Mrtennis wrote,
"i suppose its a philosophical issue, namely that knowledge can not be derived from sense perception."
I prefer to switch your statement around to read, all of our knowledge is derived from our sensory perception. If you subscribe to the evolution of man, and it won't bother me if you don't, man's sensory perception was developed primarily as a survival mechanism - to be able to see and hear an approaching predator. Since predators had excellent senses of smell, vision and hearing, man's senses needed to be very keen. Early man would have had to trust his senses completely since it was literally a life or death situation. He would have had to be able to hear a twig snap at fifty yards, differentiate a harmless animal from a tiger at two hundred yards, etc.
"it is very easy to make a mistake and misidentify an instrument. there are many examples of recordings where that is so."
I think much of the problem you refer to has to do with the playback system, many of which are unable to reproduce the instruments with their proper color, timbre, pitch, body, dynamics, etc.
"certainly our jury system provides many examples of the unreliability of witness accounts."
But witnesses are sometimes unreliable because adrenaline clouds the analytical mind, long term memory issues, or because witnesses were simply not paying attention fully. In audio these issues don't exist, at least to any great extent, while one sits in his easy chair in front of the speakers and contemplates the sound.
"it's obvious that perception is unreliable. i can cite many other examples. i doubt anyone would allege perception is perfect."
I don't think anyone would argue perception is perfect; on the other hand I am not convinced that our sensory perception is as flawed as you seem to be suggesting. I think the issue might be developing and trusting our senses.
"again , in the field of psychophsics, the just noticeable difference for distances, loudness and frequency identification empirically demonstrates that our senses lack precision."
On the other hand, you could also make the statement that it's the precision of our senses that allow us to hear various types of distortion, or the lack thereof, glare, grain, transparency, height of soundstage, air around instruments, and the difference between a Strad and a Guarneri. |
i suppose its a philosophical issue, namely that knowledge can not be derived from sense perception.
it is very easy to make a mistake and misidentify an instrument. there are many examples of recordings where that is so.
certainly our jury system provides many examples of the unreliability of witness accounts.
it's obvious that perception is unreliable. i can cite many other examples. i doubt anyone would allege perception is perfect.
again , in the field of psychophsics, the just noticeable difference for distances, loudness and frequency identification empirically demonstrates that our senses lack precision. |
Mrtennis wrote,
"another example is claiming to hear three guitars, and consulting the liner notes, finding out that there are only two guitarists.
there is an important lesson here. one should not consider the results of listening as knowledge , as sense perception is inherently unreliable."
Your example could simply be a case of incorrect liner notes and/or overdubbing. Â Difficult to say but it might not have anything to do with perception being unreliable. Â At the end of the Jimi Hendrix track, Axis Bold as Love, there is a long guitar solo that sounds like three guitars, but is actually only Jimi's guitar (which may or may not have been overdubbed). |
Mrtennis wrote,
"there is a cd "jazz at the pawn shop". one of the tracks is "lady be good". somewhere under one minute from the beginning of the track a telephone rings. the spl is much lower than the sound of the instruments.
my friend and i listened to the cd on two different stereo systems and could not hear the telephone. obviously, the ring tone is somewhere in the upper mids/lower treble.
a third person heard the ring. thus aural acuity varies among listeners."
This doesn't appear to be headline news. Was there ever any doubt that aural acuity varies among listeners? |
Mrtennis, having taken as many courses in psychology in pursuing my doctorate as in political science, I am well aware of perceptual errors. I am also aware that human beings' senses have served them well in survival, with hearing being central to this. I also think this has little relevance to picking an audio component that suits your taste.
In your post where I thought you were seemingly a scientist and not an engineer, you seemed to suggest that mankind does not fully understand everything that shapes our ability to reproduce music in our rooms. Many EEs believe that what they learned prohibits differences in power cords, isolation, and even amplifiers, which personally I find ridiculous. I see no reason to criticize someone for liking a particular component or power cord even if I think it is worthless. It is his taste and money. Unreliable or not, his perceptions are what counts. And obviously we all differ, or there would be very few manufacturers as many products would have been found most unsatisfactory, and their makers having gone out of business. |
let me add two other caveats:
human beings are subject to two errors in perception, i.e., omission and commission.
sometimes we fail to hear what is on a recording and other times we ascribe information to a recording which is not there.
let me give an example which you can try yourself.
there is a cd "jazz at the pawn shop". one of the tracks is "lady be good". somewhere under one minute from the beginning of the track a telephone rings. the spl is much lower than the sound of the instruments.
my friend and i listened to the cd on two different stereo systems and could not hear the telephone. obviously, the ring tone is somewhere in the upper mids/lower treble.
a third person heard the ring. thus aural acuity varies among listeners.
another example is claiming to hear three guitars, and consulting the liner notes, finding out that there are only two guitarists.
there is an important lesson here. one should not consider the results of listening as knowledge , as sense perception is inherently unreliable. |
Mrtennis wrote,
"the differential threshold applies to detecting differences in spl, e.g. . how much of a change in spl is necessary to detect differences in loudness, varies from person to person.
adaptation level concerns the point at which the nervous system is no longer efficient, because neurons are firing more slowly, fatigue sets in and perception of differences suffers. there are actions to be taken to avoid reaching the adaptation level, otherwise, errors in judgment will occur."
Thanks for the explanation.
One can't help wondering if this loss of efficiency by the nervous system is why blinds tests that require many consecutive trials might be unreliable. And why some proponents of blind tests as final arbiters of high end speakers, cables and tweaks *require* a large number of trials, if you see what I mean. |
psychophysics is a discipline within the field of psychology.
its principles are applicable to detecting differences between the sound of components.
two terms to consider are adaptation level and differential threshold.
i'll try to be brief.
the differential threshold applies to detecting differences in spl, e.g. . how much of a change in spl is necessary to detect differences in loudness, varies from person to person.
adaptation level concerns the point at which the nervous system is no longer efficient, because neurons are firing more slowly, fatigue sets in and perception of differences suffers. there are actions to be taken to avoid reaching the adaptation level, otherwise, errors in judgment will occur.
i would prefer not to get too technical or sound like a lecturer.
i hope i have at least given an indication of the importance of these principles and anyone who sees value in their application should read about psychophysics in psychology text books. |
Most of the illustrations are visual, but the key is that we don't know everything. |
Mrtennis wrote,
"psychophysics underlies much of what wwe perceive and see."
Really? How so? Please elucidate.
Thanks in advance. |
hi tbg:
i am an economist/psychologist in terms of education. i was an operations research analyst and computer consultant before i retired. i have an extensive background in mathematics and i took a logic course as well.
psychophysics underlies much of what wwe perceive and see.
sometimes it is impossible to provide an objective (measurement) component to explain what we hear. isthat a magical experience.
engineers can measure many things, but not evrything. so, measurement is not always correlated with perception. |
Mrtennis, you sound like a scientist, not a EE. |
hi mapman:
there is a reason for all phenomena, but it may be unknown at the time. one is not omniscient. |
Whart, that makes a lot of sense and explains why I liked my old Hornshoppe Horns knowing that the highs weren't as extended as they could be and the lows weren't as authoritative at they could be. My mind filled in the rest since the greater aspect of the mids gave me the 'gestalt' of the music. Cool. By the way, if anyone is interested, here's a snapshot view on just how fast our brain processes info: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-122756.htmlI think it furthers the notion that we take everything in only to process out the truth later. Our brains can react so much faster than we are trained to. That's the underlying process in speed reading. We tend to sub vocalize each and every word instead of just scanning it. That is why we tend to forget what we just read and get bored since our brains are screaming at us " faster, faster." All the best, Nonoise |
NoNoise- No doubt. Musicians can get the gist of a recorded performance over a crappy boombox, because they are listening to the song or performance for artistic reasons, and not the fidelity of reproduction. (Not to say a musician or songwriter can't appreciate a good system, but for artistic purposes, i think they are listening to something different).
Likewise, there are folks who are willing to trade off bandwidth for tonality- i am thinking here of single driver systems or some of the positively ancient designs that come from theatres. (I can accept this trade-off myself, one of the reasons I lived with old Quads, and even traded off dynamics as well for so many years).
There was a little experiment a few of us did on another site, listening over a lo-fi computer set up to a few tracks with the EQ set to max on 1khz and setting everything else down as low as it could go. You could get the gist- the gestalt as you refer to it- even though it was not a 'good' sounding reproduction- things were missing, but the performance was still 'enough' there to be able to go with the music in a non-critical sense.
You are right that we analyze parts, rather than the whole, when trying to capture the fidelity at a higher level. The analytical part of the brain is like the 'specs' in the sense that it is looking for explanations for why something sounds the way it does. When I am in that mode, I am not listening to the music, but it is, I suppose, a necessary evil- there are times when the system is just 'right' sounding and you can relax and enjoy it without dissecting it. For me, it's not easy to switch between the analytical and the more 'relaxed' mode- if I am trying something new in the system, my brain is often in analytical mode. Sometimes (usually with help, it is harder to do by yourself, i think), you can make a change and listen to the difference and change back and listen again, and based on your 'gut' impressions, decide what sounds more natural or more akin to what you think a real musical performance sounds like. I think, sometimes, listening late at night is good, not just because the electrical system may be less 'noisy,' but because you are a little fatigued- your defenses are down- you (or maybe it's just me), are more inclined to just absorb, without thinking.
I think i have pretty 'quick' ears in hearing differences that way (but the analytical part of the brain is kicking again). It's deciding what's better or 'more right' that's often the hard part. And, to complicate things, what works for one piece of program material may not work so well on another. So, rather than changing preamps or cartridges or speakers on a recording by recording basis (perhaps, at least in the case of cartridges, this is practical if you have multiple tonearms already set up), you (or I) try to strike a balance- what works across the board, on as wide a variety of program material as possible.
None of the above is meant to provide an answer to the 'magic' part, just echoing what you said about the 'gestalt' and how my brain- or what's left of it- seems to work in listening to music over a hi-fi system. |
One school of thought uses gestalt in visual perception. We see the whole and later discern the parts. Can it be that gestalt is also used aurally? In fact, since the limits of hearing are absolute (limited to that tiny opening and yes, bones and cartilage) wouldn't gestalt be the only way they do work?
We hear everything we do only to debate, here, just what it was and why it was. We tell each other that we hear the same thing or that it's impossible to hear what we heard, with our own ears.
Each of our experiences take different paths to get there, there being our auditory pleasure. When we sit down to listen. our ears are the final arbiter and I, for one, trust them explicitly. I've been around long enough to recognize a difference, be it better or worse, than what I'm accustomed to.
I believe that I hear everything all at once and almost as quickly, appreciate, evaluate and decide if what I'm hearing is better or not. It doesn't come in piecemeal but we debate it as if it did since we tend to dissect and analyze in that manner. In other words, once I've heard it, there's no going back. Something happened that made it different and I can either fret away and try to improve it or appreciate it all the more.
The whole is different than the sum of its parts. I guess it comes down to just how many parts there are and that is where disagreement enters: just how many parts.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Well, a belief in magic in its truest sense will certainly come in handy I suspect with a device like that!
Magic may be the modern frontier of audio tweaks after all! When all else fails...... |
Almarg wrote,
"Geoff, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't that better be referred to, though, as "reaction" of the subconscious mind to the matter around it, rather than as "interaction"? "Interaction" would seem to imply that in addition to the mind subconsciously reacting to its surroundings, the (inanimate) surroundings are somehow reacting to the mind."
Good point. Actually the interaction does work both ways. In fact, the Mind Lamp from Psyleron (an offshoot of PEAR) was developed expressly to demonstrate that the mind is capable of influencing its surroundings, even inanimate things - in the case of the lamp an extremely sensitive quantum mechanical Random Event Generator (REG). Also, what PEAR primarily focused on for 30 years was to what degree a human operator could influence the outcome of scientific experiments. I suppose you could also call this direction of the interaction mind over matter. |
Geoff, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't that better be referred to, though, as "reaction" of the subconscious mind to the matter around it, rather than as "interaction"? "Interaction" would seem to imply that in addition to the mind subconsciously reacting to its surroundings, the (inanimate) surroundings are somehow reacting to the mind.
-- Al |
Mapman wrote,
"Geoff, in that case, assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, the you should help educate them. What better way to build credibility? That's kind of how higher learning works in general."
I never said I knew all the answers. Doesn't all the world love a mystery?
"OR you can continue to keep your secrets to yourself and convince people that you are right and that the rest of the world has their priorities wrong."
I keep some secrets to myself. Is that wrong? I think if you review my posts you'll find I reveal quite a bit, however. |
Almarg wrote,
"Geoff, could you explain precisely what you mean by "mind-matter interaction," which was your answer to most of the questions in the quiz you presented a few posts back. And which, if I followed your subsequent responses correctly, is unrelated to anything psychological or subliminal, among many other things you appeared to say it is unrelated to. Thanks."
When I use the term mind-matter interaction I'm referring to the concept that the mind is capable of interacting subconsciously with it's immediate surroundings, especially with certain shapes, materials, physical phenomena such as electrical charge, alternating current, flashing lights, as well as other things such as physical and digital media like books, especially telephone books, but also CDs, LPs, cassettes. The Princeton University school of engineering studied mind matter interaction for about 30 years - PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research). How and why the mind subconsciously interacts with its surroundings is not well understood, but I have a strong sense that it has a lot to do with how early man evolved, especially with respect to self survival and having to develop "extra-sensory" skills to help detect and avoid threats such as large, hungry predators. |
"The so-called experts - the "many" - still don't understand wire directionality (or dismiss it), why one cable can sound better than another one that measures better, why tiny little acoustic bowls have such a dramatic impact on bass frequencies, why cables must be "burned in" to sound their best, why cryogenically treated CDs and LPs sound better than stock CDs and LPs, why degaussing improves CDs and LPs, why degaussing improves cables, why deionization improves CDs and cables, why the Schumann Frequency Generator works, etc. in fact, I suspect most of the so-called experts - the "many" - have never even heard of these things."
Geoff, in that case, assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, the you should help educate them. What better way to build credibility? That's kind of how higher learning works in general.
OR you can continue to keep your secrets to yourself and convince people that you are right and that the rest of the world has their priorities wrong.
Either way works for me. I can only speak for myself. |
Mapman wrote,
"Luckily, most of the really important core principles of home audio are fairly well understood by many, so that is less of a problem practically."
The so-called experts - the "many" - still don't understand wire directionality (or dismiss it), why one cable can sound better than another one that measures better, why tiny little acoustic bowls have such a dramatic impact on bass frequencies, why cables must be "burned in" to sound their best, why cryogenically treated CDs and LPs sound better than stock CDs and LPs, why degaussing improves CDs and LPs, why degaussing improves cables, why deionization improves CDs and cables, why the Schumann Frequency Generator works, etc. in fact, I suspect most of the so-called experts - the "many" - have never even heard of these things.
"When you assume something you make an ass out of me and Uma Thurman". - old audiophile axiom |
Geoff, could you explain precisely what you mean by "mind-matter interaction," which was your answer to most of the questions in the quiz you presented a few posts back. And which, if I followed your subsequent responses correctly, is unrelated to anything psychological or subliminal, among many other things you appeared to say it is unrelated to. Thanks.
-- Al |
"The problem with many tweaks that can't be explained or have difficult to swallow explanations is that knowledge or expertise in the sciences of electronics and acoustics is no longer sufficient to judge them."
Yep, that sure is the problem.
When one does not know, the double whammy then is one may not be able to determine who to trust when another claims they do.
Luckily, most of the really important core principles of home audio are fairly well understood by many, so that is less of a problem practically. |
Whart wrote,
"didn't peter belt have a whole thing about putting a photo of yourself into the freezer? that's not far removed, geoff. when you said you were a 'beltist,' i assumed that had nothing to do with the thing that holds your pants up, and everything to do with the fringe audio tweak guy in the UK."
Uh, oh, looks like the cat is out of the bag. I'm getting a bad feeling.
:-) |
didn't peter belt have a whole thing about putting a photo of yourself into the freezer? that's not far removed, geoff. when you said you were a 'beltist,' i assumed that had nothing to do with the thing that holds your pants up, and everything to do with the fringe audio tweak guy in the UK. |
Sounds to me like those ascribing the supernatural to implausible tweaks are a little like the natives on a godforsaken island somewhere who believe cameras are supernatural and that having a picture taken of them will steal their souls. The problem with many tweaks that can't be explained or have difficult to swallow explanations is that knowledge or expertise in the sciences of electronics and acoustics is no longer sufficient to judge them. These days the well rounded über skeptic must be well-versed in biology, neurological science, evolution and others. Question for the non technical naysayers: Is it still fashionable to report that you told a PhD friend about some preposterous tweak and he laughed so hard milk squirted out of his nose? |
"My use of the word "magic" isn't meant to imply that the audible effects we've been discussing have no basis in physical laws. It's simply meant to refer to audible effects that are difficult to explain."
"Magic" may or may not be a suitable term for something that cannot be explained in that "supernatural" influences are often cited as being responsible for observed magic.
I'm just not sure I'd want to provide an opportunity for the supernatural to be cited as a cause regarding how things sound.
Albeit typically elusive, with home audio, there is always a reason or reasons why something sounds exactly the way it does.
But at some point, one practically just has to punt rather than worry too much about establishing cause and effect to great detail, as I'm sure you well know from experience. |
08-07-12: Mapman
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. Hi Mapman - Yes, the computer is connected to the audio system by an ethernet cable. I agree that there is probably less noise with the SSD. 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... That a very good question. And I suspect your prediction is correct. I do not believe in magic when it comes to home audio. Though it may often seem that way, there is always a reason why. My use of the word "magic" isn't meant to imply that the audible effects we've been discussing have no basis in physical laws. It's simply meant to refer to audible effects that are difficult to explain. Bryon |
I do not believe in magic when it comes to home audio. Though it may often seem that way, there is always a reason why. |
Not sure about magic,but I think its magical that we can capture music at all.How a music performance can go thru all that it does and come out recognizable .I know it can be explained ,,,,but to me ,still magical.Now on the other hand IMHO the things like clever clocks,pebbles,and the things that coconut audio sell are pure BS. |
"if you have confidence in your perceptions, there may be occasions where there is no rational explanation for what you hear."
Translation: you are deluded! |
if you have confidence in your perceptions, there may be occasions where there is no rational explanation for what you hear. |
What wrote,
"(PS. I am not mocking you. I live in an area outside of NYC that is filled with folks claiming to have all kinds of spiritual connections to the past, present and future. I'm just too dumb to connect on that level- I have a difficult enough time figuring out what's right in front of me sometimes. But, in keeping with my 'almost anything is possible credo,' I won't dismiss stuff out of hand based on its apparent implausibility.)."
Uh, nobody is saying it's at a spiritual level or any such thing. It's not black magic, white magic, ritualism, spiritualism, new ageism, psychological, subliminal, Zen Buddhism, group hypnosis, mind control, alien technology or dualism. I will grant you it's apparent implausibility, however.
What I have in mind for your 10,000 LP collection is a huge vertical Rolodex. :-) |
My problem with storing records vertically has nothing to do with sonics; unlike a book, which is usually wide enough for the printing on the spine to be legible to me, trying to read the printing on the edge of a record jacket when stored in linear feet of vertical rows is mind-numbing. Of course, I don't have them well-organized and it's hard to find what i'm looking for. But, if I'm in the spirit of this thing, Geoff, maybe that's a good thing?
(PS. I am not mocking you. I live in an area outside of NYC that is filled with folks claiming to have all kinds of spiritual connections to the past, present and future. I'm just too dumb to connect on that level- I have a difficult enough time figuring out what's right in front of me sometimes. But, in keeping with my 'almost anything is possible credo,' I won't dismiss stuff out of hand based on its apparent implausibility.). |
Whart wrote,
"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."
Bill, thanks for reminding me of No. 8 in the list of preposterous things that improve the sound.
8. Always store all LPs and CDs vertically. |
Bryon asked,
"Question, Geoff, and I'm asking it sincerely... Are you a Dualist?"
No, Bryon, but I am a Machina Dynamicist, a Sheldrakian and a Beltist, and I mean that sincerely.
Geoff at Machina Dynamica |
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 |
Question, Geoff, and I'm asking it sincerely... Are you a Dualist? Bryon |
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 (esoteric tweak vendor), OK once again you've impressed me with your world class mastery of the insignificant. I'll take that for what its worth. |
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. |
By definition, # 17 on Audiofeil's list is impossible. That's what makes this interesting..... |
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 |
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. |
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? |
In addition to Geoff's fine list, I would add the following assuming you were foolish enough to pay for them:
1. Clever clocks
2. Brilliant pebbles
3. Magic dots
Thanks. |
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. |
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 |
