shadorne, these people are immune to proof. And to logic. At this point I'm hanging around this thread only for its humor value, to see how stupid the comments can get. The winner so far is the guy with the 70 pound battery who's certain he hears an improvement when it sits on an isolation platform. It amazes me that people who like to believe they have superior hearing have so little understanding about how their own hearing works, or how unreliable sighted comparisons more than a few seconds apart really are. Give any of these people a proper blind test and they'd fail like little children taking a college physics exam.
Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?
Mechanical grounding or isolation from vibration has been a hot topic as of late. Many know from experience that footers, stands and other vibration technologies impact things that vibrate a lot like speakers, subs or even listening rooms (my recent experience with an "Energy room"). The question is does it have merit when it comes to electronics and if so why? Are there plausible explanations for their effect on electronics or suggested measurement paradigms to document such an effect?
1,146 responses Add your response
Actually neither of the extreme viewpoints is very complimentary to this hobby. The fun is in sorting through the nonsense however one may do it and getting to the meat of the matter ie putting stuff together that makes good sound that is pleasing to the listener. Music is an art built on the foundation of science. Science alone will never account for everything. Pseudoscience can pretend to but its fake science not real. |
There go the insults when no good response otherwise... The interesting thing about this thread is no longer the original topic but the differences among participants and how normal things are presented from extreme viewpoints. Ethan thinks high end audio and audiophiles who embrace it are all delusional and ignorant. There is some truth to that perhaps in some cases but clearly Ethan’s viewpoint is extreme and does not account for reality observed by most. Geofkait as usual plays to high end audiophile paranoia and fears that something is missing or not right no matter what and sells colored dots and Teleportation Tweaks to prove it. Most others seem to fall in the middle somewhere. To Ethan’s credit he at least seems willing to discuss things with other experts like Atmasphere whereas GK always holds his position 100% no matter what and attacks and degrades anyone who challenges them. He also is attempting to apply science whereas GK mostly applies pseudoscience with absolutely nothing to back it up except talk and reselling other peoples stuff as high end audio products to anyone who might care. Its sadly like a little microcosm of the world in general and how self-important folks with extreme positions and viewpoints tend to dominate the news and discussions. |
shadorne Geoff, The burden is on you to make a simple demonstration to show that vibration is a big issue. Cars and other mobile devices do not suffer electrical distortion due to vibration of electronics. You are talking about a fringe issue that is obviously rare or we would encounter it more often on a daily basis. Huh? Portable devices like Walkman as well as car CD players employ data buffers to avoid the effects of walking, jogging, driving etc., which actually illustrates that vibration IS a problem for all electronic devices. Thanks for bringing that up. |
Geoff, The burden is on you to make a simple demonstration to show that vibration is a big issue. Cars and other mobile devices do not suffer electrical distortion due to vibration of electronics. You are talking about a fringe issue that is obviously rare or we would encounter it more often on a daily basis. |
Geoffkait:"issue. It’s something deeper. Because vibration degrades CD laser reading and distorts the signal in everything it’s a BIG DEAL. Microphonics is a strawman argument." Seismic type vibration forces the ENTIRE BUILDING to vibrate. Because seismic type vibration is not unidirectional, but has 6 DIRECTIONS of motion, everything in the building that is sitting on the floor or attached to the walls or ceilings is vibrating in concert with the complex motion of the building. That is why, in order to escape the effects of seismic structural vibration, the components - even solid state components - must be isolated. Nothing is really inert unless it’s decoupled from the building. Thus, even a three foot thick steel or aluminum bar sitting on the floor will vibrate. |
Convert?fit=crop&h=128&rotate=exif&w=128 shadorne 5,398 posts 12-21-2016 11:18pm Well if you agree that tapping components is causing vibration in the components and if it makes absolutely no audible sound out the speakers at full volume then you have almost certainly proved that vibration is not a big deal. so it definitely proves something. yes, it means microphonics is not the issue. It’s something deeper. Because vibration degrades CD laser reading and distorts the signal in everything it’s a BIG DEAL. Microphonics is a strawman argument. |
shadorne What a totally useless thread full of ad hominem attacks. If the OP actually cares anymore I will add that I concur with Mapman. Apart from turntables, tubes, and speakers, for the most part any mechanical vibration isolation is totally unnecessary with most SS electronics. This can be proven quite simply by gently tapping the chassis and noting that no sound comes out the speaker even with the volume turned up fully. (Of course, don’t try this with a tube amp or with a turntable or with a sledgehammer) I would add that a large transformer on a massive power amp can vibrate or hum audibly and so can an optical drive when close to the component but this sound is not coming out from the speakers if the equipment is working properly. sorry, that doesn’t prove anything. We’re not talking about microphonics here, we’re talking about vibration affecting the audio signal in capacitors, wires and printed circuit boards and microchips in solid state gear and how the CD is read and the affect on wires etc. in everything else. If you smack a CD player real hard it could make the CD skip, but you won’t hear the smack coming out of the speakers. Fuses in both tube and solid state gear are suceptible to vibration which is why aftermarket fuses are usually either ceramic or employ anti-vibration means of some sort. Look ma, no ad hominem attack. |
I use a Sistrum platform to increase the chemical reactivity of my deep cell marine battery that powers my dac..The 70 lb. battery sits on this platform. That is the result I hear. While the battery is not solid state there is a marked improvement in sound quality of all my ss gear when placed on these same platforms. Even the battery. I have inside both amps the same technology under the circuit boards and everything else that touches the chassis floor. It’s all mechanically grounded from the inside out. It all launches from the same mechanical ground plane. Tom |
What a totally useless thread full of ad hominem attacks. If the OP actually cares anymore I will add that I concur with Mapman. Apart from turntables, tubes, and speakers, for the most part any mechanical vibration isolation is totally unnecessary with most SS electronics. This can be proven quite simply by gently tapping the chassis and noting that no sound comes out the speaker even with the volume turned up fully. (Of course, don’t try this with a tube amp or with a turntable or with a sledgehammer) I would add that a large transformer on a massive power amp can vibrate or hum audibly and so can an optical drive when close to the component but this sound is not coming out from the speakers if the equipment is working properly. |
Can you null the same component ouput when played from a Sistrum Platform and then the same component played from a Springy Thing Platform?. Of course when you playback the difference output you need to choose which platform to launch from. If you were to add the difference to the Springy Thing Platform on the rerun it would gain about 1.5 db in amplitude and lite up the wall behind the speakers versus just the orginal Springy Thing playback .Tom |
ethan_winer It’s clear that Geoff Kait doesn’t understand what nulling is or how it works. I’ll give you a clue: it doesn’t "measure" anything. Here’s a more complete explanation, not that you’re interested in learning anything but maybe others are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ&t=53m39s Right, only geniuses like yourself can understand nulling. Only a genius would be able to find some hare brained method to prove his phoney foregone conclusion. You'd fit in very well in the witch hunts of yore. |
I’ll email you about my project because I imagine you’ll find it interesting. And maybe you’ll be around for a phone call over the holiday "dead" week between Xmas and New Years? I'm sure we do in fact agree on 90+ percent of this stuff! I'm usually around- quite often that is our busiest week of the year. I am familiar with the nulling technique- hard to get through school without knowing that. I am skeptical that the test will have the resolution required but I suspect that will have a lot to do with what exactly is being tested. A customer of mine liked to replace parts in the power supplies of his equipment. In order to know if he made any progress he placed a microphone in his room at the listening chair and then ran sweeps and distortion tests, and compared them to 'before' and 'after'. He was thus able to document what he heard. |
It's clear that Geoff Kait doesn't understand what nulling is or how it works. I'll give you a clue: it doesn't "measure" anything. Here's a more complete explanation, not that you're interested in learning anything but maybe others are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ&t=53m39s |
Good luck with that. I can't even find someone who can measure my feet in a manner that guarantees comfort. Just a basic fit to help toss out the really bad candidates but not enough to determine the final choice. Hopefully the salesman can tell me which one fits best based on the measurements but not take it personally if I end up disagreeing. |
12-21-2016 1:39pm Nathan Winer: Ralph, I absolutely do not think I know everything. I do think that everything that affects audio fidelity is known, and so there’s no mystery, but I know very well that I don’t know everything. A list of just what I know that I don’t know would be pretty long. Then there’s the stuff I don’t even know that I don’t know. That said, if you think people like cockrum and kait have anything to offer that will increase my knowledge of audio, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. to which atmasphere responded, "Regarding kait, I invite you to reread some of my prior comments that were directed at you; you should already know I don’t take him seriously." The feeling’s mutual, big guy but I know where you’re coming from. You’ve just remained in the past a little too long and haven’t quite caught up with reality. No biggie as far as I’m concerned. The fact that you actually take Nathan seriously speaks volumes. With all due respect, geoff kait Machina Dynamica |
ethan_winer ^^^ Yes, exactly. And nulling can be used in many other interesting and creative ways. The device I’m currently developing can measure distortion down to extremely low levels, and it can even use music as a test signal. It can also compare two wires to see how they differ. So you could compare the $3 RCA wire that comes free with every CD player versus a $2,000 "interconnect" and see how similar they are. If they null to below -100 dB then you know both wires must sound identical no matter what the vendors claim. Pretty neat, eh?! Geez, Louise. Didn’t you get the memo, Nathan? Things that measure the same often don’t sound the same. At least in the audiophile world. One assumes you’re from the bullet headed Audio Review dude’s school of thought, the one from back in the 80s who said exactly what you just said. It’s just another example of what separates Mid Fi from the high end. You want some examples of things that measure the same and sound different, you say? Capacitors, cables, power cords, power cord conmectors, resisitors, speakers, CD players, stereo cartridges, amplifiers, preamplifiers. Even electron tubes that measure and have the same military spec sound different. Imagine that. Everything sounds different. Cones sound different. Isolation stands sound different. Even one with the SAME measured resonant frequency. Follow? Geez, even TVs that measure the same look different. Or are you blind too? |
^^^ Yes, exactly. And nulling can be used in many other interesting and creative ways. The device I'm currently developing can measure distortion down to extremely low levels, and it can even use music as a test signal. It can also compare two wires to see how they differ. So you could compare the $3 RCA wire that comes free with every CD player versus a $2,000 "interconnect" and see how similar they are. If they null to below -100 dB then you know both wires must sound identical no matter what the vendors claim. Pretty neat, eh?! |
It was David Hafler (I believe) who proposed the "null" test for power amplifiers. Once an amplifier so tested produced zero sound, it would ipso facto be producing zero audible distortion, for any audible artifacts produced by an amp in a null test would be, by definition, distortion. Hafler put on demonstrations of his then current (late 80’s?) amplifier, in which the amp produced no sound when nulled. The test, and Hafler’s claims regarding the threshold of distortion audibility, was covered in both Stereophile Magazine and TAS at the time. |
Ralph, do you know about nulling? It reveals everything that differs between two signals, including stuff you might not even think to look for. Nulling has been used since at least the 1940s (early HP distortion analyzers), so if there were some unknown aspect of audio beyond distortion and hum and aliasing etc, it would have been revealed years ago by nulling. That’s the gist of the project I’m working on that I described in my first of the two deleted posts. :->) As for innovation, that’s more to do with better ways to solve old problems such as loudspeaker design, less battery consumption, making HD TV screens cheaper to manufacture etc. There’s not much "new" in audio science itself, though lossy compression (MP3, AAC) is fairly recent. I’ll email you about my project because I imagine you’ll find it interesting. And maybe you’ll be around for a phone call over the holiday "dead" week between Xmas and New Years? I'm sure we do in fact agree on 90+ percent of this stuff! |
Ralph, I absolutely do not think I know everything. I do think that everything that affects audio fidelity is known, and so there’s no mystery, but I know very well that I don’t know everything. A list of just what I know that I don’t know would be pretty long. Then there's the stuff I don't even know that I don't know. That said, if you think people like cockrum and kait have anything to offer that will increase my knowledge of audio, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.Regarding kait, I invite you to reread some of my prior comments that were directed at you; you should already know I don't take him seriously. OK- so where we really differ is that I know for a fact that 'everything that affects audio fidelity is known' can't possibly be incorrect. Its an attitude I've run into before and I always find it puzzling, as it should be obvious that it causes the holder of that attitude to not know what they don't know. I found out a long time ago that when I think I know everything that is why I'm most likely to screw up. While I do agree that most of the technical stuff seems to be well understood, occasionally I run into things about which the current paradigm doesn't seem have any knowledge. This is why I hold a couple of patents. In fact I'll take that a step further, if everything that affects audio fidelity is knownthen innovation would be impossible; inevitably a person with that attitude will find themselves on the wrong side of history so to speak. One area of interest to me is the physiology of human hearing (**not** psychology, just to be clear); IOW how sound is perceived by the human ear/brain system. There has been a lot in that field that has only been figured out in the last 30 years or so, and some of it only in the last 10 years. But the test and measurement concepts employed by the audio industry are based on our understanding of how the ear/brain system worked from 60-70 years ago. And even 'way back then, some of what was known got ignored by the audio industry (although Norman Crowhurst made inroads in that regard). My conclusion is that equipment that sounds correct to the human ear does so because it follows those rules of human hearing more closely than equipment that does not. This is not a big step to understand! But the simple fact is that most audio equipment (about 99%; includes your Pioneer receiver) violates one of the fundamental rules of how the ear perceives sound (how we interpret sound pressure). This fact was understood by the mid 1960s but the industry has chosen to ignore it because it was inconvenient. Its disparities like this which is why there is the objectivist/subjectivist debate (and why this thread is as long as it is...). If the audio industry measured the right things then there would be no room for that debate. This is why I say that the industry is about 40 years behind where it should be. It appears also that the only progress that occurs as a result is in high end audio (and I freely acknowledge that high end audio has a good deal of charlatans as well). For the record, I usually find myself on opposite sides of a debate when kait is involved. |
| Post removed |
agear OP Geoffkait: All the giggling schoolboys apparently like each other’s puerile and remarkably unfunny jokes. What we have here is not exactly the faculty of Harvard. Did someone forget to put out the Roach Motels again? You missed my innuendo which is not surprising since you attended my alma mater prior to the admission of women and/or people of color. The primary selection criteria was a whiteboy with a pulse and not academic aptitude. You’re all innuendo, Mr. Bluster. At least you learned something in the college. |
Nathan Winer wrote, "Putting a CD player on a platform won’t stop the acoustic vibration from the sound in the air reaching the player! I made that point clearly in my Loudspeaker Isolation article which none of you apparently read. Uh, the acoustic energy is the same as the seismic energy, they’re both mechanical vibration. What’s the difference, Mr. Smarty Pants? Answer at 11. I told you this would be fun. I just didn’t say for who. 😀 |
Ralph, I absolutely do not think I know everything. I do think that everything that affects audio fidelity is known, and so there’s no mystery, but I know very well that I don’t know everything. A list of just what I know that I don’t know would be pretty long. Then there's the stuff I don't even know that I don't know. That said, if you think people like cockrum and kait have anything to offer that will increase my knowledge of audio, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. |
I looked at this article: http://www.industrial-electronics.com/DAQ/optical_discs_digital_data_and_vibrational_jitter_effects.... It absolutely does not show that isolation doohickeys under CD players have even the smallest value. Yes, blasting 105 dB from a loudspeaker directly at a CD player might create a measurable disturbance, but not audible given the jitter artifacts are at -130 dB. That's more than 30 dB below the "hiss" noise floor of a CD, which is itself inaudible. Moreover, putting your player on a platform won't stop the acoustic vibration from the sound in the air reaching the player! I made that point clearly in my Loudspeaker Isolation article which none of you apparently bothered to read. So here it is again: http://ethanwiner.com/speaker_isolation.htm |
| Post removed |
All the giggling schoolboys apparently like each other's puerile and remarkably unfunny jokes. What we have here is not exactly the faculty of Harvard. Did someone forget to put out the Roach Motels again? You missed my innuendo which is not surprising since you attended my alma mater prior to the admission of women and/or people of color. The primary selection criteria was a whiteboy with a pulse and not academic aptitude. |
Agear wrote, "I have a few thoughts. First, the correlation between jitter and digital fidelity or musicality is murky. From personal experience, I have owned DACs with high and low jitter and musical enjoyment does not always track with specs. I know people argue all day about what thresholds of jitter are audible, ..." Well, any damage to the music signal done in the CD transport would show up at the speakers even if the DAC was low jitter. You cannot separate them. The DAC will process whatever signal is sent to it. Besides, the transport and DAC are both subject to internal and external vibration just like everything else. I.e., the transport and DAC must both be isolated and damped. Jitter in CD transports has many causes and there are other causes of damage to the music signal other than jitter. |
| Post removed |
Mr Winer -- if you had taken the time to read the full thread you would have seen discussion of test data showing the effects of vibration on jitter in CD playback. While we can have a discussion as to whether this is audible it seems there is no discussion as to whether the effect of vibration is real I had neglected to read that piece Folk. Thanks for that. I have a few thoughts. First, the correlation between jitter and digital fidelity or musicality is murky. From personal experience, I have owned DACs with high and low jitter and musical enjoyment does not always track with specs. I know people argue all day about what thresholds of jitter are audible, etc and how to effectively measure it and correlate those measurements is no small matter. Second, the findings referenced by Meitner and the author are interesting, but when crystal oscillators were embalmed in ceramic, "you could hit them with a sledge hammer and it doesn't cause any jitter." Similarly, the author clearly demonstrated that well designed electronics were essentially impervious to vibration from the loudspeaker. Finally, a CDP is a poor test subject for the realm of digital and vibration as it incorporates a mechanical element. Most of us (including myself) are now streaming digital media. It would be interesting to repeat such testing within that paradigm. ps as a complete aside I was amused by the following in the WSJ today - if science is struggling to tell us how to brew a cup of coffee is it any surprise we have difficulty measuring the reproduction of musicAs a coffee nut, I celebrate that particular struggle. Counter Culture is based out of NC.... |
atmasphere wrote, "...that its possible to be far more rigorous with testing than we are currently and also that the industry ignores physiological information about how we perceive sound and so is about 40 years behind as a result), whereas (and I do not mean this in any insulting way and for that matter could be dead wrong) it seems to me that you feel that everything we need to know about audio is already known and has been known for some time." One assumes you meant to say psychological information, not physiological information, about how we perceive sound. If not, how so? |
LOLZ. I’m surprised it took you so long to delete my post. Though it was totally deserved. But you didn’t ban me from the forum? What’s wrong with you peeps? Seriously, what’s wrong with you? :->)What's wrong with a lot of people on this forum is they really seem like they want to push audio as far as possible- to find out how real they can make it sound (its that bit of intention that separates high end audio from mid-fi). There are a lot of opinions as a result. Sometimes there are facts too. FWIW none of the people on this thread are moderators. The moderators seem to operate without involvement. Ethan, if I can offer some advice and comments: First, I respect your knowledge of room treatment and for the most part, how digital works (I think is safe to say we differ as to how well it succeeds over the prior art). The first bit of advice is this: no matter how much you know, there is always something more. If we look at all the knowledge in the universe as a pie, what we know is a tiny sliver. What we don't know and also at the same time know that we don't know it is a much larger bit. But by far the lion's share is the part where we don't know it and don't know that we don't know. That's well over 99%, and that's that part that acts as blind spots in our lives. Obviously this applies to far more than engineering! The second bit of advice is (and I have lived this part since about 1988 or so, when everything was line command): You are far better off allowing someone else to defend you than doing it yourself. But in order for that to happen, you have to earn the respect of others. Its not easy on the web! We tend to say things that we would never say in person, and the fact of the matter is there is a live person behind each keyboard, and you don't get their respect by abusing them. Now it happens that you and I are likely on the same page with a number of issues. From what I can make out, more than where we differ. I think the big area that we seem to differ (and this is based only on my prior experience dealing with you in the past) is that I tend to hold the viewpoint that there is still a lot that we don't know about audio (I'm of the opinion that its possible to be far more rigorous with testing than we are currently and also that the industry ignores physiological information about how we perceive sound and so is about 40 years behind as a result), whereas (and I do not mean this in any insulting way and for that matter could be dead wrong) it seems to me that you feel that everything we need to know about audio is already known and has been known for some time. Now I only say that because I've seen a number of people in the past that claim to be 'engineers' who seem to have values and attitudes very much like yours, but it could be a lack of understanding on my part so please correct me if I'm wrong. |
| Post removed |
