| 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
May I assume you see my point?
Yep. I get it.
Trying to stop (or absorb) unwanted vibrations going to the arm and cartridge from the turntable platter I can understand and it may have been your word "decoupling" (when used with reference to the cartidge/headshell) which 'threw' both me and Jan and what caused us both to challenge what you were describing !!!!!!!!!!
Of course !! But, if anything is going to move forward one has to, at least, take serious note of what some 'trusted' experienced engineers/reviewers/journalists are describing.
AND, if one of the people you 'trust' describes hearing improvements in the sound from doing 10 different things which you find "logical" and therefore acceptable, what happens when that SAME person describes hearing an improvement in the sound from doing something (an 11th thing) which you would regard as NOT logical. Do you therefore automatically dismiss that person's experience/judgement of the 11th thing BECAUSE it is NOT logical ??????
One can be healthily sceptical, yes, but surely curious enough to be prepared to 'think' "What on earth is going on ?"
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I apologize for leading you off the track.
If possible I'd try out the 11th tweak, maybe except if it has to do with magic spells, telephone calls or the like, in which case I usually write it off as "not for me". I am looney enough as it is. If I try it and it doesn't work for me, I tend to think that not all tweaks works on all systems, or for all people, in which case i shrug my shoulders and move on.
Sometimes though, I still find logic in tweaks that has made no evident change, ie the weight on my speakers. I have always found "weight" consistent with "stable". The heavier my speakers are, the less the woofer can move them.
I once wrote a story for a Danish hifi magazine, in which the main character bolted his hefty equipment to a mountain top. In my world THAT is stability!
Good, then let's move on to your specific mod. Do you understand VTA (vertical tracking angle)? If so do you understand how it impacts sound quality? And do you see why what you've done with your tonearm and cartridge might result in changes which are more attributable to a large change in VTA than in a "decoupling/damping"? It looks as though you have adjustable VTA on your arm. Did you reset the arm height after adding your materials?
Also you mentioned your tonearm "wriggling". How sure are you of the compatibility of your cartridge to your tonearm to work as a compatible system? Placing more mass at the very tip of your headshell will alter the "effective mass" of the system which would also change the performance of the two components working together as a system.
That's probably not really the case. If your heavy speakers are mounted without being truly balanced or they are mounted on a compliant surface such as a rug or rubbery pads, it wouldn't require much force to tip them one way or the other. It is still down to the support system more than the speaker itself to maintain the cabinet's position. "Heavy" typically equates to mass, mass equates to a change in resonant frequency which can easily work against you. Lowering the resonant frequency of the system down into a more audible range isn't going to improve your sound quality in most cases. Mass also holds on to that resonance for longer periods of time. A lightweight speaker which has a high resonant frequency and releases those unwanted resonances quickly has a good chance of sounding subjectively better than a heavy speaker that holds the resonance and smears the overall information long after the intial signal which set off the resonance has passed.
Good questions. My good old Fidelity Research arm has adjustable VTA, even while it plays, so I have tried and tried to find the setting where it sounds just right. I admit there's no standard for PU's on this one, even though most manufacturers claim it's 20
Actually, that is NOT stability and it is NOT rigidity. For the same reason that electon microscopes must be placed on vibration isolation stands - so the image of the item under observation is stable - turntables (and as it turns out CD players, too) must be placed on vibration isolation stands or feet that minimize the floor/turntable interaction (for best results). (Some turntables provide their own spring system (or rubbery feet) for isolation, but the resonant frequency of those spring systems is too high to do much good, since the attenuation starts too high.)
The (continuous) Earth's crust motion produces energy in the range 0 - 10 Hz (not to mention traffic and other low frequency vibration producers) that directly interferes with tonearms and stereo cartriges (that are usually designed to have resonant frequencies circa 8-12 Hz). You can how the seismic type vibration can excite the natural frequencies of the tonearm, the cartidge, not to mention the platter, cabling, etc., thus coloring the sound.
In the case of the CD player it's not obvious but the tiny little spring suspension system isolating the CD laser assembly also has a resonant freq. around 8 Hz. So, guess what? The CD laser itself is subject to the same structureborne, seismic vibration as the turntable!
Thus, bolting the audio equipment to a mountain top is the wrong approach. The correct approach is isolating (decoupling) the equipment from the mountain.
"Give me a lever long enough and I will move the world."
Which is why I have no mountain top underneath any of my equipment
No, that story was all in my fantasy. I have decoupled all of my equipment to a degree that comes close to floating. I find that the best method too, just like you mention.
Outer forces which I have no real control over, I just let be in peace. Traffic moves, and so does the Earth, and me and my equipment just moves along. I don't have the money, the brains or the time to take care of that!
And this matters to the final bits decoded from the CD player in what fashion?
Are we talking about some CD player that has bad decoupling and that allows servo noise back into the audio system, perhaps?
Some people believe that the more the servo works, the less power is present for the music. Don't ask me pls.
That would be clear, present, and obvious evidence of bad hardware design.
Note, I will certainly not claim that such hardware does not exist.
The two primary shortcomings of modern (well-made) digital players, including CD, SACD, DVD and Blu Ray players are susceptibility to vibration and susceptibility (of the photodetector) to background scattered laser light. In both instances an over-abundance of null bits are generated, compared to the ideal case - i.e., when external vibration is reduced and/or background laser light is reduced. At least that appears to be the situation.
Really, then you have well-established, firm examples of these "null" bits, and how they are getting all the way through the EFM and the CIRS?
I've measured the error in both good and very messed-up CD's, and I dare say I harbor some skepticism regarding bad data of any SUBTLE character arriving at the DAC.
As to "background scattered laser light", well, I don't even accept that as an issue in play, until you can actually measure the scattering and show firm, convincing evidence of same.
As you probably can gather, my conclusions are based on experimentation and listening tests. I will leave data measurement, etc. chores to someone with the inclination, time and equipment. Which, by the way, has not yet occurred, most likely because the prevailing wisdom is that everything is fine.
Years ago, I hooked up the TTL input of a frequency counter to the error flag pin of the D/A chip in a cheap Magnavox CD player and counted the uncorrected (C2) errors as a CD played. Most discs had none and only a few had more than handful.
The "bit errors" reason for differences in sound quality is a non-starter, I firmly believe. However, you can measure the effect of the disc read servo on the power supply rails. Yes, that may be inadequate design but there's a lot of that about. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Experimentation requires some kind of measurement. Listening tests require some kind of falsifiable nature.
Would you care to elucidate on these claimed measurements and listening tests?
N.B. A proper listening test IS a measurement.
Oookaayyyy....
Which is it, then?
So, you assert nobody has tested these assertions? Please show us the negative you're claiming.
As you see below, John Atkinson has done this kind of measurement.
He's not the only one, of course.
There is absolutely zero evidence for any kind of mangled data getting to the DAC on a regular basis. 1 or 2 interpolations per disc is the limit, this will have no "veiling" or whatever effects, except for the 80 milliseconds or so it causes a problem for.
So, there is quite a bit of evidence that a CD player goes from barely any errors PER DISC to mistracking hideously, with no "subtle" changes in the middle, at least in terms of the actual data at the DAC.
So, therefore, please elucidate on this "null data" you are concerned about. After all "null data" is only a term in modems, where the signal is degraded enough that the modem can tell it's bad. The EFM on a CD does that handily, and then the CIRS fixes it, or sets a flag that can be observed on many players, including CD players (you DO have to apply a scope lead in the right place), CDrom drives, etc.
This flag is not observed at any kind of rate consonant with your assertion.
I am, of course, still puzzled. You have experimented, you have not. You can provide falsifiable data, you can not. You claim nobody has created falsifiable data, yet John Atkinson reports some in the next article...
I'm not sure where to take that...
Perhaps Buddha can help me.
Um, yeah, and in surprising places.
You see, the capacitors cost almost 1 cent each, and they take up a square CM of board space. That's WAY too expensive, apparently. *(mutter)*
I do wonder if the C2 error is a red herring, in that I wonder how many transport/mechs actually report these errors.
In your experience have you ever tried to test what it takes to generate a C2 error output; e.g a test CD with media and data errors/problems and also different players?
Just curious if the switch from traditional CD mechanisms such as those manufactured by Philips including their cheap OEM and more expensive Pro2 to the CD-ROM type is complicating this and possibly affecting the reporting.
DBpoweramp on their forum shows how various CD-ROM drives in their own test are not ripping bit perfectly and their recommendation was a TEAC.
Then it was interesting to see that Cyrus Audio decided to spend the time to develop their own complete solution and used imaging from an HP analyser showing pit read variation (although this raises the question if this reflects real world CD errors).
Anyway developing from scratch is not a marketing project, meaning it is initiated by the engineering team with specific goals (however it does possibly make the marketing life a little easier).
Cheers
Orb
Back to my earlier request for 'more thinking'.
I am going to bring in part of Buddha's latest reply to me coupled with your description of your own 'sound' improvements. I.e :-
When I challenged Buddha to discuss rather than continually attack me and asked what his own thoughts were on the subject of the ART devices, Buddha repeated an earlier (2008) reply of his from an earlier discussion regarding the ART devices. He ended that by saying that MY only response to his comments back then was the 'tripe' that "the sound must already be in the room".
So, let us have a look at my comment "the sound must already be in the room" (obviously meaning the information must already be in the room !!) and at your description of your own 'sound' improvements.
As I read Buddha's reply re the ART devices what comes over is Buddha's belief that the ART devices (and other similar devices) are only 'creating an illusion' of the sensation of space or location.
So I would like to look at the 'treatments' you have done in your actual listening room and ask you "BEFORE you did those treatments, were you 'hearing' :-
Or was it only AFTER you had done those 'treatments' that you heard those improvements ?
In other words, had all that additional information which allowed you to resolve the music so much better ALREADY been presented into the room by the speakers before you had carried out those 'room treatments' and that only when the 'room treatments' had been completed were you then able to resolve the (already in the room) musical information so much better ?
Or, was it 'only an illusion' you have created for yourself ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
First of all, we were not discussion any of the few room improvements I have implemented, but only tweaks on my turntable.
Secondly, the tweaks on my turntable brought improvements, that could impossibly have been in the room before adding the tweaks. I see the equipment as a chain, where the weaker links determine the sound quality. Adding tweaks to either link can make for a sound improvement, and also one that can be heard, provided it's powerful enough.
Look at this chart:
Imagine I tweak the turntable. It has the lowest percentage of perfectness of all my equipment, and may still have that after the tweaks are introduced, but still I can hear the improvement.
I have no idea if or how the Art devices should - or do - work. Considering the price, I never will. So whether they change sound already in the room, or whatever your question is, is out of my league.
I don't believe it's a question of additional information in either case though. In my own case (the TT tweaks) I improved the properties of some links in the chain, thus making them reproduce what information lies in the grooves in a cleaner and more natural way.
To be totally honest with you, I don't believe in improving properties in the listener to make music sound different. My music sounds the same every time I play it, apart from when I do tweaking of course. You can change the room and it's "suitability" in which to listen to music. You can change the reproduction chain and it's "suitability" in which to reproduce music, but you can't change the listener and his physical abilities.
I agree that different events can change the listener's mood, and psychic well-being. Whether these include Art bowls, foil, cream or whatever tweaks, I can't say. I can only agree with Elk, who IIRC claimed that he was more or less immune to these changes. I feel exactly the same way.
To step onto a side track, which may explain something, I can tell that I cannot be hypnotized. I guess that could be a possible answer to the question why I don't feel "unsafe" in my environment. I have whatever control I need to have.
You may oppose strongly to this statement, and claim that it's the opposite: That I AM feeling unsafe, why I won't let anybody take control over me. Still, I am convinced I'm right.
Regards
Keld
One can set up an experiment to test whether the Earth is flat by sending a ship out to sea and observing (using eyes) from shore that the ship disappears over the horizon as it travels (illustrating the Earth's surface is not flat). This simple experiment does not rely on measurement, only on observation (using eyes). Your contention that an experiment must measure something is simply untrue.
An experiment to illustrate that structural vibration degrades sound requires observing (with ears) the sound before and after vibration isolation is implemented. Similarly, an experiment to check the hypothesis that background scattered light in a CD player degrades the sound only requires observation (with ears) of the sound before and after the background scattered light is reduced.
Of course, one can find examples where measurements do not support what is observed by the ears, such as exceeding low THD amps compared to much higher THD tube amps. That old wives tale that lower THD automatically translates to better sound was put to bed 25 years ago. Wasn't it?
Measurement, in itself, cannot be the end-all do-all you claim it is.
Actually, in this case, you've got an externally verifiable measurement made using your eyes, and a simple existance test. Such an above-threshold test presents little difficulty with external verification.
Nice try, but no L&M.
If you don't measure something, somehow, it's not an experiment. Your attempt to escape via semantics is noted.
An internal interpretation of a stimulus is not a measurement, and as such, your experiment is confounded by a host of factors. See my comments elsewhere and the deck and talk on perception cited elsewhere on this site for more information.
What's more, you can not justify your assertion about laser light and null this or that via listening tests. You can, at most, even with a proper blind test, only verify something sounded different, UNLESS you go inside the deck and mesaure the "escaped" light, etc.
Again, observation with ears must be falsifiable. Sails going over a horizon is not a threshold-of-perception event. "hearing" small effects is. Apple, meet orange.
Again, at-threshold vs. above threshold testing. Apple, meet orange once again.
No, you're confusing "better" with "personal preference". Again, you're trying to escape via semantics and improper choice of words. So, no, that wasn't shown. All that has been shown is that some people prefer more distortion, some less, and that when you measure something, you need to measure more than LMS error.
But that wasn't in doubt in the reasearch world 30 years ago, either.
Actually, it exactly is. You're just trying to use semantics, as well as a number of words, including "measurement" improperly, in order to support your hypothesis.
A proper listening test IS a measurement of the subjects' responses, for instance.
LMS error is a measure, but not a very useful one.
So, you're just trying to define away things, so let's get back to your assertion:
How do you prove that your claimed effects and mechanisms actually:
1) exist
2) have real meaning
3) have been tested in a useful fashion
Sorry, but you made a claim to fact. Both John and I have refuted it, both of us have made measurements that refute it, as well. It is, therefore, refuted. You'll have to live with that simple, MEASURED fact. Bit errors rarely, if ever, get to the DAC. They certainly don't get there often enough to affect "transparency" or "air" or whatever, and when they do get there, the error is VERY OBVIOUS. So, no, your claim is wrong.
Your mechanism, via "null bits", also appears to be unsupported, but of course the deliberate error correction built into a CD player would obscure a few wrong or undecodable bits. Since a "null bit" isn't a term in the field, we'll just have to ask you, now, what do you mean by "null bit"? Let's start there, maybe.
Well, this is hardly surprising. That's what all of the EFM and FEC are for, after all.
The question of what comes off the pits is WHY error correction is built in.
This is true of any near-Shannon-Bound transmission system, you can't get close to the actual capacity of the medium without it.
My old Wozencraft and Jacobs text shows this quite clearly, and that's from before 1976. When you get down to the guts of it, the proof is quite obvious and intuitive as well as mathematically correct.
I agree with you Geoff. Lots of things do just fine without measurements.
Quote from Freako :-
Jan. Keld refers to feet or spikes as "silly feet or spikes" and that he would never touch them !! And yet they seem to work for other people i.e give them improvements in the sound just as he has described for some of his OWN 'tweaks' !! THOSE (feet and spikes) 'tweaks' obviously fit some people's "logic" so they use them - Keld's own 'tweaks' fit his "logic" so he uses them. Surely we have to look at EVERYONE'S idea of logic, surely we have to look at EVERYONE'S experiences and their descriptions of the improvements in their sound, try to look at all the CLUES they are giving and try to figure out "what is going on" when they can all have different "logics" but yet can get what they describe as 'improvements' which satisfy them ?
AND describe the improvements similarly, even from the numerous and different techniques :-
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<
There has to be some explanation why so many of the different things on the list below :-
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.
Have been described as giving one, more or all of the following improvements in the sound :-
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<
From our own extensive work, experiments, discoveries, I am of the opinion that many people discover (are taken by surprise by) something which gives them an improvement in the sound and then try to push, pull, squeeze, bend, stretch 'whatever it was' to fit into a conventional explanation i.e that 'whatever it was' is dealing with an effect on the audio signal, or an effect on the room acoustic air pressure waves, or an effect on vibrations, capacitance, resistance, inductance, microphony, EMF, RF, dielectric effect, static, resonances - and so on.
What is not recognised often enough is that the various materials which are used can be of considerable importance relating to how things 'sound'.
I will try to pick one example which might be able to illustrate what I am meaning.
The differences in sound from two cables.
Cable No. One has a good (from a technical viewpoint) metal conductor. So, from a technical point of view one could give the metal conductor being used 2 good points. This cable is then covered by a material as (technical) insulation, adding another point, making 3 points in total.
Cable No. Two has a less good (from a technical viewpoint) metal conductor. So, from a technical point of view one would give that metal conductor used only 1 good point. This cable is then covered by a material as (technical) insulation, adding another point, making 2 points in total.
For someone using logic, they would logically choose to buy Cable No. One with it's technical 3 points !!!!!!!!!
Now, someone having purchased and used Cable Number One for some time then tries Cable Number Two and finds that it 'sounds much better'. This does not make logical sense (from a technical point of view) but the results are, nevertheless, better sound !! This person then tells a friend "Try Cable No. Two, because I have found that it 'sounds better' than Cable No. One. The friend says "No way. Cable No Two cannot sound better than Cable No. One because Cable No. Two has a technically inferior conductor !! What you are claiming is not 'logical'. You are mistaken."
But, let us look at it in a different way.
Cable No. One has, yes, a technically good metal conductor (with the 2 good points) but the plastic insulation used around that cable is PVC and human beings do not like the particular chemical mixture of Poly Vinyl Chloride in their environment, so we have to deduct 1 point (from an environmental (human) point of view) - now making an overall 1 point for that cable (from an environmental point of view)!!
Cable No. Two has, yes, a less technically good metal conductor (with only 1 good point) but the plastic insulation used around that Cable No. Two is PTFE and human beings do not react so adversely to the particular chemical mixture of PTFE in their environment - because of the F (which is Fluoride) in PTFE, so we now can add 2 points for a better insulation material (from a 'good' human being versus environmental point of view) - now making an overall 3 points. When I say 'better insulation material' I am meaning from the perspective of the human being's reaction to it in their environment.
So, from the human being's perspective WE (human beings) react less adversely to Cable No. Two so Cable No. Two "sounds much better" - even though "LOGICALLY" it does not make sense from a technical and conventional audio point of view.
Could some of the materials which Keld has used (for a decoupling/absorbing purpose ??) come within such an area ? That they MIGHT NOT be 'dealing with decoupling/absorbing' which he has always presumed them to be doing but dealing with something else completely but yet giving him some improvements in the sound ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
In which case they would have worked when just lying around on my table, which they didn't. Nice try, May
P.S. See my latest tweak (from 7:54AM): My latest tweak
Please explain how bubble foil changes the listener?
Happy to help.
That was a 'pants down' post for geoffie and he got caught faking an understanding of..."null bits."
And he would have gotten away with it, too...except for you damn kids!
Oops!
Should have called them "quantum entanglement dissociations" or "charm quark displacement phenomenon" and he would have gotten away clean!
Yeah I think this is where Cyrus audio is coming from where they put forward the case that the standard (cheaper OEM) complete mechs are not fully accurate due to servo co-efficients/reads/etc, if I remember they compared the pit read from a cheaper Philips OEM transport (cannot remember which one).
And we have the open question on why various CD-ROMs are not being bit perfect when cd ripping as shown by DBpower amp (although the TEAC was the only one fully bit perfect in their testing of a bunch).
I understand that the EFM is the channel error correction but mind sharing what the FEC is?
Following may interest some and is from the EFM coding engineer who created it;
Sorry "FEC" is forward error correction. In a CD it's the CIRC.
It's actually quite remarkably good, too.
This is why I find the "null data" idea so, well, odd.
Hehe I thought it looked familiar, just could not place it in the earlier context.
Cheers
Orb
May,
This entire hobby is about " 'creating an illusion' of the sensation of space or location."
What do you think we are trying to do? Or, what is it you think you do?
I stand by my assertion that anything in audio, not just ART Bowls, is all about the mere 'creating an illusion' of the sensation of space or location.
Your religion is showing.
I don't how much more remedial I can go, May. let's see what we can do....
If you add a resonance device to a room, it 'creates' sounds that were not previously present.
So far so good?
If your add a resonating device to a room that "already contains" sounds, then it will "create" additional sounds that were not present previously by acting as a resonator.
This new 'noise/sound' is not necessarily more "musical information," but an artifact that a listener may find pleasing, or not; and has been added to what was previously present.
Just as Keld states he notices improvement in his system's performancs when vibration pads are placed under his gear, but not when they are placed on his desk....it may indicate that there are some effects that are not belt based that are going on.
If Keld did something that improved the resolution of his sytem, it may well be due to 'removing' unwanted noise (vibration artifact) rather than unmasking what was already present in the room. Sometimes, we can benefit from subtraction of noise that masks detail or prevented the extraction of information.
I know this would throw belt-world all topsy turvy, but open your mind.
Good post!
I am a "unnecessary sound stripper"! I don't believe in adding, but only in subtracting when it comes to tweaks! That is taking away unwanted information. You can't add to a system and make it perform better; you can replace or subtract, nothing else.
Sorry May, but I totally agree here.
Buddah,
What you say makes perfect sense:
"If Keld did something that improved the resolution of his sytem, it may well be due to 'removing' unwanted noise (vibration artifact) rather than unmasking what was already present in the room. Sometimes, we can benefit from subtraction of noise that masks detail or prevented the extraction of information."
I think of that this way; my last recording at 2496 has a theoretical noise floor of -144db, which is as we all know pixie dust. In my lapt top I am past -85 for a noise floor, but I also know that given a decent size room the natural reverb tails of decaying notes are there in low level below -65 for sure.
The HVAC system at the University was sitting at -55db, just mucking up all that was achieved by doing 2496. It certainly did mask the little details we all want to hear as added information and that I hoped to capture even with my very modest rig.
I still know that there is more detail on the DVD+r than on the redbook copy, but that noise did defeat much of the purpose of doing 2496. I will still do it, but we are working with the campus engineers to time out the venue for AC or Heat...all done from a central computer for that hour of performance and recording.
Then what we are left with is patron noise, but that is usually intermittant, i.e. coughing etc. Even as JA wrote about the lady rustling a cough drop wrapper in Sante Fe, everything matters.
If something is there and not part of the music it is not a bad thing to identify and try to eliminate. Some you win and some you lose.
So, let me get this straight, you'd rather hear the early reflections, the standing waves and the slap echos than use resonators to reduce those effects?
Don't worry, that is a hypothetical question, you don't have to go out and purchase something expensive.
And try not to swallow Bubbha's deliberate strawman regarding the resonator adding something so quickly.
Ah, so, it's either/or.
In his room, perhaps he would want to lessen or remove early reflections, the standing waves and the slap echos....in keeping with his being a 'sound stripper.'
That would seem to fit his philosophy.
Not to speak for him.
I don't know how resonators work, but I have neither of the kind (early reflections, standing waves or slap echos), at least not to a degree where it bothers me. I have absorbers/diffractors next to the speakers, and bass traps in every corner. So both the question is - and any answer from me would be - hypothetical.
Try a different perspective Geoff!
You obviously don't understand the function of a Helmholtz resonator any more than you understand botany.
This would indicate there is B/Beck logic going on - and it's not even the weekend yet!
B/Beck, you make it too easy. Show proof anyone here has said otherwise or stop telling your lies.
I know this would throw B/Beck's world into a dither but show your proof you have not completely closed what is left of your mind. It's that simple.
(I'd settle for proof you have closed the top on whatever you've gotten yourself into already at the end of the week. It seems to be pretty high proof.)
However hard I try, I still can't get you to understand what I am trying to get over.
The material (a material) does not DIRECTLY change the listener. Can you understand that bit ?
The material (a material), when present in the environment, is what the human being is trying to come to terms with. The more unnatural (man made) the material, the greater the problem the human being has in resolving it. For example. If you bring ANY polystyrene into your listening room - it will have an adverse effect on the sound. Not DIRECTLY changing the listener but causing the human being to react adversely to the presence of the chemical mix of polystyrene !!
We will react strongly to some materials and less to other materials and, yes, sometimes with them just being on the table !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then again, sometimes not.
Of course there will be some effects which have a direct and technical reason why the sound is better - such as screening a wire so that it does not pick up unwanted radiation !! Stopping a cartridge wriggling about all over the place. Not fitting the motor of a record player directly under the turntable so that the pick up cartridge does not pick up the rumble of the motor (like they used to do) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 'sound' performance of the pads which you are using as 'vibration pads' will vary depending upon what material they are made of and the 'sound' performance may be nothing whatsoever to do with how good they are at dealing with VIBRATIONS. You see, Keld,
You could have the best, the very best pads which deal in the best possible way with vibrations but might not 'sound' the best and you could have other pads which might not be equally as good at dealing with vibrations but which 'sound', by far the BEST !!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
The point is Buddha, the ART devices might NOT be acting as a resonating device, although I know that that is what the manufacturers are claiming !!!!
So, they might NOT be adding to something that was previously present !!! They might not be ADDING anything to the noise/sound !!
I know all about what you are describing and, no, it does not throw my world topsy-turvy.
I am not disputing your statement I am just trying to get peoples 'thinking' further along !
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I know, the point is to keep insinuating beltism into every available space. We get that.
Actually I have 2 big boxes with polystyrene and a computer in the next room, with an open door to my listening room. I have not one, but 2 computers IN my listening room, plus a printer, 2 external hard drives, a modem, a router, a TV, a guitar, a panflute and a trumpet, 500 lp's, 600 cd's and 60 DVD movies. I even have a rubber duck in my listening room! And what about the Nano Pads? They are made for sticking to the dashboard of your car, so your cell phone, cigarettes etc. can stick to it to stop scooting around. Hardly "musical" material. It should be impossible to listen to music here in the first place! Still I'm prepared to claim nobody can get better sound for the same amount of money I've spent, which is around 3800
Depends on what ya been smokin'.
On a related note, dreadlocks are the best hairstyle for Hi Fi - no comb filtering.
LOL, 26 years ago I stopped smoking the funny tobacco, and since then only cigarettes
>>>>>My only claims are that vibration is a problem and that background scattered light is a problem - i.e., they hurt the sound. Are you denying that vibration and background scattered light hurt the sound? If so, prove me wrong.
I'm down with vibration being a bad thing, but what's with the "prove me wrong" shit?
Aren't you the logical fallacy policeboy who runs around screeching about straw men?
I contend that it's miniature leprechauns under the direction of Kokopelli that can't be seen or measured that adversly affect sound, and you need to prove me wrong or it's true!
Geez, geoffie.
You really haven't been able to rebound from J_J catching you with your pants down and exposing your null bits.
I suggest you check out a whole line of monitors that failed within a year caused by using poor quality capacitors/parts chosen. I guess 1 cent is too much. Multiple capacitors by the way.
Or a Pioneer or Panasonic player that had widespread video problems because of a poorly designed video card, replaced by the factory.
Or how about brand "X" converter box that plays video just fine while the audio comes and goes because of poor designing. Who wants to watch video with no audio?
Now compare to a Zenith that plays clear audio and video until both the Video and audio signals are compromised.
Happens all the time.
Cheers.
SAS! Just ask Michael Dell about his 300 million dollar "capacitor problem!"
Cheers, man.
Pages