Assuming that the components are of a certain caliber (that statement really needs to be qualified), I'm of the opinion that listener fatigue is primarily the result of poorly designed or no AC line conditioning, poorly designed or no vibration controlling apparatus', no dedicated AC circuits/lines, and poor choices in ics and speaker cables.
One can own the very best components, but without properly addressing each of these other items, one is likely to be doomed for mediocrity and much listener fatigue.
-IMO |
Sean, hope you are doing well. Perhaps you are speaking of poorly designed line conditioners of which there are many.
And I am certainly aware of some component mfg'erers who attempt their own flavor of line conditioning within the component itself. In these case it seems all too common that the mfg'er reduces the output of the offening frequencies. And then to hook up that component to a line conditioner (good or bad) the result is most always bad.
Whereas, a properly designed line conditioner would do no such thing as to suppress offending frequencies.
-IMO |
Sure, Sean. I'd be happy to address the first part. But I'm not going to pretend to be an electrical engineer by explaining exactly how a line-conditioner does what it does. That is, so long as you promise not to pretend either. :)
How I would describe what a 'proper' line conditioner attempts to do includes the following:
1) A well designed line-conditioner attempts to dramatically lower the noise floor revealing tremendous amounts of true, subtle, low level musical detail. This detail that was previously masked has a tremendous impact on the ability of the listener to connect with the music.
2) A well designed line-conditioiner attempts to reduce AC noise by removing the A/C RFI and EMI noise that is ubiquitous in every system to various degrees. These noise artifacts have the effect of artificially highlighting frequencies where the noise manifests itself. Also, the noise artifacts are amusical and instead of these frequencies adding to the musical experience, they cause listening fatigue and unnatural listener tension that ultimately reduces and more often eliminates the ability of the listener to connect with the music. Classic manifestations of this type of noise are unnatural/negative vocal sibilance not present in the original recording and distortions on crash cymbals and high hats in drum kits. The presence of external A/C RFI and EMI noise causes these sibilances and cymbals to separate from the musical tapestry and they appear to separate from the soundstage. They are so easy to pick out once the phenomena is pointed out that even casual listeners can pick them out with ease. Because these distortions are errors of commission, where the noise floor effect discussed in a) above is an error of omission, they are, for me, the greatest reason that a system fails to communicate the musical message.
3. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to induce no sonic harm of it's own. ie the rather common suppression (rolled off) of offending frequencies as you implied above.
4. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to avoid being the bottleneck with regard to current limitations.
5. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to provide bi-directional noise filtering. A tremendous benefit for anyone using a cdp since the digital noise generated will most always inject digital noise even all the way back into the service panel and hence contaminate other components if left untreated.
6. A well designed line-conditioner attempts to best utilize a one line-conditioner per component only. Surely this is the most effective way to keep noise from contaminating other components as well as the optimal way to take full advantage of dedicated circuits/lines.
I hope this helps educate you a bit regarding 'proper' line-conditioning. If you have any other questions, you know where to reach me. :)
-IMO |
Sean, you little turkey. And after all we've been thru together? :) You're darned and determined to make me into a sub-par electrical engineer, aren't you? For pete's sake, don't we already have enough of those lying around? :)
But in all seriousness, would you agree or disagree with my previous post describing the basics on what 'proper' line-conditioning should attempt to do?
Also, would you please share what, if any, line-conditioning products and/or strategies you own?
And how does your own line-conditioning and/or strategies used in your system meaure up against what 'proper' line-conditioning should attempt to do? (whether you use my stated definition, your own, or another's)
-IMO |
Good greif, Sean. Here we go again. SSS.
I suppose I deserve some of this for a few of the jabs I gave. But knowing you as I do and knowing what you were up to, I simply could not resist. Let me explain what I mean by this:
Initially, you made some general comments about line-conditioning and line-conditioners. If I recall, you made a broad sweep looping all line-conditioners into the same category with pretty much the same deficiencies or design flaws.
Innocently enough, I responded by attempting to clarify or add a little specificity to your broad-brush statements regarding potentially all line-conditioners. There was no challenge there, only my attempt to clarify or confirm that you really meant all line-conditioners.
You began the challenge phase by questioning me regarding what I think a 'proper' line-conditioner should attempt to do. And this is where you thought you could trap me, believing that I may not be able to provide a sufficient response.
I responded to your question (or at least the first pertinent part) by providing valid and perhaps irrefutable answers and at the same time I threw a few jabs out there. But only because I wanted you to know that I knew what you were up to (again). And I knew it would drive you a little nuts. My bad.
You realizing that you did not trap me there, and knowing that you'd have to take things to the next level, decided to pursue your course of entrapment (again). Even though you know full well I have no electrical engineering background, by this time your ego's already on auto-pilot and your going to make me into an EE.
In addition, you charge me with 'challenging' you as if I would have committed some sort of criminal act had I done so. Really, Sean. Any idea why it's called 'open' forum?
But again, it was you who initiated things. Your whole existence in this forum has been just one continuous challenge. Just go thru some of your 4000+ posting and the some to many that had to be pulled. Go figure. But we've covered much of this before.
Anyway, rather than blindly follow your lead down that path, knowing exactly what you are up to, I decided to go back to my safety zone of real world applications and simply asked you what you did to resolve your own AC problems.
Again, knowing you as I do, I knew at this point that it would be far easier for me to answer your electrical engineering questions than it would be for you to answer my real-world application questions.
And now you're convinced that you have set me up under the spotlight and you've dragged me in front of the whole forum and now I must pretend to be an electrical engineer for not only you but for all of A'gon. Gee, are you having a deja vu too? Sorry, but Homey still don't play that game.
I will say this Sean. It always troubles me whenever you use plurals like we, us, etc.. For you always use such plurals to try to impress on the reader the false sense of authority that everybody is behind you and that you are their official grand poobah. But that's a whole nuther subject, eh? And I hope that we've covered that one.
But take for example your comments a while back regarding Marty DeWulf of Bound for Sound, you said (paraphrasing): "We can't believe everything Marty is telling us these days."
Who's the we here? Do you have a little mouse in your pocket?
-IMO |
This is rather interesting, Sean. I suspect by this time tomorrow night, you will have fabricated quite a case against me.
I'm not ignoring you, well perhaps I am. I'm just dying to see where you take this before I feel I need to step in to rescue you.
Now remember the rules, Sean. No name calling like the first time (remember my ears aren't garbage pails), no calling me out onto the playground like both times before, no gouging of the eyes, no wedgies, um, I forget the other one.
-IMO |
Bombaywalla, you make some interesting points.
Sean, responding to you is like shooting at moving target. If you keep shucking and jiving with more postings and hence more accusations, name calling, labeling, etc., then I'm just chasing my tail around the mulberry bush. Not to mention that for a while there you seemed to be doing pretty good without me and besides I do have others things to do than just dance with you all weekend.
I had several responses for you over the last 30 hours or so, but you just keep moving. Strike and move, strike and move. I believe Muhammad Ali made this strategy into an art form. But you ain't so bad yourself. :)
Of course Sean, knowing you as I do, I knew exactly what you were really up to. And I've seen way too many Wild Kingdom episodes to not recognize that same opportunistic instinct in you as those agressive little critters when they smell blood.
For the other readers here, there's much more to this little saga than meet's the eye. You may see Sean's questions as innocent enough, but I have had several rather intense bouts with Sean in time past regarding potential personal agendas, destruction of companies, reviewers, magazines, products, owners of certain equipment, self-shilling, etc..
And I'm quite confident that more of his blood was spilled than my own on every occassion. So there is certainly the potential for one of us to have vengeance on their mind. Hence my perception that he was/is darned and determined to make me respond to technical questions that I admitted I felt unqualified to answer.
What I'm really trying to say is that, knowing Sean as I do, I would never let my gaurd down when he is around. My experience with him clearly indicates that he is forever waiting in the wings for yet another opportunity to strike. Therefoe, I must approach every one of his questions and statements from multiple angles and never for it's face value alone.
As for the issue(s) at hand.
For which of Sean's 15 to 20 questions/accussations (the list was certainly growing) to me does anyone believe deserves a response? And even though I made it clear to him several times above that I did not feel qualified to answer and that he is simply attempting to trap me, does anyone still think I am obligated to provide a response even though I felt unqualified to properly respond and freely admitted as much?
I was unaware that that type of response is no longer a valid response.
And regarding my first post to Sean in this thread, does anybody (other than Sean) consider my statements there a serious and/or unfriendly or clandestine challenge to Sean as he claimed? Sean made a somewhat broad-brushed statement regarding cleaning up the AC and I was simply looking for clarification in my post.
Sean's response to my followup post seemed to an attempt to entrap me by asking me questions that I admittedly felt unqualified to attempt a response.
If Sean or anybody else still thinks I have an obligation to respond to those technical questions, then I'll respond right now: Gee Sean, those are very good questions but I simply do not feel qualified to answer those questions.
But I already answered that way in my previuos posts. Sean simply was unaccepting of those answers.
Now for which of the other 14 to 17 questions/statements does Sean deserve a response?
And what of the few simple question I posed to Sean that he has not answer? Those being:
1. What has he done in his own system to resolve his AC issues?
2. Does he agree or disagree with my assessment as to what constitutes what a 'properly' designed line-conditioner should attempt to do?
-IMO |
