Do you believe in Magic?
the original subject of this thread "magic", may be irrelevant, as one's perception of sound is influenced by unconscious bias or expectations. its a form of the placebo affect. what i am saying is that explantions as to why one hears something may be inaccurate, as they discount our unconscious expectations of what we expect to hear. |
04-17-12: Almarg Your expectation was borne out by my experience. It went like this: I installed a Hifi Tuning fuse in my Meridian preamp. Sat down, listened... Hmm, not sure. Is it a little better? I think it's a little better. Maybe I'm imagining it. I can't tell. I better order one for the amp to make sure. That's an exact transcript from my brain, which I am sorry to say, reflects very poorly on my judgment as a consumer. I buy a frivolous item for $35, and when I'm not sure whether it does anything, I buy another one for $50. Good thing my wife controls the money around here. But that's not the point. The point is: I bought another fuse for the amp. Installed it, sat down, listened... Well, that's definitely something. A little less grunge. A little more relaxed. Neat. Let's enjoy some music. And I did. Here's the important part: When I went from John Lee Hooker's acoustic blues to this recording of L'Estate 2 from Vivaldi's Four Seasons... What the [expletive deleted]!! The headroom had increased by, say, 30%. I was stunned. I scratched my head... Maybe the old fuse was dirty. Or defective. Or maybe these things actually work. My money is on #3. All $85 of it. Plus shipping. And btw, Al, all of this happened BEFORE you posted your comment about trying music with a wide dynamic range. So my experiences aren't so easy to dismiss as a product of my overactive imagination (I'm looking at you, MrT). Bryon |
Now someone, tell me again this hobby is about music enyoyment, musical artists and artisans, and not about gear, tweaking and ''sound''. Reading this thread, I am torn between memories of reading Polular Science and the British Journal of Psychology. Must admit this is all quite entertaining all the same, while being SO serious at the same time. Think about it... |
04-19-12: Sonicbeauty Haven't we been through this Sonicbeauty? And on this very thread. Since you are repeating yourself, so will I... 01-26-12: Bryoncunningham The criticism that "it's about the music, not the gear" contributes nothing substantive to the discussion. And it rings false when it's in the mouth of a person who has routinely initiated topics of discussion that are about gear and not music. Oh, and I can't help but notice that your name is Sonicbeauty, not Musicbeauty. Think about it... Bryon |
Most eloquently put Byron. But one has to understand & keep in mind the obsessive illness that does dominate this hobby. For some its a frustrating experience as they chase an unknown state. Slightly better is just around the corner. It is easy to let the gear get in the way of the music. Hense at times it's about the music & at others it is about the gear. It's just about where you are on the audiophile journey. Maybe "humanbeauty" would be a better name? |
04-20-12: Chadeffect I agree with this, Chad. I suspect every audiophile has had the experience of having his thoughts about equipment interfere with his enjoyment of the music. When that is presented as a mere statement of fact, I have absolutely no objection. But IMO, Sonicbeauty isn't merely expressing a statement of fact. He is passing judgment on the content of this thread and its participants. That is what I object to. If his judgment wasn't obvious from his last post, it should be obvious from his FIRST post... 01-26-12: Sonicbeauty That should make it abundantly clear that SB's comments are not mere statements of fact but rather judgements, in spite of his subsequent disavowal. Anyone who spends time around here will recognize that judgments of this kind are a commonplace with some posters. Some people would rather denigrate a conversation than participate in it. I sometimes get the impression that these people believe that denigrating a conversation IS participating in it. That is sad. It derails what might otherwise be constructive conversation, and it isolates us from one another, which is contrary to the whole raison d'être of sites like these. Bryon |
Not to further derail this thread but in keeping with my past comment, this tactic of derailment is commonly used in all manner of conversation when nothing can be added to said conversation, or when opinions differ not due to the topic, but to a belief. Emotion then takes over and semantics are used to further that belief (unfounded as it is). Admonishing someone to stay on point (which I've gotten used to doing in my daily life) can be really taxing but when someone knows I'm going to deploy that tactic, they tend to stay on topic or simply move on. In fact, those around me appreciate it all the more and use it themselves. It's a learning process. Recognizing these and other types of derailment are necessary to follow a given conversation in an intelligent, informative and appreciative manner. Depots have taken over whole countries with simply a microphone. Politicians convince some people that the sun shines at midnight. And some hobbyists refuse to fully appreciate the views of others when they simply don't believe a particular facet of the hobby that others share. The operative word seems to be 'share'. They do it with a practiced conviction that at first blush appears to have some sort of validity but upon cursory examination can be laid bare for what it is: a disparagement of sorts for no particular reason. Sorry to go like this but Bryon made a mighty fine point that i just had to add to. All the best, Nonoise |
01-26-12: Sonicbeauty "This whole discussion exemplifies everything I have come to understand about the truth AND destiny of this hobby: The MUSIC taking a backseat to the never-ending analysis of SOUND, and the countless hours wasting on getting that little one last drop of improvement." I suspect it's actually quite common for the anti tweak segment of the hobby to believe, or at least employ the argument, that there's not much to be gained by attention to detail and trying to progress in this hobby. And that only a measly 3%, that one last drop, can be achieved. Boomboxes start to look like a real alternative to anti audiophile mossbacks, no offense to Sonicbeauty personally. |
Point taken & understood Byron. Sometimes speedily expressing ones self in these little boxes can lead to points that with a little closer inspection could have been worded better. Much as I enjoy these online communities there is nothing like talking to someone in the flesh. I am sure all the above comments over a beer or tea would result in much less abrasion. All that to say I can sense sonicbeauty's frustration. |
04-20-12: Nonoise This is exactly right, IMO. Sharing, as simple as it sounds, is regrettably difficult for some people. It's something all children are taught but many adults forget. It's easy to mistake talking for sharing. They are not the same. With sharing, the intention is to GIVE. There are people on A'gon who give so selflessly it is just remarkable. They give information, advice, support, humor, etc.. Some of those people have participated in this thread. I don't regard myself as a paragon of giving, though I certainly make it a goal. That may strike some as dubious, since I've done more than my share of arguing on this thread, which is the antithesis of sharing. For six years in graduate school I was trained to argue, so I can easily lapse into it. But I seldom enjoy it and usually regret it. Having said all that, I believe that there are times when arguing is exactly what is appropriate. Two scenarios come to mind: to challenge utter nonsense and to stop bullying. But even arguing can be done with a certain amount of restraint, the value of which is that We're trying to have a civilization here. Bryon |
04-21-12: Chadeffect I agree, Chad, that a certain amount of conflict is attributable to unfortunate wording that leads to false impressions. Sometimes people who appear contrary, or even belligerent, don't really mean that much by what they say. As I mentioned in my last post, I believe that getting along with people is more about a person's intentions than it is their expressions. But inferring intentions from expressions isn't always easy, as this thread has illustrated several times. So I completely agree with you that written conversations sometimes CONCEAL people's real thoughts and feelings. Having said that, it's worth pointing out that written conversations can also REVEAL people's real thoughts and feelings. An obvious reason is that the safety provided by "virtual" conversations emboldens people to act in ways they might not otherwise. Virtual conversations are like drunk conversations... inhibitions are lowered and the truth comes out, and sometimes the truth is ugly. Another reason why written conversations can reveal people's real thoughts and feelings is that, unlike spoken conversations, there is a LATENCY and a RECORD. So when something doesn't feel quite right, you can take your time to really think about what a person has said, which is difficult to do in real time during a spoken conversation. My wife is a clinical psychologist. This conversation is reminding me of conversations with her (in a good way). Maybe in addition to Amps, Speakers, Tech Talk, etc., Audiogon should have a category for Group Therapy. We could all use it from time to time. bc |
Bryon and Chad, you are both spot on with how the written word can sometimes not really convey what ones true feelings and intentions are. Bryon, I particularly enjoy your posting style. Even though you often present many thoughts, they are each clear and concise. I wish I could put my thoughts and feelings into words that well. I am like you in that I usually end up regretting having arguments. It is not any fun. I feel like in several of them that the other person was much closer to my opinion than not and I just could not get my point across. Very frustrating. It is part of the reason I don't post that much. As for the subject of the original post, yes I do believe in magic. I have tried several of the tweaks mentioned including ERS paper and Bybee products. I tried 3 different versions of Bybees wanting to really like them. I found that they changed the sound, but I personally did not care for the effect of either. I also believe that cables can and do make a difference. The technical reasons have been explained many times on this site by those that know far more about it than I do. It is one of those things that I don't care if I ever fully understand technically. I recently went through a cost cutting period and went on the search to find cables that approached the musicality of some of the more expensive cables in my rig. I was able to find interconnects and speaker cables that came close enough that I did not feel bad about having them in my system. But when it came to my power cords, I bought several budget cables that I wanted to like as much as the higher dollar ones. I didn't find any of them to come close enough to what I had to make me feel good about selling the more expensive ones. I still have the more expensive ones. The less expensive ones were the same gauge, length, etc. Do the more expensive cords have magic? Sure, they make my system sound more like music and not notes. |
Bryon, Count me in for the therapy group. There is a thread right there. What would be in the therapy room? Obviously the wall would be padded with diffusion devices & bass traps. Soft music playing in the room,but from what system? Surely it would be a quad ESL? There is something sane & honest about a quad. P.s sorry for calling you Byron BTW. My typing as hopeless as some of these tweaks! |
Very admirable posts, Bryon! I agree with Csmgolf that you are one of the clearest posters on these forums, and I envy this ability you have to do this. In fact, I was quite surprised to therefore read that you don't actually enjoy argument. I assume you mean the combative aspect, and not the argument for argument's sake? Surely you must derive some pleasure from constructing such logical premises and conclusions as you have frequently on this site? |
Csmgolf, Chad, and Learsfool - Thanks for your kind words. And thanks for contributing to the effort to "try to have a civilization." 04-22-12: Learsfool Yes, Learsfool, it's the combative aspect of arguing that I don't enjoy much anymore, though I admit that sometimes my writing suggests otherwise. Since I'm in a strangely confessional mood, I will tell you that, as a younger man, I was a habitual arguer. When I disagreed with you, I was vocal about it, to put it politely. Six years in graduate school learning to analyze, criticize, and construct arguments from some of the world's most argumentative people was exactly what I DIDN'T need. I was turning into a real a**hole. So I decided to try to develop ways of relating to people that are more cooperative and prosocial. I've been lucky enough to have three good role models. One of them was my dissertation director, who in spite of being a very successful academic philosopher, was one of the most cooperative and prosocial people I've ever met. The second was my first psychotherapist (yes, there have been others), who helped me develop some empathy, both for myself and for others. And the third is my wife, who is a psychologist/psychotherapist herself. She's like the calm dog at the dog park who "corrects" aggressive dogs with nothing more than her body language. Needless to say, I am the aggressive dog. Some of my aggressive behavior can be seen on this thread. Obviously I'm talking about my argument with Geoff, which I regret for a variety of reasons. I still believe the substantive things I said to Geoff, but I wish I'd adopted a more civil tone at points. That continues to be a struggle for me, especially with certain types of personalities. And that brings me back to your question, Learsfool. Yes, I enjoy constructing arguments. It may sound odd, but the great majority of the time, I don't intend those arguments to be argumentative. Non-argumentative arguments are an effective way to explore an idea in depth, and I very much enjoy exploring ideas in depth, even when I turn out to be wrong. I'm aware that arguments, argumentative or not, put some people off, so I usually try to soften them with a dose of humility or humor. I haven't displayed a lot of that on this thread, so I will add that to the list of things I regret. The process of growing up never ends. Or at least it shouldn't. Bryon |
I had another difficult-to-explain experience. Whether it is Magic is an open question. My system is computer based. I recently replaced the hard disk drive in my computer with a solid state drive. Formerly, I used HDD's both for the OS and for music storage (as aiff's). Now, I'm using the SSD for both. It's definitely different. Here's what I heard... 1. More resolution 2. Better dynamics 3. Better PRaT ...and oddly... 4. It's louder. #1 through #3 can probably be attributed to the reduction of jitter, or possibly the reduction of RFI. But #4 is a mystery. I have an audiophile friend who also just swapped out his HDD with a SSD. Totally different system and guess what... He heard the exact same thing. Weird. Bryon |
Hi Bryon, Interesting update. I have very little familiarity with Mac's, but in connection with the volume increase, does it seem conceivable that it might somehow have been attributable to a difference in the software installation on the new internal SDD, compared to what was on the original internal HDD? Either in the operating system software, the application program, the codec that may be in use to decompress the files (if they are losslessly compressed), or settings or updates that may be applicable to any of those things. Did you implement the software installation to the new internal SSD by installing everything from scratch, or by using an imaging program to restore a recently generated image file containing the entire contents of the original HDD, or by using a cloning program? Did the volume increase seem like it might perhaps have amounted to 6 db (keeping in mind the rough rule of thumb that a 10 db increase is subjectively perceived as twice as loud)? A 6 db increase would correspond to the bits in each digital sample being shifted up by one bit location. In other words, if at some point in the data path through the computer a 32 or 64 bit word length were being used, and the audio data comprises 16 or 24 bits, if the 16 or 24 bits were shifted up by l bit location toward the most significant of the 32 or 64 bits, that would result in a 6 db volume increase, corresponding to twice the voltage at any given instant. Just some (obviously very speculative) thoughts. Best, -- Al |
if you can't explain a phenomenon, is that a reason not to believe it ? are there not some some instances where there is no scientific explanation for an event ? yet such events are accepted as facts. so too in audio, some treatment may be a catalyst for a change in the performance in the stereo system. if the treatment can be studied rigorously and through a rigorous experimental design results in statistical significance, it should be accepted, regardless of how outlandish it may seem. |
08-05-12: TbgWow. What a comment. Where do I start? How about... It seems like you're harboring some hostility toward me since our argument on the fuse thread. Maybe you should talk with someone about it. Help is available. Might I also suggest that you look around for someone else to pick on. The last two times you tried to bully me, you looked foolish, to put it politely. I gather that, at some level, you're aware of that, which is why you just came out swinging for no reason whatsoever. And "rectal inserts"? What the...? I don't even know what joke you're ATTEMPTING to make. It's not just unfunny, it's creepy. Bryon |
08-05-12: AlmargHi Al - I cloned the old HDD to the new SSD using a cloning program. But in addition to the new hardware, the new SSD has an updated OS, which of course contains a variety of new software. Did the volume increase seem like it might perhaps have amounted to 6 db?Yes, that seems about right. A 6 db increase would correspond to the bits in each digital sample being shifted up by one bit location. In other words, if at some point in the data path through the computer a 32 or 64 bit word length were being used, and the audio data comprises 16 or 24 bits, if the 16 or 24 bits were shifted up by l bit location toward the most significant of the 32 or 64 bits, that would result in a 6 db volume increase, corresponding to twice the voltage at any given instant.Very interesting. That's a good theory. There's a fair amount of discussion of 32 vs 64 bit Mac's on the web, but I'm not sure how to make sense of it. My machine is an iMac 2011. I will do some reading and see if I can find anything that confirms your theory. As always, Al, you are a great detective! Bryon |
Interesting thread. I have enjoyed Bryon's postings elsewhere on the Gon. I'm actually surprised this one has gotten as acrimonious as it has, since I thought Bryon started with the proposition that some of these 'tweaks,' for lack of a better word, seem to work even if there is no clear explanation for them. Then, the whole give and take with the guy that makes Brilliant Pebbles sort of derailed this, which I think was unfortunate. I remember walking into a London retailer years ago, and asking him about Peter Belt and what the view was there in the UK. He pulled a box of stuff from under the counter and said, 'Here, you can have it all for X.' [I can't remember how much it was, but it wasn't much]. I still have some of that stuff, including various shiny colored stickers in a plastic envelope that I keep as a novelty in my listening room, unopened. (Who knows, maybe they are doing something just sitting in the bag?) I'm more from the subjective school, partly because I don't have the engineering or hard science knowledge that others do, but I believe that there are good, solid scientific explanations for some of these tweaks, and for others- who knows? ( I accept the possibility that science cannot explain everything). But, I like to start by sorting out the obvious, and readily explicable, issues with the system first. If there is a noise problem, or a problem with dynamics, I want to get to the bottom of that by looking at the fundmentals first. What's the story with the AC power? How is the system set-up? Are there equipment isolation issues? Do the contacts need to be cleaned or a tube replaced or an equipment stand damper replaced? I will tweak and can hear differences in cable, footers, and the like, down to changes in the ball bearings on which my equipment stands rest. Sometimes, rather than tweaking, I will change out a piece of equipment that- while well regarded, just didn't do it for me, even after much experimentation, tube rolling and adjustment (this happened most recently in connection with my phono stage and man, what a difference!) I also believe in certain system synergies, which are a form of 'magic,' to the extent the sum is greater than the parts- I'm thinking here about components that just seem to work well together; perhaps there is an engineering explanation, but you'll find a lot of skeptics on things like 'wire' and I'm not one of them. I remember reading Enid Lumley back in the day- a lot of what she wrote about seemed pretty far fetched at the time, including not only polarity issues, but hard surfaces under equipment making things sound harder, and vice-versa. It all seemed like lunatic fringe stuff then, but now, much of it (or at least some, I'd have to drag out all those old Absolute Sound issues and re-read them to be sure) are accepted, at least within the 'subjective' school of audio. Tice- not sure if there was any real explanation for the 'clock,' other than that you can plug any number of electrical appliances into an outlet on the same branch as your system and it will have some electrical effect. (Isn't that what those 'noise harvesters' and the fancy stuff by Nordost do too, on a more sophisticated level?) But, he brought AC power to the attention of a lot of audiophiles through the 'Power Block' products, and power conditioners have been an accepted part of the mainstream high-end for quite some time. So, while I haven't bought one of those fancy brass bowls that sit in the room and change the sound, I'm certainly receptive to the idea that a lot of strange and wonderful things can change our perception of how an audio system sounds. Often, not always, these things can lead to more refinement and understanding and acceptance. To paraphrase a noted jurist (hey, you guys were quoting obscure philosophers and Einstein), 'it's nice to be on the cutting edge, so long as you are not the salami.' Best, Bill Hart |
Nice post, Bill. I agree with your generally open attitude about tweaks. For the vast majority of tweaks, I'm neither a Believer nor a Skeptic until I've tried them myself. Even then, I'm sometimes unable to say whether I'm a Believer or a Skeptic. But some tweaks definitely work, and I've found it's very hard to predict which ones do and which ones don't. Bryon |
Let's see, which of the following tweaks do the more open minded folks here think will definitely work, have a chance of working or have a snowball's chance in hell of working? Don't be shy. By "working" I mean improves the sound, just to clarify. 1. Removing all telephone books from the house. 2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room. 3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room. 4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room. 5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room. 6. Removing all Sonex from the room. 7. Removing speaker grills. |
I''ll bite. As annotated below: 1. Removing all telephone books from the house. I don't see this, unless the telephone books are blocking the speakers or air vents on the equipment. But, if you are using them for isolation under equipment, or to sit on so you are at proper listening height, keep them. 2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room. Plants are good natural acoustic treatments and look nice too. I'd keep them, but you have to be careful not to over water them. Also, watch out for strange infestations of bugs and plant diseases. 3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room. Good idea. Probably more sanitary too. Since I don't drink, not much of an issue for me. 4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room. Probably the most important suggestion, i think, because those cones move sympathetically. Unfortunately, I have a large home theatre system in the same room as my hi-fi (not connected to each other, electrically or through signal cables), but the extra speakers are there, and it would be a giant pita to move them for hi-fi listening. I do turn the amps on that control them, to 'charge them' so they are less compliant and the speaker cones less prone to sympathetic movement. 5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room. Dunno what this would do - isn't that sorta the old Linn mantra? I have a bunch of equipment for the home theatre system that is rack mounted in an alcove adjacent to the hi-fi, not part of it and those racks aren't going anywhere (they are about 6 feet high and bolted to the floor). I am not looking forward to breaking them down when i move, which- hopefully, will be soon. New dedicated and far less cluttered room to follow in new location. 6. Removing all Sonex from the room. Sonex is an acoustic treatment, right? I haven't heard that brand name or term in a while. Not sure where you are going with this, some treatment, if properly applied, is good, but I'm not sure about Sonex. 7. Removing speaker grills. Could improve things if not acoustically transparent. Dunno if this was intended to be a serious quiz, but I did try to give you straight answers. So, what's your take, or is it a joke? |
Mostly personal experiences here. 1. Removing all telephone books from the house. In the corners of you room of some benefit. Other than that no effect. 2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room. Small plants are okay, but a large rubber tree plant is a comb filter. 3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room. Nothing. 4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room. Without shorting plugs remove them. Even with shorting plugs better get them out. 5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room. No effect that I have heard unless piled around the speakers. 6. Removing all Sonex from the room. Soft foam is death. 7. Removing speaker grills. If you have them, experiment. Some speakers sound better without grills. Others sound no different. |
Just my observations: 1. Remove all ear hair 2. Remove all clever clocks 3. Trim fingernails neatly (toenails don't seem to matter) 4. Tie all shoe laces tightly 5. Ensure all window and door jams are nailed closed 6. Remove all brilliant pebbles 7. Secure all plastic album covers 8. Polish all belt buckles 9. Clean all ceiling fans 10. Use spray, not roll on, deodorant 11. Remove all magic dots 12. Tighten all faceplates 13. Remove dandruff from shirts and sweaters 14. Vacuum all rugs 15. Use Armor All on every power cord 16. Serve unsalted nuts 17. Don't invite real nuts 18. Close cover before striking 19. Shut down security system 20. Tell the neighbors you know better Hope that helps |
Wharton, answers to your questions: "1. Removing all telephone books from the house. I don't see this, unless the telephone books are blocking the speakers or air vents on the equipment. But, if you are using them for isolation under equipment, or to sit on so you are at proper listening height, keep them." Telephone books hurt the sound, but not because they are blocking the sound or damping something. It's a mind matter interaction issue. Take all telephone books outside or just throw them away. Who uses telephone books anymore? Easy to test. "2. Removing all plants and flowers from the listening room. Plants are good natural acoustic treatments and look nice too. I'd keep them, but you have to be careful not to over water them. Also, watch out for strange infestations of bugs and plant diseases." Plants and flowers, while attractive, hurt the sound. Mind matter interaction issue. Easy enough to test, no? "3. Removing all empty beer, etc. bottles from the listening room. Good idea. Probably more sanitary too. Since I don't drink, not much of an issue for me." Empty bottles act like Helmholtz resonators, even one bottle on the room is quite noticeable. "4. Removing unused speakers from the listening room. Probably the most important suggestion, i think, because those cones move sympathetically. Unfortunately, I have a large home theatre system in the same room as my hi-fi (not connected to each other, electrically or through signal cables), but the extra speakers are there, and it would be a giant pita to move them for hi-fi listening. I do turn the amps on that control them, to 'charge them' so they are less compliant and the speaker cones less prone to sympathetic movement." All musical instruments including speakers should be removed for best results. It has very little to do with the speakers cones resonating, as can be confirmed listening through headphones. Alas, it's a mind matter interaction issue. "5. Removing all unused amps and other components and cables from the listening room. Dunno what this would do - isn't that sorta the old Linn mantra? I have a bunch of equipment for the home theatre system that is rack mounted in an alcove adjacent to the hi-fi, not part of it and those racks aren't going anywhere (they are about 6 feet high and bolted to the floor). I am not looking forward to breaking them down when i move, which- hopefully, will be soon. New dedicated and far less cluttered room to follow in new location." Removing all unused electronics from the room improves the sound. All unused cables should also be removed. It's a mind matter interaction issue. "6. Removing all Sonex from the room. Sonex is an acoustic treatment, right? I haven't heard that brand name or term in a while. Not sure where you are going with this, some treatment, if properly applied, is good, but I'm not sure about Sonex." Sonex, you know, the one used in many recording studios, degrades the sound, even in small amounts. Same goes for those foam padded chairs from Ikea. Easy to test. "7. Removing speaker grills. Could improve things if not acoustically transparent." Almost all grills are acoustically transparent. Nevertheless removing grills will improve the sound. Another mind matter interaction issue. |
Bryon, I do not recall the details of how your computer is connected to your audio system, but assuming it is via wires, then I would most likely attribute the difference to a change in the computer generated noise domain resulting from a configuration change to the computer. I'd be very interested to know if a difference was heard changing drives if the computer is isolated from the stereo using a wireless connection. I would predict not, but it would not be the first time I was wrong if so. |
Geoffkait: For what it's worth, I am in the early throes of thinking about my next room, though I don't have a new house/building locked down yet. Apart from acoustic help, and sorting basic things like power and quiet AC, I'm looking for a large, uncluttered environment. I don't know where I'd even find a phone book these days, but the idea that things in the room can resonate and detract from the sound does not seem far-fetched. On the other hand, I'm not going to be monastic in eliminating everything but me and the system- I will have some comfortable (and comforting) things in the room as well. I probably have on the order of 10,000 records (probably getting closer to 11,000 now) and I would like to see them in my room as well. I will try to take account of this in the design process when i get to that stage. Taking your views to an extreme ( and I don't mean to single you out), I suppose that once a room is 'spot on,' even having another person in the room in addition to the primary listener/system owner would affect the sound. I'm just not that extreme. BTW, my moniker is Whart, which is simply a contraction of my name. Best, bill hart |
