It’s easy to make snide remarks like “yes- I do the opposite of what he says.” And in some respects I agree, but if you do that, this is just going to be taken down. So I’m asking a serious question. Has ASR actually changed your opinion on anything? For me, I would say 2 things. I am a conservatory-trained musician and I do trust my ears. But ASR has reminded me to double check my opinions on a piece of gear to make sure I’m not imagining improvements. Not to get into double blind testing, but just to keep in mind that the brain can be fooled and make doubly sure that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. The second is power conditioning. I went from an expensive box back to my wiremold and I really don’t think I can hear a difference. I think that now that I understand the engineering behind AC use in an audio component, I am not convinced that power conditioning affects the component output. I think.
So please resist the urge to pile on. I think this could be a worthwhile discussion if that’s possible anymore. I hope it is.
Amir give us something positive... Nobody can deny that... ASR is useful... Once this is said ...
By Jove! he must return to school in the evening 😉...Learn how to read a text... Learn why philosophical question matter to understand the relation between technology and science...I suggest Feyerabend ...
And learn in psychology course that you can isolate some bias but you cannot erase all biases and you cannot make all biases negative or positive... Biases are not only prejudices they can be the results of training...Biases must be controlled and became conscious not eliminated...
Do you know that placebo effect and nocebo effect can be observed WORKING REALLY and EFFECTIVE exactly as benzodiazepin drug for example in the same nervous system zone under pet scan imagery ? Then trusting you ears induce in training something positive or very negative if you think you are ONLY the prey of illusions... the ears mut not be believed, it must be trained.. i learned that this week listening the best virologist in the world...
Than those who negate to classical musicians and to acoustician or to well trained mmusic lover any competence in hearing ability are IGNORANT ...They call that hard acquired gift a pretense : "golden ears"
Those who want to shame you because you trust your ears are ignorant ... They ev en dont know how to serach for serious papers on the net it seems.. 😊
Do you know that every scholars research is available on the internet ?
On the Internet? What does that have to do with anything? For the record, vast majority of research into acoustic science is NOT on the internet. Papers are behind paywalls at AES, ASA, etc. I am a member so get access. If you want an extremely cogent synopsis of them for almost nothing, again, buy Dr. Toole's book.
Amir made a point that audiophiles driven to do things like that cable lifter seem more indicative of cult-like thinking than those that appeal to more objective evidence - offering data for critical scrutiny and debate by others - such as he posted.
You could rebut his point, but of course using the word "trolling" is always easier, isn’t it?
Measurements have their place. BUT, your ears should be the ultimate arbiter of whether a component is right for you. Many components that measure great sound like cr*p, and vice versa.
@mitch2I have not objected to the science on ASR. It's sound and I find no issue with it. What I take issue with is the interpolation of said aforementioned data as gospel and all that really matters when determining a quality component. It would be like doing a psychological study of medication on the body. Measuring the physical effects and not asking the participants what their experience was like. Or telling people to go buy a Tesla model 3 because it outperforms or matches another car like the m5 in performance and technical specs. The driving experience will be different and just because something is good on paper doesnt mean it translates.
@profShow me where you object to anything Amir has said? All I see is soft pedaling and brown nosing.
The snake oil discussion I linked to, in it someone directed peoples attention to a 600 thousand dollar Magico speaker saying it was basically snake oil. Some corrected him, but this is very common. There is another discussion on ASR just about extreme snake oil and someone linked to a million dollar system. More often than not, high prices are synonymous with bad. How can someone afford it? The blame and shame shift to anyone who would be dumb enough to buy such a product. All of this without ever having heard it, and wait for it, or testing it scientifically or otherwise.
I agree there is a lot of pseudo science out there, and I applaud ASR for helping people sort out what is bogus and what is real. However when that tips the scale where Amir is tipping it, it becomes just as bad as the people who say buy my crystal cable holders to improve your sound. Tossing out the experience of audio, which is what many people want is not productive. Ive had studio engineers in my space, and been to many production facilities. All recommended bass traps as standard basic treatment as most rooms encounter bass bumps. Cardioid and dutch and dutch use their physical designs to avoid room problems and then further smooth it out with eq.
From the dutch and dutch guide:
"These room resonances can be attenuated by means of acoustical treatment in the form of bass traps. With the 8c, one also has the possibility to do a low-frequency equalization in the 8c to compensate for the effect of the room resonances and obtain an equalized, i.e. “flatter”, low-frequency response in the listening area."
A picture IS worth a thousand words and can be amusingly appropriate.
Kinda like satire in an image. Some of the best political commentary comes from cartoons.
Amir keeps quoting that there is extensive research showing reflection and no treatment other than regular furniture is not only good enough, but that it is superior for home listening.
We have hardly discussed room acoustics so the claim that I "keep quoting" research is obviously wrong on the face of it. The other bit is what you are manufacturing on my behalf and then complaining about. Really, the plot is lost.
Whether I paraphrase what you said or waste time quoting you absolutely have referenced research or existence of (without quoting), and used that to promote a particular view that is very much due to variability subjective.
We got here because someone claimed I must not have good enough equipment to hear the difference between cables.
Since you are responded to me, at least initially, we did not get here that way. You made claims about rooms and acoustics that were inaccurate.
And that the focus must be to deal with the modal response first and foremost as that is a constant in every room.
Why do you have your speakers far out from the front wall (front from an audiophile perspective, not 2034). Was that modal, or to minimize boundary issues? Are those boundary issues gone completely, the ones that DSP cannot correct?
Importantly, I made no statement about superiority of furnishings relative to acoustic products.
Paraphrasing because I don't feel like going back and cutting and pasting, but pretty much yes, you did state that furnishing and natural reflection was superior, though your responses had an air of arrogance as you later made the assumption the acoustic implementation would be haphazard at best. I will state at this point, that unlike some other audiophile additions which likely are inaudible, a couple acoustic panels will make a readily audible and measurable change. While controlled listening would be preferred, it would be near impossible in this case, hence accepting preference ratings is valid. That is furthered by the reports of many who would less susceptible to expectation bias. The result is not always positive.
I quoted from the very research you put forward that it had nothing to do with listening for enjoyment but that it was a test of recording/mix engineer productivity. And even there, a reflective sidewall as preferred by majority so quoting that was totally inappropriate and wrong.
Therein was a bit of an intentional trap. For one, the majority did not prefer the reflective sidewall. Go read it again. The sum of the diffuse and absorption preferences exceeded the reflective wall. As I previous noted, the conditions in this test were not at all like what would be experienced in your room or probably any typical listening room. The trap is that research like this is used to make conclusions that cannot be made due to vastly different usage conditions. The only part of that test that was like sidewall reflections in your setup was the baseline. Trap are effective at illustrating bias formed through incorrect usage of information.
3. The path of treating all reflections with absorption will inevitably lead to people slapping absorbers over every surface they can find. After all, if a little bit is good, a lot is better. Soon the room is deader than the steak on your plate, sounds lifeless and the room ugly as heck.
This is very rare in practice and would go against most recommendations from acoustic professionals and most of the audiophile community who recommend absorption and diffusion, being careful not to over deaden a room, that preference plays a large part in what is done, and hence accept you may or may not like the results and will have to adjust.
Bottom like, get speakers that are well designed, do some EQ for low frequencies where acoustic products have little prayer of fixing issues there
You should probably qualify low frequencies. However, as noted by Mahgister, Helmholz resonators work at low frequencies and while narrow band, that can be good. So can diaphragmatic absorbers. So can multiple subwoofers. EQ is absolutely beneficial, but effectiveness is localized and EQ will work even better if acoustic methods are used first.
And certainly don't let them shame you into throwing blankets on the wall or else your system sounds like "crap."
Would this be akin to someone shaming someone buying, owning, and using an amplifier that has poor distortion measurements, highly likely to be audible, even though they prefer the outcome?
Mainly what I see is audiophiles, from their own experience, and that of acoustic professionals, is that they have added a limited number of panels to fix a perceived problem, usually caused by limited space, and that the majority have been happy with the results. That is not to say there is over use of panels in some particular ways, but those are likely not doing harm, they are just not doing anything.
There is more to audio life than proving 1+1 = 2. You have that part down pat. Think harder problems.
Mainly what I see is audiophiles, from their own experience, and that of acoustic professionals, is that they have added a limited number of panels to fix a perceived problem, usually caused by limited space, and that the majority have been happy with the results.
Oh, you are going to convince yourself that you are happy after spending all that time online reading incorrect information, buying and slapping those things on your walls. And as long as upstanding citizens like you encourage them to think that way, they will be starving their ears for good sound.
The wrong information about room acoustics is so entrenched online that it takes incredible amount of effort to finally shake someone to rethink their assumptions/knowledge. To wit, it took more than 1,600 post in the acoustic thread on ASR to get that to happen:
Hmmm...not sure how to start this post. I wish I had better writing skills and knowledge of English. Please bare with me and let me try.
I feel like a Neo in Matrix where @amirm is Morpheus and he's offering a blue pill in one hand (absorption on the side walls) and a red pill in the other (no side wall treatments). After all Amir's efforts in this thread, I decided to say fuc*@ and take a red pill. LOL.
Well after I got unplugged from Matrix and first puke, I was sitting in my listening chair in disbelief at what I just heard. I was not sure what to expect but I prepared myself for the precise imaging to be gone or at least affected to some degree and to be bothered with extra brightness. To my surprise, imaging was still there, the sound stage was bigger and (for lack of a better word) the overall presentation was more natural. Oops, Gulp, what now?
Look, I don't care if you go and spend $2,000 on a USB cable. That is not going to degrade your sound. But listening to people online about acoustic science will absolutely lead to screwing up the sound in your room. Don't do it. Don't listen to these people.
Where do you think i get ideas about Helmholtz resonators ?
Tuned resonators are a bad idea for any unskilled audiophiles to dabble in. They are very narrowband and their response can be screwed up easily in construction. Measurements to tease out the specific frequencies you need to deploy them can be difficult (due to multiple axis resonances can occur).
A single PEQ filter can solve the same problem and lower distortion of the speaker to boot.
That's what happens when a bias causes you to ignore stuff that isn't supporting your current interpretation. I mentioned it more than once after posting.
But listening to people online about acoustic science will absolutely lead to screwing up the sound in your room. Don’t do it. Don’t listen to these people.
it is comical if you realize there is top musicians here, designer engineers and others very informed people about all aspects of audio... i dont put myself in this group ... I only know how to read...And i make a few experiments..
You adress grown up as if they were all children...
Why could you not imagine that some if not many here can read and interpret and experiment with ACCURATE principle and information ?
I know for sure a few things about you :
You are able to read and interpet the dials and maps of your toys tools..Thanks for the information...
You dont know how to create "immersiveness in a room...because it is not a simple recipe precisely with the furniture ... It is related to a complex set of factors you NEVER adress...it is not a sin...Most people cannot adress it in a living room, i never could either...But why then disparaging small room acoustic ? You suffer from tool idolatry perhaps...
You have no cue about hearing theories and their relation to measures interpretation in a fundamental way...Sorry... In all this pages you have been unable to set one argument about that... i am not even sure if you understand the basic problem...
Your site has many good aspects but alas! is insuferable if some dare to post there with a different take on hearing and measures than the groupies around you entertain... I know because i read an thread dialogue between a designer and some of your groupies...This designer was a "saint"... Or a very wise man , unlike me, conscious that debating with someone unable to figure out crucial points is of no interest...
Then thanks for the set of measures...But i will keep friends here, i am not interested by a discussion on ASR as the one i had with you with ZERO argument coming from you about my central point in hearing theory and measures set...
i will read only on ASR some useful information like Dr. Choueri discussion...
Tuned resonators are a bad idea for any unskilled audiophiles to dabble in. They are very narrowband and their response can be screwed up easily in construction. Measurements to tease out the specific frequencies you need to deploy them can be difficult (due to multiple axis resonances can occur).
A single PEQ filter can solve the same problem and lower distortion of the speaker to boot.
Net, net: don’t do it.
You spoke to me as if i was a child and not really there adressing a crowd and as if i did not do it already with complete success... You are right on one point, it takes me one year of tuning non stop ... It was very fun but very complex... By the way it COST ME NOTHING.... I did it for two reasons :
it was the more fun experience ever in audio ... Upgrading pleasure related to a component dont even compared in fun and upgrading power..
You cannot KNOW IT by reading Toole by the way ,formula are only that : formulas in a book ....This is learned by DOING it...
You are right about a point though, it is so long to do and ask for so many listenings experiments to do it right that i did not recommend it save to someone who want to train his ears and learn dedicated small room acoustic at all cost and retired because i cannot imagine doing it in the evening after works in a living room 😊..
it was really fun... Each day a new problem arise... Each day i was partially satisfied and frustrated, i searched the timbre problem and how to solve it...It was a slow incremental process like tuning a piano but on one year time ...
There is also more to say as how to distribute the Hemholtz grid around the room to increase the speakers frequencies response on some band to compensate for the room , because the speakers had his frequencies response and the room too but i will not be able to describe that here...Anyway it is not useful save if someone want to experiment... No speakers is the same and no room either... The main problem was creating a timbre experience right, the second was at the same time creating the right ratio relating sound sources positions and dimensions and the listener position , it is called ASW/LV... japanese acoustians research was inspiring and useful for me here...
The reason i did not like your attitude now is because you never spoke to me really, you adressed the crowd reading the posts and you swim to keep your face clean, drowning the fish ... You had no good faith in this discussion ... It is my conclusion... or if you were of goode faith, you are completely ignorant out of your tools manual of use... I dont know.. Anybody reading my posts and your answers can figure it out for himself ...
There is more to audio life than proving 1+1 = 2. You have that part down pat. Think harder problems.
Oh, I think of the hard problems. I have purchased $100K speaker measurement system and put up with schlepping around these heavy boxes around to test them to solve that hard problem. I also spent years educating myself on acoustic science. I suggest you stop trivializing the topic and leading people to screw up the sound and look of their rooms.
That’s a hell of an investment. $100k on a measurement system as opposed to $100k on a system. Whatever boat you float….
Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.
Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.
A rewind:
It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.
It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.
*heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
OR, two:
The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.
Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications. THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!
Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.
At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.
But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.
They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.
Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).
Solid State amps?
OOPS (back to tubes)!
Your Smart Phone?
FA'GET ABOUT IT!
Your car's GPS?
NOPE!
Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.
Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?
*Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.
Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.
But, I digress:
Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?
Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases
Remember this?.
One anecdote that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how his father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.
It saddened him, that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.
At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.
Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda.
it is comical if you realize there is top musicians here, designer engineers and others very informed people about all aspects of audio...
What is even more comical is thinking any of those disciplines teach you anything about acoustic science. My piano teacher doesn't know a tweeter from a woofer. A design engineer is taught how to put electronic circuits together, not deal with psychoacoustics of sound in a room. As to other "informed people," I don't know who they are and what their qualifications are if they are hiding behind aliases.
That’s a hell of an investment. $100k on a measurement system as opposed to $100k on a system. Whatever boat you float….
I am thankful and fortunate enough to have both. Didn't you see the picture of my system earlier?
You only have audio as a music hobby. I also have it as a hobby when it comes to discovery of performance of those systems and sharing them with others. The joy that comes from that easily rivals if not beat listening to music. Take today's review, the superbly designed Neumann KH120 II Studio Monitor:
Check out its frequency response:
Absolutely stunning. It is nearly as flat as audio electronics yet what you see is an electromechanical device. Read the comments and see the level of appreciation and tell me doing this review didn't bring joy to my heart.
Are you playing with me ? why deforming my thinking ?
I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time... You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...
You proved you know little in acoustic because you never done it yourself... using EQ is not an acoustically "tour de force"...
State for me the fundamental problem in psycho-acoustic and show me your deep understanding ...
You never did it a bit in the last 5 days... 😊
What is even more comical is thinking any of those disciplines teach you anything about acoustic science. My piano teacher doesn’t know a tweeter from a woofer.
What astonish me with your arrogance and despise for audiophiles here, is not what you say, it is the fact you are not even conscious that anybody reading your posts with a brain know you know NOTHING in psycho-aqcoustic save the tools instruction manual of your psycho-aqcoustic costly toys..
you dont impress me and me, apart my acoustic experments, i am a nobody in audio .. I learned how to listen tough... Try to tune your room from your basement plumber and house discarded materials and come back to show me the soundfield results ? We will see if you had digested Toole information as more than ABSTRACT recipe ... I know designer here who i read and i KNOW that they KNOW what they speak about... They dont play boss..
You spoke to me as if i was a child and not really there adressing a crowd and as if i did not do it already with complete success... You are right on one point, it takes me one year of tuning non stop ... It was very fun but very complex... By the way it COST ME NOTHING.... I
I don't know what you know or have done. I am not a mind reader. You asked me "what I think of Helmholtz resonators" and I answered.
As to you having deployed that, these tuned products are designed to solve a specific problem with a very specific solution. The only way to know both of those components is with high resolution measurements of bass frequencies. You have not provided anything of the sort. For all we know, you may not have had the problem you thought you had, nor solved it the way you think you have.
I have had people report building these things, deploying them, and unlike you, measuring them only to see that they don't do much of anything for them.
And that statement about costing nothing is absurd. Even if you built it yourself, there is material cost. The thing doesn't materialize itself out of thin air, pun intended.
I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time...
I don’t know what you have learned. I can only go by what you can demonstrate here and so far, I have not seen you express anything in this thread indicating any knowledge of the field. Maybe you know it, but I don’t know that you do.
You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...
A claim of knowledge is not a fact. Nor have I mucked anyone individually. I discuss the technical point and show measurements, references, and other data to prove them. You have something like that, let’s see it. Start by demonstrating how you know the perceptual effects of lateral reflections.
As to the book, it costs so little compared to what people spend on gear/content. I suggest you go and buy it and read that, instead of wasting time here. And yes, that includes reading my posts. The book is that valuable.
You cannot have a clue about Helmholtz resonators because you did not even mention them for the bass problem in a room... You mock those who use material treatment favoring EQ alone... It is ignorance...
By the way what you speak about the specialized use of ONE resonator for the bass control for a precise use in a room is something already commercialized with success , it had no relation with a distributed grid of one hundred resonators, from 8 feet high to small one, and their effect on the pressure zone distribution and their effect on the relation between the speakers and the listener when tuned and located appropriately..
... You cannot learn that ABSTRACTLY you did it or not... with your ears...
I had no results my friend, i had an acoustic room better or not too far from what i look as your room at no cost... but hard work...😊
how i know ?
a soundfield filling the room able to gave to each recording a complete faithful translation..
Why it is faithful ?
because each recording in an ideal audio system must be DIFFERENT... Each one...
What is more valuable than buying the book is experimenting with it by the way ...
By the way you suffer from Alzheimer...
i already said multiple times i have the Toole book.., then when you speak to me speak to me not to an invisible crowd...
stay healthy...
I learned acoustic by studying but experimenting at the same time...
I don’t know what you have learned. I can only go by what you can demonstrate here and so far, I have not seen you express anything in this thread indicating any knowledge of the field. Maybe you know it, but I don’t know that you do.
You cannot change the fact...by mocking all people here and thinking you are alone with books and articles... and only you can read them...
A claim of knowledge is not a fact. Nor have I mucked anyone individually. I discuss the technical point and show measurements, references, and other data to prove them. You have something like that, let’s see it. Start by demonstrating how you know the perceptual effects of lateral reflections.
As to the book, it costs so little compared to what people spend on gear/content. I suggest you go and buy it and read that, instead of wasting time here. And yes, that includes reading my posts. The book is that valuable.
In my living room the two easiest acoustic tweaks I made were to experiment with the angles of the wooden louver blinds that covered big glass windows. There was a certain angle that broke up chaotic reflections but did not deaden the room. The other effective tweak was to distribute small throw rugs over the wood floors between my speakers and the listening chair. This was not a total blanketing of the floor. There is a mix of throw rugs and unobstructed floor. A little creative orientation of the rugs brought an obvious improvement to the sound. To allege that this treatment is ridiculous is well...ridiculous.
You did the right thing, experimenting and you learned...
i did as you...
A bit more foolish though... 😊
Most people who focus on gear or on toy, negliging acoustic dont know anything...
In my living room the two easiest acoustic tweaks I made were to experiment with the angles of the wooden louver blinds that covered big glass windows. There was a certain angle that broke up chaotic reflections but did not deaden the room. The other effective tweak was to distribute small throw rugs over the wood floors between my speakers and the listening chair. This was not a total blanketing of the floor. There is a mix of throw rugs and unobstructed floor. A little creative orientation of the rugs brought an obvious improvement to the sound. To allege that this treatment is ridiculous is well...ridiculous.
You cannot have a clue about Helmholtz resonators because you did not even mention them for the bass problem in a room... You mock those who use material treatment favoring EQ alone... It is ignorance...
No, it is impolite and screwed up logic on your part. This is not a thread on acoustics. I am not at all attempting to engage in any kind of full blown discussion on such a complex topic in this thread. You asked me what they were, and I instantly gave you an answer and the cons of the solution. That you don't accept that -- without facts -- means nothing. A day in the park in an audio forum where folks claim all kinds of expertise. Come with data, not just indefinite word salads and personal commentary.
For sure the debate with you was not about acoustic...
it was more deep and more fundamental but you never answered my points about hearing theory and the different meanings associated with different measures...
The debate was : how could someone predict sound qualities and their perception based on a finite set of linear measures of the design of pieces of gear ?
How could he dare seriously promote it as predictive of audible Qualities ? it is non sense in psycho acoustic basic..
you fail the audiogon discussion exam...😊
By the way i dont claim expertise, Toole is expert...
Me i only at no cost tuned my room... Thanks to him and to those who spell me the basic to experiment with...
Asking measured proof is like imposing the same question for any problem and imposing blind test is as imposing an answer for all problem ... It is ridiculous ... An answer cannot be at the same level than the question save for children puzzle book of algebra or for car seller ...In psycho-acoustic, the Fourier method is one of the question the answer it pose reside out of the Fourier frame... Using the two hearing theory in complementary experiments is the road to go, especially a road already studied in hearing impairment research...
psycho acoustic is based on fundamentals questions... This interest me not your marketing of toys as replacement for listening...
The thing that intrigues me is that the High-End crowd would rather endorse this kind of review :
"The key observation about the effect of five Blackbody v2s on duty in my room narrows down to the way how the two used speaker sets rendered space there. The entire view grew a touch more anchored and denser in both cases, but higher humidity was the most obvious change. The air in-between key sound sources felt rich and fragrant just like before a storm. The overall vibe was less dry and chiseled. Instrumental and vocal shapes struck me as more moist and bloomier than before, while their outlines became somewhat thicker. Sound audibly leaned towards the extra color, boldness and aroma rather than twitchiness, sparks, elasticity and high contrast. Increased relaxation and less prickly incisiveness followed. Considering all this, Blackbody V2 was groomed to fit the usual LessLoss noise-killing profile indeed, so enjoyably familiar. The fact that the theory behind it raises quite a few eyebrows doesn’t change that."
The above review from the HiFi Knights website to me is utter nonsense. Not only is it just a deluge of meaningless superlatives. The possibility of some metal discs occupying the same room as your sound equipment creating audible effects is preposterous. This should be obvious to any rational person. However, the Audiophile class just seems to eat up this type of subjective "testing". Not only that, they will purchase these types of devices and "hear" the effects.
I have participated in a few HiFi and Audiophile forums and always found that there is a cadre of individuals who are prepared to hate someone offering technical advice on audio equipment as it contradicts their world view. The example above of Amirs measurements of the Neumann monitors is exactly the type of information I would want prior to purchasing any (costly) audio product. The last thing I would consider is purchasing a product based on someone using words like "humidity" or "bloomier" to describe it.
Well the thing with wordy reviews loaded with adjectives is most people can read some whereas relatively few know what to make of measurements. Hence the skepticism. See how that works?
You may as well try to teach a cat to bark. They speak different languages.
I have participated in a few HiFi and Audiophile forums and always found that there is a cadre of individuals who are prepared to hate someone offering technical advice on audio equipment as it contradicts their world view.
Yep.
There’s also a streak of anti-expertise too. "How DARE someone deign to tell me something as if it’s just a fact! Like Who Made You The Lord Of What’s True??!!"
The Golden Ear approach is attractive because it allows non-experts to always feel like they can trump experts, to always have a trump card. "Yeah, well mr "trained in the relevant field" expert... you and all your theory, measurements and evidence? Since my experience contradicts your "knowledge" it just shows what you don’t know. Our Ears Don’t Lie!"
It’s an inherently anti-expertise stance, (particularly popular at this time) and so someone who actually knows more about the relevant technology, who actually has expertise they lack...and..stating things as facts? It can’t be that he knows what he’s talking about. That just has to be someone on their high horse that needs to be knocked down a peg.
This thread is full of this sort of turf-protection (not to mention not a little dunning-kruger syndrome...)
Amir, what of the fact that all along, you have only been measuring just the electrical half of electromagnetism. Can you explain the loss of logic in basing your entire belief system on that?
Huh? What do you call speaker and headphone testing? Devoid of magnetism? How do they make sound then (putting aside electrostatics and such).
Power supplies in audio gear use transformers so their magnetic properties are also encapsulated in the overall performance of a device.
The ending of that sentence is key: don't try to get ahead of the train. As an audiophile, your only concern should be what comes out of your audio gear. Not how some physical theory acts on the design of said equipment. You don't listen to that phenomenon. "
"Power supplies in audio gear use transformers so their magnetic properties are also encapsulated in the overall performance of a device."
The overall measured electricalperformance of the device, you mean. You're paltering again, Amir. You haven't answered the question - why have you based your entire belief system on just the electrical half of electromagnetism? The point is, you don't really know, because accurate measurement and analysis of the other profound side hasn't been invented yet.
It is ok, Amir, I no longer wish to help you understand what you have bureaucratically shut yourself off to. Your only contribution to your amazing world of music will be these trivial arguments and the incomplete results of electrical performance tests, years from now. It will not even matter that many audiophiles may be led down your narrow view - as evidenced by the likes of their comments, they are as perfunctory as you. The vital thing I have learned from our exchange is that you are unable to tell the difference between files of different resolution, in that listening test I referred you to. And it is not a leap of deduction to say neither do any of the others who prioritise measurements over listening ability.
How silly to attempt persuading any of you to put more effort into training your listening. I do not feel sorry for any of you, missing out on the amazing differences cables, and unmeasurable electromagnetic fields make.
Amir, I will be making a few more posts on this thread, for those who may not understand why you communicate as you do - as with listening ability, too many of us are hearing your same drum-beat of arrogance, indoctrination, and numbing dogma regarding the measurements of your limiting electrical performance tests. What we are hearing from you cannot be definitively measured either, but there is a science that has identified it.
You may want to have a read to understand yourself as well as you understand your half world of electrical performance tests.
I’m keeping tabs on products I own that he has reviewed. Chord Mojo and Fosi amp are winners. My spare older NOS mhdt dac maybe not so much but mine is SS and not tube. I had a tube mhdt also for awhile but unloaded it. Sound was nice and different but not to my liking as much. I bet it measures horribly. That’s its charm! So he hasn’t hurt my feelings too much (so far).
The overall measured electricalperformance of the device, you mean. You're paltering again, Amir. You haven't answered the question - why have you based your entire belief system on just the electrical half of electromagnetism? The point is, you don't really know, because accurate measurement and analysis of the other profound side hasn't been invented yet.
Your ears must have really evolved to detect magnetic field of audio gear.
Make sure you have no jewelry on you as that could disturb the field. When sitting in the room, align yourself with earth's magnetic force as otherwise, the two will fight and will raise the noise floor of your system.
You may also want to orient your speaker backward as to be closer to the driver magnet. That will make them sound louder then because your ears will be closer. Experiment with the speakers on the side. That would make it field more parallel to the magnetic axis of your body.
I am told human body can generate a magnetic field. In that regard, when listening with others, you may want to experiment with having them lay down while you are sitting up. Again, that works on magnetic orthogonality principle which can remove the veil from your system, assuming of course that it is high enough resolution (magnetically speaking).
It will not even matter that many audiophiles may be led down your narrow view - as evidenced by the likes of their comments, they are as perfunctory as you.
How do you know that? Have you been to an audiologist and have them measure your ability to detect magnetic field? Many of the ASR members have and as a class, they are far superior to folks on other forums.
Please don't confuse this with "magnetic personality." That is a different thing. Oh wait... maybe it is one in the same!
What we are hearing from you cannot be definitively measured either, but there is a science that has identified it.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
