allowed Michael to 'hear' (resolve) that information better !!! You say you haven't given it a lot of thought. Why not ? It is to do with audio and sound - the very subject you write about !! Aren't you the teenyist, weenyist bit curious ? I disagree with you about Feynman. HE was the most curious scientist I know - about anything and everything !!!
Regarding the 'special lacquer'. > > "If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference." < <
THAT is IT - That is the crucial sentence. And, if you WERE 'stunned' when you discovered that a special lacquer DID make a difference to the sound - what would you do ? Ignore it ? Dismiss it as 'suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing' ? Or, would you carry out some experiments ? Would you try to find out why ? Would you look for an explanation ? If you could not find an explanation from within the conventional electronic or acoustic theory text books would you look elsewhere for an explanation or would you give up ? If you found that you could apply this 'special lacquer' to the central heating radiator in the listening room, to the wall lights, to the piano, to the perspex lid of the turntable - to this, and to that, and gain improvements in the sound each time - and be even FURTHER 'stunned' to the state of being devastated by what was happening - what would you do then ? After spending 30 years of your life making state of the art speakers and headphones, working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories - what would YOU do ? Keep absolutely silent for fear of being ridiculed or would you tell other people involved in the world of audio ? To see what they made of it all ?
> > > "Regarding your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason." < < <
No, Jim, I don't think it is me who has the blind spot. Nor do I believe that what we have discovered is akin to a religious belief or conversion.
I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do - so if you do not reject it, then neither do I. I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. How I wish that 'suggestion etc and effective marketing' were that powerful.
Regards,
May Belt.
> > I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do...I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. < <On this at least we can agree. The difference, I think, is that I believe, from experience, that the exceptions are very rare, and you believe, from experience, that they are very common. I think you credit people's experiences too much, and you think I credit them too little. That's an interesting difference.
Who is demanding the status quo? I am up to learning new things, not being told that I don't know what I am doing or hearing by someone who hasn't even tried yet to try the same things that I have tried.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: