| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Ethan has much credibility with me, too.
(Except the "all gear sounds the same" stuff, but that's a disagreement within the hobby that does not diminish his otherwise great contrubutions.)
That's not what I said.
Pardon me.
Change that to:
Ethan has much credibility with me.
Hey! Let's get back on topic here. Buddha requested us to invent some as yet, uninvented audio tweaks. I like this idea. Invent a need and formulate a solution to the invented need. How about this.
A new kind of cable that uses IONIC instead of electron conduction. For this we will need some pretty exotic componds but hey! its audio nirvana we're after here, not a flippin' cure for cancer or something stupid like that. So how can I convince people that having ionic conduction is better than electron conduction hmmmmmmm... OH OH! I know! Tell them its BETTER! More of the original music comes through... in fact... in fact... there's stuff in there that nobody even knew was there !!!!!!!!!!!!! It's incredible! You can hear Mozarts cat sneezing in this concerto even though it was recorded, direct to vinyl, in 1993! WOW!
Surely this is no sillier than the Medusa Quad Fangler that spins your CD's around in the presence of a magnet.
Oh and while I'm posting I'd just like to acknowledge KBK for his observations on the Suggestions of Physics. How old fashioned to call them Laws! Listen matey when you have some proof that Newtonian physics are just a passing fad, bring it to the notice of the scientific community, they'll be thrilled. Oh, and avoid sharp objects.
The problem lies within the point of thinking of them of as being 'laws' which could not be further from the truth.
If one wants to dump on the idea of innovation and new, then continue to cast them as 'laws' every chance you get.
The problem being, that the history of science has shown that things always get overturned, changed, altered, added to and/or outright dumped, over time.
If 10 million classically trained scientists keep wandering down the same well worn road and get no-where against the same limiting brick walls...then who's to say their positions are entirely correct? A minimum of 2, possibly 3 courses on basic psychology should be the basic requirement for a degree in physics. Perhaps we'd have far more innovation and actual thinking in science at that a point. A critical point of understanding that is sorely missed in modern science. Urinating on the other 50% of human existence that balances out reality as we know it, in favor of linear thinking, is not a good way to achieve balance in the system.
So every time someone comes along and mimics the idea of their parents talking to them and telling them what they can and cannot do, and doing their emotionally illiterate and derived damnedest to inflict exactly that view upon others..as a reflection of their projections....I very strongly go out of my way to 'smack that bitch up'.
Otherwise,as stated, we end up stifling innovation.
The point, again, is we know maybe 10% (even that-is an unknown) of what the universe is. Only an idiot would think that the bit we think we know, which we constantly have to re-consider and re-write--- applies to the huge unknown rest of ...whatever.
That others cannot deal with these basic points, is not something I don't like -or cannot afford to be- pandering to. Lord knows I've tried every single way. Scientists are known for the gift (specifically those who specialize in mathematics) of very high levels of linear thinking. Which usually means a lack of lateral capacity, the kind needed to balance out a given basket of personal psychology.
Give a physical law fanatic a chance, he'll step into the breathings space provided between the two for a nice reasonable debate..and scream his position from the space for breathing...that he just stole.
So I learned, over time... to give no quarter and no space.
Depending on how an outsider viewed that situation, that would either place you on the same side as your opponent or smack in their face. One seems ultimately ridiculous and the other ultimately ridiculouser. Assuming, that is, that "a nice reasonable debate" was the intent.
Each situation on it's own, of course. If a nice reasonable discourse is not possible, I'll generally walk away.
If it's a public discussion, and the intent of the person who's arguing physical law (as I've stated it) seems incapable of reasonable position in the given discussion, then I might get to be 'seemingly unruly'. My point is I don't want the scientifically uninitiated to consider that THE LAW is all that there is in human existence.
In a private discussion,that turns out to be unreasonable?? I won't even be in the room. No reason for it.
I gotta put in a good word for science and physics here.
If every nut job who pointed out that his theory is correct because Einstein failed math (or that they laughed at Einstein when he 'invented' relativity) were given a nickel, we'd be out of nickels.
Every freak who sleeps under a pyramid or wears magic magnetic bracelets seems to think that by criticizing the scientific method or the current scientific paradigms that he is somehow validating his own insanity. (This is not directed at you, KBK. No connection to you or your product is implied. I'm just talking about the 'usual' nut cases.)
There is some underlying 'stick it to the man' kind of feeling that many people seem to relate to, so when a kook with an useless product wants to gain traction, he does it by tapping into that feeling by saying that he's 'sticking it to the science man' and that's why his product is criticized by "science."
It's gotten to the point where we have these dolts taking over school boards and trying to foil the whole notion of science...to be replaced with God knows what. They're just hoping that whatever brand of BS they pipe into the classroom will lead to more compliant socio-religious zombies, I guess.
Science deserves a little more credit than it's been getting lately. Can you name a branch of faith that keeps records of when it has been wrong?
Can you name a branch of faith that includes hypothesis testing or making measurable predictions about the world?
Science jettisons that which is not worthy, but since we are humans, we may have troubles when paradigm shifts occur; but that's not a sign of science failing, it's a sign of humans being human. KBK was dead right about the importance of understanding psychology, even in the 'hard sciences.'
A great book for Hi Fi readers to check out is Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
So, please keep in mind, not every yay-hoo who has a bad idea really has a great idea that is being suppressed by science. Most times, a yay-hoo is just a yay-hoo.
(Edited for spelling.)
Nicely stated, Buddha.
My experience is that research scientists - the people on the cutting edge - are an amazingly fun and open lot.
I find much more dogmatism among engineers - not to pick on engineers; they have to make stuff work and need to deal with what is explicitly known and time tested. Even among engineers however is an excitement for what is new.
It is generally lay people who are dogmatic with respect to their understanding of science.
"You lay down with dogmatic, you wake up with stick shift." -Confusions
Us poor old engineers, stuck in our rigid framework, unable to embrace change. What a dull lot we are
.
KBK's verbose rhetoric always seems to say the same thing on the subject of science. He is constantly striving to build a case for subjective conclusions. Objectivism be damned! What goes up may appear travelling sideways in a parallel dimension! The amusing thing about this is that the "Laws" of physics are some of the building blocks of human scientific knowledge. No pair of golden ears can scrub out these basic principles. Still they try.
I'm happy to stay in my paradigm, the laws of physics work just fine for me. I'm not trying to sell any pseudo scientific wonder product. I just deal with real engineering issues day to day.
HEY! Was that Mozarts cat sneezing!
Exactly my point. Newtonian physics does the job nicely for our day to day existence. Engineers need to be practical, realistic - they have to design things that actually work and work well.
A clarification for everyone: The word "theory" as used in science is not used in the ordinary sense as meaning a "guess" or "hunch." A scientific "theory" is a logical, rigorously tested, well-supported explanation of an aspect of the physical world.
In physics, the theory of gravity explains such facts as the rate of acceleration of falling objects. No one disputes the "theory" of gravity or the immutable physical laws which describe gravity; every single time you drop your pencil it is going to hit the floor. In chemistry, atomic theory explains the structure and behavior of elements and compounds. Atomic theory is just as well established. There are, of course, things to be learned - but the foundations are well set in place.
Scientists are inspired by discovery, by learning what was previously unknown. In my experience engineers adore the new as well - they are just fussy about silly things such as reliability, cost, easily obtainable and repeatable results, etc.
I'll put in a good word for science too!
I very much believe in science, and scientific method. But my point is:
Everything in it's place. Whatever that means.
And one's views are GOING to be skewed if they do cutting edge work and run into the same attitude all the time, due to the conditions and areas they work in. That much is obvious-to the observant.
Reasonable people don't need a giant on-line discourse in the micro details and semantics of a given person's stated positions in life, etc.
All we really need is an understanding that interpretation is the providence of the beholder, and that is where most errors are made.
You use the word seems. thank you. I don't know what is going on in your head, either. I cannot conclusively state anything.
Here you failed to use the word 'seems'. There is no conclusive proof of that. I've never said objectivism be damned. Never. I've always asked folks to pull the shit from their eyes and attempt to understand the impermanence of it all. This most specifically includes science. The proper use of that one point in thought, I've personally found to be incredibly useful in innovation. It's one of the key points that separates the innovators from the 'scientific accountants'.
Here you have seemingly resorted to the attack without balance. However, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and spend time evaluating what you have said, and write it down to bad translation, or transposition. After all, no one needs to be writing an entire large discourse on their position in life-in minute detail. You might say one thing, and find that it has been interpreted badly, by some.
After all, it is quite difficult to get the exact point across, at times. I'm willing to understand that,and give you time to flesh things out-over time. (As I learn about how you express yourself)
All I ask is that one put in the small effort of self realization to understand that others are in the same boat.
Almost everything you said in the last paragraph could be interpreted as subjectivism tied to a personal viewpoint.
But hey, I don't know EXACTLY what you mean by that, so I'll just wait it out and clarity of some sort might work itself out over time.
Perhaps you've had a bad experience with some claims in audio. Perhaps you've come across some folks who don't what to explain exactly what they are doing..like Wilson, with their X material.
If they won't tell you how it's made (so everyone who makes speakers in China can read it, steal it, and make one bazillon speakers for the Wal-mart market), does that automatically make it 'bad science'?
I mean, who died and made you the sole arbiter of what/where science is at - and where it's going to go?
I don't really mean those last bits, I'm just trying to point out that one cannot really understand a given person's position on these forums, and trashing them serves no purpose.
This is why there are no manufacturers showing their faces on these forums. It gets too ugly, for no good discernible reason, other than the issues within other people.
While I've seen supposedly scientific studies driven by funding, I have also seen technical decisions made by committee vote. All in favor of repealing the laws of physics in favor of profits say yea.
How about that thick black tar like stuff they use to undercoat cars?
http://www.hytechsales.com/prod150.html
31.75
This is really really good advice on how NOT to break any new ground in the science of sound. In case anyone is wanting to avoid that.
Yes, but, Frog, if you do know everything as Ethan has told us he does and there is nothing left to discover as Ethan has told there is not and nothing left to wonder about which Ethan has told he cares not to do, wouldn't this actually work?
I say we give Ethan the benefit of the doubt here.
Ethan, I've identified a problem that needs solving: Hi Fi gear doesn't sound enough like real music.
Even with the best Pioneer receiver, with JBL speakers, with the best SACD, in a treated room, it still doesn't fool me into thinking I'm in the concert hall sitting next to Clifton or Michigan.
There. The problem has been identified. Which of your Big Four am I lacking?
Michigan, it's great advice, but not the only advice.
Another good way is to keep checking things out, learning about problems that seem unrelated, and then being able to say, "You know, that bacteria on my dish just won't grow on that plate I spilled bread mold on..."
It takes every kind of thinking, so I'd say Ethan fell short, but certainly did not fail.
It's not as if Einstein was trying to find the optimum paste to rub on his coffee table in order to make his Edison Cylinders sound better and accidentally came up with the theory of relativity.
Remember that famous inventor, what's his name, who said, "Invention is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration."
WTF, how could I fall short? I didn't even answer yet!
What you're missing is the spatial clues available only within the concert hall. So you need a bigger living room.
Earphones will also help.
However, it's possible to come closer to live sound than you're probably used to. This requires recording the musicians using very close microphones. This avoids the sound of the room they're in, and lets you transport that close-up sound of their instruments to your own living room. More here:
http://www.vimeo.com/1834249
But is this really what you want? Even if you could fit an 80-piece orchestra into your living room, do you think that would sound good? Now, a string quartet is definitely do-able. Probably a pop band too.
--Ethan
But I don't have to fit an 80 piece orchestra in my room IMO. All I need to do is fit the orchestra to scale in my room. If at live events I tend to sit in a position where the 80 piece orchestra or the five piece band fills approximately 80% of my field of vision, then accomplishing that scale of replay is satisfactory to me as long as the timbre, tone and texture of my chosen seating position is in accordance with what I visualize. I have no control over the recording process so the scale is an average of what I consider to be "realistic" and "well recorded" selections.
The largest difference to me is that I do not demand rock concert levels in my room. However, I know quite a few people who find the scale of SPL's to be their deal breaker.
Good point, though orchestra instruments sound very different close up than in context in a hall. It's probably still possible to get close to the same sound as in a concert hall. But you need your room to be mostly dead to avoid your room adding its own "small room" sound to what comes from the speakers. Which is why I mentioned headphones before.
--Ethan
____________________
Bring back DUP
Yes, which is why I often found musicians not to be the best clients for audio systems. They prefer hearing what they hear on stage when another musician is within a few feet of them. They seldom got "ambience" while most didn't quite hear "imaging" as something an audience member might understand and back-of-the-hall sound was typically lost on most of them.
Unless the performance was extremely close mic'd what they preferred to hear wasn't what they got from most high end audio systems even those with a somewhat forward presentation. Their choices in components and especially speakers always reflected their rather, IMO, skewed reference point. Not that their reference was necessarily wrong but it wasn't typically what was on the recording so they would choose the fun house mirror that presented the image they preferred rather than the image that was on the source. Only on the rare occasion did I find a professional or semi-profesional musician who realized the recording microphones were not placed in his seating position. I found the perspective of the conductor on most occasions to exist more from an overall viewpoint while individual musicians tended toward their own instrument and the one next to them with an ear toward the bass line for timing clues.
Particularly since I've switched to dipoles "dead" doesn't work well in my room. I've actually found a larger improvement in transparency to come from a superior subwoofer with an open baffle subwoofer system coming next. I doubt dead will work for that either.
I would say you are missing phase coherence. A single driver without a crossover or notch filter would do a better job than most other speakers. Your Lowthers should be far more acceptable in this area than most other speakers. Sit and listen to the hall sound they project effortlesly and with complete authenticity if the rest of your system is up to feeding them the correct information.
There was an article that I believe ran in Stereophile a few months back suggesting the premise most recordings suffer from the inevitable damage to the leading edge of an attack due to the many poor recording techniques employed by most studios today. Not only do multi-mic'd recordings start with poor phase relationships (do you really need those five different microphones on the single guitar as laid out in this month's magazine?), they are then manipulated through numerous processors and compressors and cables and boards that all do just a bit more damage to their signal integrity.
In absolute phase, out of absolute phase, no hope for finding absolute phase and so on. Arrival times at the microphones that are all slightly out of synch with one another.
In the end the leading and trailing edges have been damaged to the extent they no longer resemble real music.
Go back to your best recordings. For me two that still stand out are "Nojima Plays Lizst" from Reference Recordings (Dr. Johnson) and the Sheffield Labs Harry James discs. High quality recordings that had little in the way of signal degrading parts intervening and they come much closer to the illusion of real than most other discs I own. A few of the Wilson discs did the same though I gave most of those away when I stopped selling.
Or, go back to the days before tape and pull out those 78's. Mono direct to disc with no compression. Why do you think AD's nuts about them?
Michigan, it's great advice, but not the only advice.
If one considers your question carefully, "What are the final frontiers of (audio) tweaking?", I see only one possible answer to that; and that is indeed the Beltist frontier. It's the only final, largely unexplored "frontier" in this business. Everything else that I know of, falls into the Newtonian frontier. And even though I fully believe there's a long way to go in this front, or rather many ways it can branch out, that is not what I would call an "unexplored" frontier. The basis of this was founded hundreds of years ago. What revolutionary revelations in audio are yet to be explored in this realm? Then again, there are some audio tweaks that lay claim to using quantum technology as a basis or component in the tweak, artificial atoms maybe.... I don't know if that domain is yet large enough to be called a "frontier", but I suppose that could be argued to be a 3rd frontier in audio. But then, skeptics like yourself don't believe there's anything to that technology, in audio. In which case, we can still divide audio into only 2 frontiers! The largely explored... and the largely unexplored.
You know, you're absolutely right. It is great advice.
Another good way is to keep checking things out, learning about problems that seem unrelated, and then being able to say, "You know, that bacteria on my dish just won't grow on that plate I spilled bread mold on..."
Agreed. We should always be checking things out, no matter which field we're researching.
It's not as if Einstein was trying to find the optimum paste to rub on his coffee table in order to make his Edison Cylinders sound better and accidentally came up with the theory of relativity.
And its not as if anyone said he was, so that's not relevant. If you want to compare the two researchers, here's how you can: Einstein made a revelation about gravity, which led to his theory of relativity (which took many years before it was proven and accepted). Belt made a revelation about a product on a coffee table, which led to his own "unified field" theories (my terminology, not his!). It too will take many years before it can be "scientifically proven" and accepted by the community at large. And for that matter, many great discoveries in science history have indeed been discovered in like manner; 'accidentally'. By people who keep their ears, eyes and mind always open, willing to consider all things.
It takes every kind of thinking, so I'd say Ethan fell short, but certainly did not fail.
Whereas I'd say Ethan failed big time, as a response to your query (however, I did like your response to him! "Which of the Big 4 am I lacking?"!). Ethan's thinking is not only extremely limited, it's predictable with atomic accuracy. What I'm saying is his kind of thinking is not really needed in the high end audio world, because the audio industry is already filled with such thinkers, who can't think outside the box they've created for themselves (even despite him patting himself on the back, claiming he can and does, because he somehow managed to combine his love for porn with his desire to sell room traps! Like as if using sex to sell products is somehow "thinking outside the box"!). If you want a guy who can design something for you that has already been done before, but with say a different color of grill cloth, then Ethan's your go-to guy. For sure. But if you want a guy who can expand the state of the art, or even just someone who knows what good reproduced music should sound like, then you don't call Ethan. Because for him, we already reached the state of the art when Pioneer put out his $150 receiver. Which apparently measures perfectly in all of 3 or 4 ways.
Remember that famous inventor, what's his name, who said, "Invention is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration."
That was Edison. I think I'm just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not comparing Ethan Winer to Thomas Edison just now.....
Of course, if you approach the problem from an acoustician's POV (or even a pseudo-acoustician's POV), your solution will inevitably to fix the scale of the reproduction. My POV, is to be able to immerse yourself in the music like you can at a concert, scale won't do it (for me, anyway). More important, I find, is those other criteria you spoke about; timbre, tone and texture. That's where the musical message is found, so I would much rather have those, at the cost of proper soundstaging and spatial cues. The things you wrote in the next post about a phase coherent sound, and the lack of attack on leading edge transients is one of the keys to achieving that.
The four that count; height, width, depth and weight. Beyond that, you have to listen.
But the timbre, tone and texture must fit the scale. That is a fault I find with many components. What they present as tone is not the same as what they present as scale. I haven't heard Krell through decent speakers in many years but that was my impression of their products back a decade or so ago. What they gave you as "soundstage" and what they gave you as tone were at odds with one another.
IMO scale does not imply you cannot be immersed in the music or in the sound of the performance space. It is simply an adjustment to what I hear from my preferred seat at a performance.
Jan, I thought you were describing listening!
Your big four work both ways!
Then your problem is solved.
HooRay!!!!!!
Pages