|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.178.57.241
In Reply to: Re: Audio academe is embodied by the AES. Have you read their Journal lately? If so... posted by May Belt on April 4, 2007 at 14:33:02:
...to the labels of vinyl records, to the outer insulation of cables and gain an improvement in the sound, then this means that there was a problem there previously which had not been identified..."That statement is all about perception, which is neither quantifiable nor measurable.
Follow Ups:
Wow, so it's perception !! Now, why didn't WE think of that ? To think we have been struggling, all these years, to try to find out what the heck is going on, when it should have been 'staring us in the face' all this time - the explanation is perception !!! Mind you, we have been offered many explanations to choose from.
"Perception" from BS64,
"Suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, effective marketing - and recently Virgin piss" from Jim Austin,
"Audio faith healing" from 4 seasons
"Using specially blessed pens" from Scooter123.
To name but a few !!Or, BS64, were you merely saying that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be investigated ? Oh dear me. That means that (to name just one) Lister's concept of 'the germs are in the air' would never have been investigated - under the rules you apply !!!
Now, where were we ? Oh yes, I forgot, back to struggling to find out what the heck is going on !!!!
Regards,
May Belt
"this means that there was a problem there previously which had not been identified...""No it doesn't. It means that the listener heard a difference. I
understand your point - WHY did the listener hear a difference? No one will probably ever know. But it does NOT mean that there was a problem that was rendered non-problematic after the "treatment". It only means that there was a perceived improvement in the playback.
"WHY did the listener hear a difference ?"You have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly it !!!! THAT is exactly why so many people are struggling to find out why !!
It does not matter whether the difference heard was an improvement in the sound or a worsening. If it should not have happened, then it should not have happened !! And, if it happened, and if you are seriously involved in the audio industry, then you have to find out WHY !!! If you are a manufacturer of audio products, then the sound of your equipment is under the control of what people do with the chemical under discussion (or any other chemical - or any of the numerous other 'tweaks') !!
If the sound of the $5,000 CD player, the $5,000 amplifier, the $10,000 speaker system can be altered by what chemical people apply to the label of the CD or to the outer insulation material of the cables, then this means that the $5,000 CD player, the $5,000 amplifier or the $10,000 speaker system can be made to sound worse or better at the whim of a chemical !!! IRRESPECTIVE of which manufacturer made the actual audio equipment or how much it cost !!! IRRESPECTIVE of it's measurements and how much technical skill is involved in it's design !!!
THAT, BS64, is why so many people are struggling to find out why !!!
If you are a manufacturer of audio equipment and you realise that there are certain things which can affect the 'sound' then you have to investigate - correction - if you are a 'professional in audio' then you SHOULD BE investigating !! Otherwise the sound of your equipment is left completely to 'chance' - to the whims of whatever the people demonstrating it are doing.
This is exactly what Ivor Teifenbrum realised over 25 years ago when he discovered that passive speakers, in a retailers demonstration room, had an adverse effect on the sound of the speakers which were being demonstrated ! He also demonstrated to various journalists the adverse effect of a telephone in the room where people were trying to listen to music. He could have those journalists smiling at the sound of his Linn turntable arm and cartridge, Naim amplifiers and Linn speakers or he could have them cringing at the sound of the SAME equipment - depending on what he did to the telephone !!!It was during our own investigations, attempting to confirm what Ivor had been claiming (that passive speakers and a telephone, in the room, had an adverse effect on the sound) that we went on to discover how batteries, and magnets, and eventually chemicals were also a problem - IN THE ROOM !!!
The numerous and various "Tweaks" which people are reporting - which are giving them surprising improvements in their sound - are telling the audio industry something and they cannot (should not) be dismissed with the simplistic "Oh, people have just heard differences etc." "It's all in the mind."
Please give people credit for having the intelligence to know whether they heard just a 'difference' in the sound or whether they heard an improvement or a worsening !!
Just imagine you are listening to some music and you then position a few room diffusers around the room and you listen again. This time you hear greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation of instruments and you say "That is an improvement. There must have been some acoustic problems I had not been aware of before."
No hesitation on your part. You know what you have heard. You have heard an improvement in the sound and you realise that there must have been an acoustic problem previously. But, this interpretation and realisation that there must have been a problem previously is because you have an understanding of acoustics.
Now. On a different occasion. You have exactly the same experience - - you hear greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation of instruments but this time all you have done is to apply a chemical to the labels of the vinyl record you are using. Surely, you will have exactly the same interpretation of what you have experienced ? What is different ? Surely the only difference is that you know you cannot have altered the acoustics, you cannot have altered the signal so you have no understanding as to what has happened ? It is the understanding (or lack of understanding) which is different - not the experience or the interpretation of the experience !!Now, let me turn it round 180 degrees. You apply antistatic chemical A to the grooves of a vinyl record and you gain an improvement in the sound !! You apply antistatic chemical B to the grooves of a vinyl record and the sound is worse !! Both chemicals A and B have dealt with the static problem perfectly OK but chemical A gives an improvement and chemical B makes the sound worse ! It does not make sense !!
But, if you manufacture audio equipment you HAVE to investigate - you HAVE to gain an understanding. Otherwise the sound of your equipment will be completely at the mercy of which antistatic chemical the retailer uses - the very retailer whom you are relying on to demonstrate your equipment !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Studies have consistently shown that merely telling an audiophile that you have two components (A and B) for a comparison, when in fact there is only one component in use, will lead to audiophiles saying they prefer either A or B between 50% and 75% of the time, when in fact they are listening to the same component playing at the same volume meaning THERE IS NO POSSIBLE AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE!If you trust the reliability of a Golden Ear audiophile who reads a positive review and then auditions a new audio product or tweak with a salesmen like you telling him what to hear, then you have learned absolutely nothing of value as an audiophile.
Perhaps this 'I know what I hear and could not be wrong' belief puts money in your pocket ... "I know what I hear" is more audiophile ego than fact.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
No you don't!! There are hundreds of aftermarket tweak products available, along with a household full of free stuff that any idiot could slap on a cd, lp or cable, or on/under a component. And whether or not it makes a difference in the sound (good, bad or otherwise) is up to the applicator/listener.How is a manufacturer supposed to design around an infinite number of possible tweaks or combinations thereof? They can't. It only makes sense that gear be designed using above average ic's and stranded cables. Let the end-user decide which aftermarket ic's, cables and tweaks provide the presentation he/she is listening for.
Yes, some gear is "voiced" using wires, amps or speakers from a particular high-end manufacturer. But buying a combo of such products is not a guarantee that the presentation will be to the end-user's liking. That's why there are so many different design philosophies from the manufacturers.
IMO, one must start the process of building a system with the stuff that is IN the signal path. Not near it. If you believe that arbitrary, inanimate objects in the room might be affecting the sound you are hearing, you will never know where to begin or when to stop.
Buy good gear, set it up properly, then sit back and listen. Don't sweat the small stuff (the bottle of aerosol air freshener sitting on the shelf in the same room). You will drive yourself insane...
What I read in your reply is the words and attitudes of a "pre-Belter". Because once you latch on to the products/ideas, all of that changes. Of course there are many "tweak" products available, and many things someone could slap on a cd/cable, or under a component, and -of course- whether it makes a difference is up to the listener. But the yardstick you're using is a wildly varying one. The accessory products vary in their strengths, and just slapping any product or item you have around the house on a cd/lp/cable is unlikely to produce good results. It's not that easy to find ideas that work.How is a manufacturer supposed to design around an infinite number of possible tweaks or combinations thereof? Very simple. They DON'T. I don't know what your experience with the manufacturing trade is, but they don't take every possible combination or effect that could change the sound. And that's presuming they know what they all are, which no manufacturer does. The correct answer to your (rhetorical) question is that manufacturers -focus- on whatever aspect of sound reproduction interests them. One might argue there's a near infinite number of possibilities for cable geometry/design, amplifier design, cd player design, etc. And every little part that a manufacturer uses in an electronic component may have many alternates. You're not expected to try them all, you're only expected to produce something that sounds good to you.
One might also argue -against- your statement that "it only makes sense that gear be designed using above average ic's and stranded cables". Many claim that science is on their side when they say "above average ic's and stranded cables are a myth", RIC is all that matters. So you should recognize that what make sense to -you-, only makes sense to -you-. Which is why I agree again that we should let the end-user decide which aftermarket ic's, cables and tweaks provide the presentation they are after. Where the problem lies, is where many won't ever try products that challenge their orthodox views, and for which they can't or won't understand how they work. So they cut themselves off to a great deal of products that may provide the presentation they are after.
"If you believe that arbitrary, inanimate objects in the room might be affecting the sound you are hearing, you will never know where to begin or when to stop. "
It's not a "belief". Arbitrary inanimate objects actually do affect the sound you are hearing. "Knowing where to begin" is easy. Knowing when to stop is no different than with conventional audio products. If you start building an audio system when you're 12, does that mean you're addicted to improving your audio for life? For some it is, and they don't mind that at all, since they have perpetually better sound and better enjoyment from that. And for them, the great thing about audio is, you can always improve your sound. For others they say "this is the end of the line for me". This doesn't change because of the audio products you choose to buy, you know.
> > Yes, some gear is "voiced" using wires, amps or speakers from a particular high-end manufacturer. But buying a combo of such products is not a guarantee that the presentation will be to the end-user's liking. That's why there are so many different design philosophies from the manufacturers. < <
I agree. However, I must say for some 20+ years there's been an exception to that rule, which is that buying any combo of products from PWB -is- a guarantee the presentation will be to the end-user's liking (if previous products have been). That's because they are unique, being the only line of audio related products that don't really rely on a "design philosophy" from the manufacturer. I've never tried a product of theirs that wasn't to my liking, and I've never heard another customer say anything like "I didn't like the sound of this one. It didn't synergize with my cd player". Primarily because conventional products change -components- of the sound. So what they change shouldn't exaggerate the sound you already have, otherwise you'll have a conflict, which is called "bad synergy". The PWB products, while they each have their own qualities, change the sound in a -global sense-.
> > IMO, one must start the process of building a system with the stuff that is IN the signal path. Not near it. < <
That's obviously an opinion only based on your experiences with the stuff that is IN the signal path. So it can only and will always be a one-sided opinion, that does not see all of what is true, or all of what is possible. The biggest influence on your sound is what is outside of the signal path (ie. your mind), not in it. I do agree however, that one must start the process by focusing on what is in the signal path. Even these esoteric audio products do require a working hifi system!
But your view is that once you've got a working hifi system, you should just "set it up properly, then sit back and listen". That won't resolve the problems you're not aware of, that create a barrier to what you can acheive with that working hifi system. That may be okay for someone who just wants a radio in their bathroom that's "showerproof". It is not the basis for an audiophile system. If you are a music lover who wants the best sound at the best value, then you do need to "sweat the small stuff"; the stuff so "small" you don't see it or think about it. But its not difficult to do, and you don't have to be obsessive about it. So no, I don't think you need to "worry about the bottle of air freshener sitting on the shelf in the same room" as you say, that's just plain silly. Unless of course it has a barcode on the bottle.
"So no, I don't think you need to "worry about the bottle of air freshener sitting on the shelf in the same room" as you say, that's just plain silly."If you believe so highly in Belt's products, you would know that it is recommended on their web site to treat, with their products, all aerosol products within the home of which your listening area resides. Here's a direct quote:
"The human senses are capable of being adversely influenced within a listening room by any aerosol which is present within any of the rooms of the home. All aerosols should be treated with either the P.W.B. Red ‘x’ pen or, at least, with a strip of the standard Rainbow Foil."
I suggest you get your checkbook and start writing before you dim the lights and begin listening. You obviously haven't treated everything in your environment...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: