This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.
I have less time thus far to post today, but I just want to drop in to say: Now THAT is a good response! You clearly took the questions seriously and took care to understand the relevance and reply to the points I was raising.
Thank you, much appreciated.
I'll try to get back with a more worthwhile reply.
Today Michael had me pick out another CD he said choose any you want. I chose "Aqualung". As soon as MG saw the title you could see him looking at the system plotting a course. The recording when he hit play sounded ok but it didn't have anywhere near the impact I was listening to last night. We let the recording play one pass through while we did something else. Coming back to the recording it sounded much different but unorganized. Michael made 3 adjustments to the tuning blocks he had underneath the sub crossover the amp and the cd player. He told me he usually doesn't go this fast but he could fine tune later. When he got the blocks rearranged we took another 15 minute break. I could hear it as soon as we walked back into the room. MG did his shaking of his head thinking of his next move probably and I sat down. Amazing the dots to the recording were connecting this was night and day. MG had me put the player on pause as he gently lifted each component and set them back down. When I hit play it was yet another level reaching closer to the experience I had with George. Michael made a couple of adjustments on the sub amp and stood in the hallway while I listened. One song played MG had me put it on pause he walked to the power strip did something and had me hit play again while he went into his writing room. Blew my mind. Like with Faith never have I heard Aqualung any thing like this. Michael has traded places with me while I write this and it will be interesting if he does any other tuning.
If I may jump in and reply to your initial set of questions previously addressed to the audiotweak (he is on Holiday time:)
The question remains: how much vibration is *actually* occurring in any component in question, or in the case of any cap, and then; does it have *audible* consequences.
Electromechanical, mechanical and acoustic resonance caused from vibration establishes component and environmental operational inefficiency. Resonance affects performance.
Audible is the primary focus when adapting or applying our technology to any device. Increasing operational efficiency on fan motors must be measured and is inaudible however when our technology is applied to air conditioner compressors the results are audible as well.
it’s not JUST a hypothesis that the phenomena in question exists; it’s the hypothesis that the tweak, or product, under consideration produces AUDIBLE CHANGES in the output of a stereo system.
Anyone can do their own RTA, FFT and SPL tests in order to ‘see’ the results from any of our product offerings. This type of testing is more on the subjective side of science but is easily charted. You will ‘hear’ the evidence provided by highly AUDIBLE increases in performance from the product.
Operational temperature of an amplifier pre and post using Sistrum Platforms™ is more of a scientific approach to proving function. When the thermal temperature reduces from implementing any Sistrum Platform, it becomes visually obvious that the operational efficiency of the amplifier has increased. From the more subjective standpoint so will the musical quality of sound increase from reducing heat.
This is the Big Red Flag in high end audio claims. Appeal to science and engineering all the way up to the point where you ask for measured results, and then suddenly it’s handed off to marketing.
Agreed. Our problem with providing measured results has always been one of financial procurement and investment. In order to provide the correct data avoid of any doubt or people who insist on doubts as to the test and results requires third party independent testing in a well respected laboratory.
Most companies generate a few charts or graphs involving some type of test in hopes 'seeing is believing'. Have you ever reviewed any “in house” test that did not favor the product in question?
Then ask yourself, how the test relates to audio reproduction?
Example: In our case placing a rack on a shaker table or stomping up and down on a floor or whacking the product with a hammer is meaningless as those obscure situations do not exist in a listening environment. Add to that, the 'in house' test is never truly defined whereas an independent lab would provide information on all the variables including information on the structural environment, equipment list, date of last calibration of test equipment, testing methods, data before, during and after the test is completed, etc…
Anyone can design and produce a chart or graphs that display positive results for their own offerings - now that’s what we call handing it over to marketing - creative marketing.
The harsh reality of third party testing is financially based. Questions immediately arise such as; what is the total financial outlay going to do for the immediate growth of the company and can the company absorb the cost. The CFO has to determine how the tests will be paid for. As you are aware we are not talking pocket change as independent third party testing plus hiring the D.D.E. who will analyze and write opinions on the results costs a lot of money. In our case, that kind of cash buys the next prototype or manufactures the next product or increases existing inventory to keep up with sales demands. AND let's not forget there can be many types of tests involving a single design.
Regards to measurements: We use FFT and appropriate software plus SPL measurements in order to assist us in analyzing and determining if we are on the correct approach.
Example: The mechanically grounded studio environment recently constructed in Madison, WI was tested with recorded data each step of the way. Began with an empty structure then added grounding instruments on the forward wall - took measurements using four types of test recordings then adding the grounding instruments to each wall thereafter where the same data was recorded. This information was forwarded to a well written and respected seismologist who is heavily involved in the study of shear and velocity of sound. She also holds multiple patents and has a vast knowledge of musical instruments. The information is also forwarded to highly respected sound engineers for further review and opinions.
In the case of an average electronic component - say a CD player sitting in my rack or whatever - how much vibration would the unit actually be undergoing? Have you measured this? I can tell you that, at least with my ipad seismometer app (obviously more crude than a professional device) it can easily measure vibration levels I can’t even feel. It registers no detectable vibration when simply sat on any of my components. Zero. And that’s a device *looking* to register vibration.
I really do not like answering a question with more questions but we need more information.
What were the testing parameters? Volume up or down? What was the room SPL and did you attempt to use various volume levels, etc, what material was the equipment setting on?
On the social side of things:
Do you believe that electricity flow generates vibration in electronics circuits (on all active electronic parts that are passing signal) and that vibration forms resonance where said resonance propagates on all smooth surfaces hence blocking or restricting all signal pathways? Have you ever researched Coulomb's law?
I am not attempting to avoid, distance, distract alter conversation or argue but we do require more information prior to forming an opinion in your test case scenario.
Do you have measurements showing the average ambient vibration on a component? Do you have measurements showing this ambient vibration actually alters the values or performance of a tied vs untied cap? Those are pretty obvious questions, right?
The answer is no to the first question as we do not know what an average ambient vibration on a component is or how many chassis’ it would take to come up with an average. Who is in charge of paying the freight charges on those five hundred to a thousand chassis required for testing?⌣ Every chassis is constructed of different materials, thicknesses, sizing and weights which is what we would have to document before establishing test parameters. No to the second question, never had a reason to pursue the issue and not sure about the term ‘obvious questions’ relative to the capacitor conversation.
Then do you have measurements from any output of an audio device that uses capacitors that indicates the audio signal would have changed? How did you measure, how did you test?
Placing our technology into an existing amplifier design we mechanically grounded all critical parts to the chassis (transformer, cap bank, output and principle circuit card) then placing the amplifier on a Sistrum Platform completing the high speed grounding pathway from parts to chassis to the greater sink (mass), the floor.
Were the results audible - yes very. Did the operating temperature of the amplifier reduce - yes significantly. The only measurement taken besides temperature was the RMS output. There were many changes made so we cannot state that the capacitors were the only part responsible to improving the sonic of the amplifier.
This initial test led Star Sound to build forty mono amplifiers that were sold to the public which paid for the project. Steve Keiser (B & K) provided the circuit design and was responsible for sonic signature of the amplifier. We mounted all the critical parts in a Star Sound fashion using Sistrum geometry. The project was considered a success and advanced our understanding of a developing new technology. The amps were built in 2003 where there was one issue related to failure since that time so we believe the operational efficiency of the product has established a track record for longevity.
In 2004 we did the same type of project manufacturing forty pair of monitor speakers (included caps) and titled the speaker Caravelle.
If only via listening tests, did you account for listener bias?
Every product we manufacture is based on listener’s recommendations, opinions and objections. In 2000 we chose to sell factory direct and have yet to open web based purchasing. We prefer to communicate with every client in order to learn more about audio or solve problems and earn your business. For nineteen years we worked with people in this manner which has provided us a greater capacity to innovate, further advance our technology and grow the company from hands on listener experience.
grannyring words do have meaning. However its possible they do not accurately reflect what the writer really meant to communicate to all. Thats OK. It’s always possible to clarify if needed. If one does not mean something that another infers just be polite and say so. End of story.
Back in the day early 1980's a friend of mine had a statement speaker that used Ed Longs patented TA time aligned technology. A short time later the predecessor to the Bag End subs that operated below their resonance were devised.. The 2 10's spec'd by Ed Long and built by Eminence were integrated into this small baffle speaker system. I used a Mcintosh mq101 a Dahlquist LP1 and an Apt Holman amp to control and power the 2 pr of 10's...I owned this speaker system and it was installed in my first home. Huge soundstage and to this day probably the best bass I ever heard in a home. All the drivers were designed to spec by Ed Long except for the tweeter. The 4 cone drivers were shallow in shape as Ed said at that time these drivers would maintain their TA over a wider frequency range versus the deep dish variety.
We also used a calibration and measurement system sold to us by Ed and probably Ron to measure the other speaker systems my friend built. The TA/ nearly Bag End system was not a pretty site..and was not a viable product for sale..Sure sounded great and learned so much from these engineers as much of this was cutting edge back then. Tom
My listening session last night with George Michael "Faith" was something I needed to digest and I'm still not sure I have the words. The sound stage was more than full it was full and enormous. I felt like I could rise from my seat and walk through the image. What's freaky is that's what I did. The speakers no matter where I stood had vanished. The room took over the sound. I asked Michael how this was possible and his answer was "that's the way pressure works when a system is in tune with the recording". I had to sit down and stand up a few times to finally hear that the seating position out did the rest of the listening area it was that good. It was like being inside of a giant set of headphones in all the right ways. I know this recording well but I realized I didn't know it at all. Sitting in the chair I could feel all the music through my body head to toe. Still with all this vibration MG didn't have the music up loud that was another mystery to me. The bass was vibrating my chest through to my back but the volume was not overly loud a first time for me. The bass was also very tight and at the same time full of body. The sound pressure was like a great set of horns without the sound of horns. Michael left me alone to learn on my own but what I was hearing was not possible. He wants to introduce me to top tuning soon.
I will add that you seem like a very smart man and one I could learn from. I honestly view MGs comments and motivation as helpful, fresh and born out of a healthy dose of curiosity.
glupson I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.
I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?
I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.
It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.
>>>>I suspect you’re over thinking it. Empirical implies either listening tests or some sort of measurements - or both in some cases. No reason to get wrapped around the axel with all the philosophy.
@prof I do not share your perspective. How we all interpret comments and actions is always based on the lens or perspective we view those comments and actions through. If you’re looking for offense you’re going to find it is certainly true in relationships and even here in threads. The lens or perspective you’re using is yours and differs from mine. I don’t see the offenses you see. Time for you to perhaps let this thread breath and have some real value for the rest of us.
Our perspectives are really choices. I have decided to view people and all manner of life situations and events through a lens that I sense is becoming rare in today’s communications and community. A lens colored with shades of intentional curiosity and peacemaking. No reason for me to look for offenses between the lines as most times they are not real or healthy to dwell on.
I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.
I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?
I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.
It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.
Well thanks amg I've always tried to explore every part of audio I could get my hands on, especially in the 70's and 80's. I think I'm a bit younger than you though.
What do you mean by "really there at all"? Really where?
I finished 4 years of engineering in 1977. You must be well older than me.
I don't see the need to exaggerate my credentials. Why do your posts of historical endeavours seem to be out of kilter with posted history? Were you really there at all?
Yep, that would be them! A pretty fun time. It changed stage performances dramatically. We did a mixture of shotguns, PZM, wireless and hand held wireless and centipedes. The patterns up until then would leave holes in the performance, but using the floor and walls as the actual microphone was the beginning of a whole new way of tracking and EQing.
lol amg, so I'm taking it that you would like a pay stub from me of all the places I worked? Pretty weird dude!
Sound engineers Ed Long and Ron Wickersham developed the concept of the PZM. "Pressure Zone Microphone"
To my delight, Carter was well aware of the technology, writing back:
“I was part of the class at Syn-Aud-Con that helped in the development of the PZM back in 1978. The technique was first shown to us by Ed Long and Ron Wickersham. We were all aware of the problems of reflected sound combining with direct sound to cause combing interference to the frequency response. Not only did PZMs eliminate that, it also gave any microphone 3dB more output. We were given tiny Knowles microphones and instructed to take them home and experiment with different configurations. Knowles made tiny omni, cardioid, and even bi-directional microphones.”
Michael, I do not see any reference to you or Turner Broadcasting in my research. It would appear the PZM was developed in 1978 at Syn-Aud-Con.
Prof, you need to think about slowing down buddy, the thread isn’t going anywhere. You are still very much being that Dog on the end of the Bone. This is causing you to troll tuning and myself. Your so set on that "aha caught you" moment that your getting angry and rambling all over the pages again.
Prof, your not going to win here because listeners are tuning as we speak in real time which is the proof of and for the hobby of listening. In other words your smelling of something fishy is probably because you have been wiping your nose with your freshly fish covered hands.
BTW I did have some delicious fish tonight from my favorite Cajun style chief here in Vegas, who also happens to have one of my systems. He made a dish for both me and Jay.
Oh and another btw, Prof I'm back to that only skimming over your posts, they're pretty much just repeating themselves and have no new content of interest. You smell something fishy bla bla bla, prof is insulted bla bla bla, he's the defender of audio forums bla bla bla, prof has no experience when it comes to tuning bla bla bla, prof only knows how to ask questions but can't produce answers bla bla bla, folks are tuning and enjoying it bla bla bla. Why are you even here Prof bla bla bla. I am actually officially bored to death with you, I can't even see your trolling as anything more than what it is. Dog an Bone though, that one has value.
Don't worry about it or you'll get stuck in that spin as well.
glupson, here's an example
Back when I was a consulting engineer for Turner Broadcasting there was a group of engineers that I belonged to that made up a team to work on new product and theories. Everything we did had a meaning to it (an end goal). One of the interesting projects was the development of the PZM. The PZM is a boundary effect microphone (pressure zone microphone). Brent, Martin, myself and the other guys had different ideas as to what to call this technology with regards to the performance and use. It was somewhat a new territory but had a huge need and the applications would end up changing live stage production forever. At the end of the day we pretty much all understood that the name PZM worked as long as you attached it to some of the uses. I did not come up with PZM, but because of my using it and modifying the performance to suit different applications I ended up being able to incorporate my own names and uses. One of these being PZC (Pressure Zone Controlling). Both the PZM and the PZC are devices that deal with the boundary effect (laminar effect) and the Pressure Zones of the room. Could there have been other words? Yep. But these are the ones that stuck and got us to the next level. Finding words and theories plus the doing with some predictable consistency is how science is born.
But the main thing brings us back to needing the walk to explain the talk. If not the words can become a spin, as we have seen on this thread.
I think you are right to smell a fish with the use of "empirical testing" in this thread, especially as it seems to be used by MG and his followers.
As I have pointed out several times: broadly speaking virtually any inferences we derive from from our experience is "empirical."
The problem is, because words like "empirical" and "testing" are so often associated with science, you see those words being adduced by any number of pseudo sciences, or fringe idea claims, in a way that elides and obscures between good methodology and simply "trying it out for yourself."
There is a world of difference between any number of empirical inferences and good methodology that yields reliable results; that’s why the scientific method arose.
Flat earthers are being "empirical" in their inferences from experience: "You can use your sense of sight to easily see the world is flat!" And they are performing all sorts of "tests" and "experiments" to confirm their flat earth theory. But the problem is their assumptions are poor, and do not build on the back of gained knowledge through reliable methods, and their tests are poorly designed, and they draw bad inferences that ignore all sorts of other interpretations and contra-indicative evidence to their belief.
We always get the common refrain around here: "Just try it for yourself and if it works it works - and if you haven’t done your own test, you have no grounds on which to speak about it."
What this misses is that the very same response is given by virtually every single fringe claim in existence - whether it’s a religion, cult, a new age healing method, psychics, astrology, flat earth, faith healers, you name it. EVERYONE thinks they are being empirical and they think you can test their claims personally. That is, after all, how all those people come to their beliefs in the first place.
The fact that "trying it for yourself" can lead to virtually ANY belief, no matter how outlandish, ought to be a clue about it’s inherent unreliability - that there is something fundamentally not addressed in such an idea. That is, of course, human imagination.
People rarely accept the power of human imagination when it comes to their own beliefs. Sure, all those other wacky beliefs - those are delusions, bias etc. But not MINE! You see...I have Personal Experience so I can’t be wrong!
The scientific method was a long, extremely hard-won struggle because we are all so easy to fool, and as Feynman said: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
The tiniest slip up in experimental rigour and...you’ve "discovered" cold fusion or faster than light particles (see the "Opera experiment" debacle).
Does this mean it’s my view that we all have to be scientists in everything we are doing and claiming? Of course not; it’s not practical to demand that of everything we do. But I believe we should at least scale our beliefs and claims to the quality of the evidence we have.
And one doesn’t need direct experience with a tweak to point out when someone is making claims that don’t scale with the quality of the evidence, and theory, they are espousing. Lots and lots of people saying the same thing, if based on recognizably unreliable methods of inference, don’t add up to a good argument.
@glupson I fully understand your point. Maybe an "empirical testing lab" is the wrong term, however because half of our system refers to the appreciation of music, and the other half refers to the physical means of imparting it, both can be better explained.
The ability of the physical to influence what we hear is intrinsic. The ability to appreciate this music is not esoteric. The knowledge of one can greatly help the other. And we can all benefit.
The desire to improve the physical by means of upgrades or tweaks is something we all desire. As posters and readers, we commune here to share what we know or have found out. This way we all benefit. No?
I understand that, to some extent, but my puzzle is this "empirical testing lab". I have a feeling there is something wrong with that name. It seems like something constructed to impress, but I may be wrong. What you describe has been the gripe of this thread from about the time I first noticed this "empirical testing" business which was as early as on day 1. I doubt there will ever be a peace treaty signed between two fiercely-opposed sides, but I continue reading. There are worthwhile and interesting things spread in between hard statements and intermittent insults.
@glupson It comes back to a simple case of a person making an assertion of some kind, and providing the methodology by which this was found or measured and a kind to the point description.
There is nothing wrong with that. We do it every day we go to the shops, the HiFi store, car sales place etc. We ask a question, and we wouldn't expect an evasive answer, unless there is something doubtful about the subject being questioned.
In this thread, I have noticed a number of mentions of "empirical testing lab" or something along those lines. I am wondering is there such a thing as "theoretical testing lab"? Would I be really wrong thinking that "empirical testing" (doing something to see/hear/etc. what happens) is done to prove or disprove a theory which is just thinking about something? I guess you could do something, get a result, and then try to come up with some theory why it happened, but it still seems like two different realms of action. It may not be topic of this thread, but it has been puzzling me since the early days of it.
"If we’re all of a sudden going to be engineers lets do this thing."
I would like to recommend skipping this approach. It gets very slippery and misunderstanding runs high, right up there with solidified passions. Basically, it becomes a circus.
This is a different hobby! How to describe the sound stage I've just heard is going to take some thinking through. One thing absolutely positively for sure I can tell you is I'm not going back.
I ended my work day early with the hopes that I could experience what I did last night. Sure enough when I approached the door I could hear "Faith" playing on the inside. One thing was different when I walked inside from last night. There are three boxes at the entrance to MG's place. "what are those" Michael explained that every year or two he does a series of listening reviews on different groups of products. He gave me a list of last years components and this year he has switched from products like Accuphase and Bricasti to old school receivers and his Magnavox special CDP. I need to get back to listening.
The following applies to all material surfaces especially 2 or more dissimilar materials of varied shapes. Adjusting the surface tension changes the surface shear speed of the materials ..becoming either separate,combined or somewhere in between. The result is more or less interfering energy being transferred back and forth between these surfaces in intimate contact or from the compressive world onto a solid then becoming shear. So in many examples of using gucci caps tied down to horrid materials made of sawdust and glue you will have the sound of that cap altered for sure by the larger mass of the material it is forced upon. The size and mass of the same substrate will also give you a different result.The tie down material will also become part of the sound of the cap. As we know vibration is all around and cannot be isolated. We can make vibration a useful tool and most pleasant. Just need to know the why and how..Tom .. Star Sound Technologies and Tone Acoustics
Even if I take your explanation of resonance at face value...your follow up claims about the audibility of untied caps is very wanting. You make rather large, unsubstantiated leaps of logic.
The question remains: how much vibration is *actually* occurring in any component in question, or in the case of any cap, and then; does it have *audible* consequences.
Your whole explanation just begs the question by presuming what I’ve been asking you to argue for.
A common theme I find in the audiophile tweak world is that the tweaks - be they high end AC cables or whatever - come with a bunch of technospeak giving the air of technical respectability. But suddenly the technical claims are dropped when it actually comes to demonstrating the claims.
So for instance, there will be claims by a boutique AC cable manufacture based on technical claims about impedance, various types of noise to reduce, etc. Now, these are not phenomena they are pulling out of a hat. These things are measurable; that’s how the phenomena was detected and understood in the first place.
And then they talk about how their product addresses the technical issues (e.g. maintaining desirable impedance, rejecting undesirable noise etc). So it’s a technical hypothesis. But in high end audio products, it’s not JUST a hypothesis that the phenomena in question exists; it’s the hypothesis that the tweak, or product, under consideration produces AUDIBLE CHANGES in the output of a stereo system.
And the funny thing is, after all the techno speak by the manufacturer when you ask "Ok, can you show us measurements indicating the audio signal output has been altered in any way by the introduction of your product?" The answer typically boils down to "Why would we do that?"
It’s bizarre.
The claims are technical RIGHT UP to the point where the hypothesis should be validated...and then suddenly technical/engineering problems that can be measured...and then claimed to be fixed by the product...suddenly can't be measured, or don't need measured validation! Such considerations suddenly disappear and it’s "don’t you hear the difference??"
This is the Big Red Flag in high end audio claims. Appeal to science and engineering all the way up to the point where you ask for measured results, and then suddenly it’s handed off to marketing.
So...bringing these concerns back to your explanation....
My questions would be:
In the case of an average electronic component - say a CD player sitting in my rack or whatever - how much vibration would the unit actually be undergoing? Have you measured this? I can tell you that, at least with my ipad seismometer app (obviously more crude than a professional device) it can easily measure vibration levels I can’t even feel. It registers no detectable vibration when simply sat on any of my components. Zero. And that’s a device *looking* to register vibration.
So right off the bat, this implies that components such as those in my house are, if they are undergoing any vibration, it is very, very low (or below the threshold of what I can feel and measure with my app).
Why should I expect such a low level of vibration to excite resonances, or to cause such havoc on capacitor tied to a circuit board, that this would alter the signal to an audible degree? (I have other reasons to be skeptical of your claims, which I’ll leave out for now).
Do you have measurements showing the average ambient vibration on a component? Do you have measurements showing this ambient vibration actually alters the values or performance of a tied vs untied cap? Those are pretty obvious questions, right?
Then do you have measurements from any output of an audio device that uses capacitors that indicates the audio signal would have changed? How did you measure, how did you test?
If only via listening tests, did you account for listener bias?
However, why continue to derail the thread and waste our precious time as some of us would like to expand our knowledge here.
I believe you may have lost some perspective on the subject of this thread, grannyring.
Look at Michael's OP. He did not start a thread along the lines of "ask me about my tuning methods" or "let's discuss tweaks and tuning.'
No.
It was a thread explicitly devoted to castigating certain audiophiles. From the thread title, through the body of the text, to the last line challenging these people - "why fake it?" - it was a call out, to talk about fakers and a challenge to those "fakers."
How could you reasonably expect this thread would not breed any acrimony, given the negative assessment of other people contained in the OP?
Anyone showing up to challenge Michael's claim IS keeping the thread on topic. I've been asking Michael for examples to support his claim. I've been asking if I fit the profile he's talking about. I've been asking questions about the empiricism and science Michael appealed to in his OP. I don't think anyone has been MORE on topic of the OP than I have.
Turning the thread in to a Michael Green tuning techniques thread would be making it off topic - he could start any other thread about that specifically. And if that was in fact the motivation for Michael to make this thread, to evangelize again about his tuning methods, then the thread title and OP would have been deceptive on his part - a bait and switch, "trolling" with a negative post about other people in order to gain eyes to turn the subject to his tuning methods again.
I've at least done Michael the respect of trying to keep this on the topic he started, if that in fact was his motivation for this topic.
Constantly trying to put a negative spin on someone’s motive and methods is just not what these threads are meant for.
Again...did you even read Michael's OP?
He STARTED this thread via a NEGATIVE assessment of other people's motives and methods! If someone isn't trying out his methods, and is calling upon other experience or resources other than simply trying his tweaks, then he's calling such people fakes.
But no one has to be a fake to voice reasonable skepticism about a claim.
It's fascinating that you so easily see negativity and suspect motivations in others, but everything MG posts is all roses and sunshine.
It seems my very first reply to you in this thread remains as pertinent as ever.
Not doing the hobby is when someone speaks as if they have some knowledge on something yet they personally have never done it.
But you are casting a wide, disparaging net there. It’s one thing to say of a single subject being discussed "you haven’t personal experience with X." It’s another to cast this as "the hobby." People can be doing high end audio, doing "the hobby" just as much as you are, yet disagree on a subject. Someone could say "Well, Michael, I don’t put tuned wood blocks under my cables because I’m not convinced by your reasoning that it is efficacious." But simply voicing skepticism is NOT tantamount to "not doing the HOBBY." That person can, it should be obvious, still be quite engaged in the hobby of high end audio and their own system.
But your way with words doesn’t even allow for the idea that two audiophiles can be in "the hobby," yet disagree on some specific subject. This is the type of careless way with wording that, yet again, is problematic for good discourse.
Faking it is the same thing. They will make comments about a subject and yet have never really explored it.
Same problem here that I highlighted in my first post to you.
First...commenting on a proposed tweak (or whatever) IS a way of exploring it. If you suggest a tweak, and I ask "How does that work, exactly, and on what evidence are you basing this?" then that IS part of exploring the subject. A tweak first has to make some sense to someone in order to motivate putting money...or just time and effort...in to it.
Further, there are often times when someone can reasonably comment on a claim that they have not personally experimented with. I don’t have to have gone to the moon personally to argue it’s unreasonable to claim it’s made of cheese, and I don’t have to have tried using homeopathy to point to very good reasons that the claim is based on bunk. Quite a number of high end audio tweaks fall into a similar category, where one can point out the claims are suspect in nature, if not technically, and the vetting process unreliable.
So one way to be more clear on where you stand is to answer: Would YOU put me in the category of "not doing the hobby" or being a Faker?
Answering this would go a long way to clarifying your stance, and also showing how reasonable it is or not. (Your first reply to me suggested you put me in the "not doing/faking it" camp...but I’m looking for clarification).
The reason I asked you if you knew the difference between those two caps is so I could see how experienced you were with the sonic differences between audio pieces.
Again...you seem to extrapolate from isolated examples to imply an unjustified wider conclusion.
That I haven’t experience comparing those caps does not equate to my not being experienced "with the sonic differences between audio pieces." I’ve been in to high end audio, heavily, since the early 1990’s, and have been comparing audio devices with great fervor for decades. So who are you to try to extrapolate from some simple capacitor example that this disqualifies me from be worthy of discussing with you audio differences?
Prof some people swear they can’t hear the differences between caps. That to me is a disqualifier for me to want to talk to them about the sound differences.
I didn’t make any such claim that they don’t sound different, right? But you went on to ignore my reply with just "thank you" and no reasoning or clarification beyond that.
Same goes for the ties snipped from the caps.
I haven’t declared that snipped caps don’t sound different. I’ve given reasons why I don’t just accept the claim at face value, and asked for more details explaining the purported phenomenon. That’s reasonable isn’t it? You see that’s different from declaring they don’t make a difference, right? And yet everything you write keeps implying my concerns are just trolling, and are not serious questions, and even though I keep explaining "I’m not saying it’s impossible" over and over, your replies keep referring to people who say "it’s impossible." I’ve simply been asking for you to interact with what I actually say, vs what seems to be some other version you have in your head that you keep responding to.
Fact is, the change did take place and Jay and others here who have gone and done this experiment while this thread was going on heard the difference and reported it to me. I’ve taken my time responding to you because I wanted to heard from folks who actually "Did" the experiment.
So this is a problem I keep pointing toward. Your OP made quite a deal about being empirical, and you referenced being scientific. ("why....do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks.")
But what I’ve seen from you isn’t very scientific at all. I’ve been asking the very questions someone thinking scientifically would ask: What is your explanation, what makes your hypothesis plausible as a starting point for investigation. Have you measurable results to show? And then, have you tested your hypothesis that the results are actually audible in ways that account for the relevant variables (e.g. bias, human imagination, etc)?
See there is a whole world of difference between simply "empirical experience" and being scientific. Flat earthers are basing their beliefs on their experience. But they aren’t being scientific.
If you were familiar with scientific empiricism, you’d recognize my questions as pertinent and in fact welcome them - scientists know they gain strength in their hypotheses insofar as they can stand up to skeptical scrutiny.
But you keep reacting like skepticism is a bad thing. More like it’s a buzz-kill when you just want to discuss your claims, and only talk of positive results unchallenged. Skepticism is just, apparently, a way to troll you.
Such an attitude is much more aligned with pseudo-science, or new age magical thinking or faith, rather than empirical rigor. So you should be able to see the grounds for skepticism here.
If you feel it’s fair to call people out for not "walking the walk" isn’t it fair to call you out for giving lip-service to science and empiricism, while not "walking the walk" by actually taking scientific rigor seriously in your methods, and in your responses?
Where the talk would come in is all these posts on this thread meant to derail or be a distraction. I would call all those with the intent to derail, troll or just old farts needing attention "fakes".
This just sounds like someone who won’t put up with any challenge to his claims.
Michael, please look again at your OP.
You did not make a thread about your tuning methods.
You made a thread specifically calling out some group of people for being fakes in this hobby. Not just that; people you claim are part of this forum. That’s what your entire OP is concerned with, from thread title to the last challenge to these people "why fake it?"
Did you honestly think you could just devote a thread to disparaging some group of people...and not have anyone challenge you on your claim? Like you can just gripe all you want about some subsection of people in this hobby and you expect only pats on the back and no pushback? Surely you can’t be that naive. And you even started with the understanding you would be raising hay by saying "you didn’t want to start a fight." But again, that’s like saying "I don’t want to cause any ill will - but some of you are fakes. Just don’t challenge me on that."
Numerous people have pointed out this problem in your OP, and in your follow up posts, so I don’t know why you refuse to listen to any criticism and keep blowing it all off, assuming the only reason anyone could pushback is if they are fakers or trolls.
Far from "de-railing" from the topic, I’ve been in fact KEEPING this thread on topic by asking you to back up and clarify the various claims in your OP. Trying to see whether I, or anyone else at all here, warrants your disparaging remarks. And probing your claims on empirical testing and it’s implications.
It seems you will only countenance on-topic remarks IF they support your claim and pat you on the back for calling out these purported fakes. But if someone challenges your claim...well they are of course the fakes and trolls you referred to. A perfectly circular type of response, more suited to religion than to someone truly empirically open or scientific.
For me this is a successful thread because listeners are "doing".
Which apparently means "doing your tuning stuff" and that’s "the hobby."
This smacks of self-important elitism, evangelism, not of egalitarian respect for other people to have their own approach.
I’m "doing" stuff all the time in the audio hobby. And I’d suggest literally everyone on and probably reading this thread is "doing" as well. But your stance continually suggests someone not doing your thing, or who voices any skepticism, isn’t "doing the hobby" or isn’t being empirically consistent, or is a faker or troll.
And that’s...to put it more politely than it deserves....not true or reasonable.
I didn’t come on this thread to "derail it" but rather appeal to you to clarify and substantiate your claims, and to helpfully suggest - being explicit that I was not accusing you of being malicious! - that creating a thread to disparage unnamed people was likely to be problematic. And...it was. (And it’s not just me...many others have been trying to tell you this).
You still do not understand that I do not understand why or how your explanation works. I am NOT playing engineer here, hence my repeated request for further information. I WANT to understand but you are reluctant to be forthcoming with information that can be useful to posters.
Do we need to attend your Temple to be enlightened? I would have thought that these forums, post topics are there to find out and share information on all subjects audio.
Why is it so hard to understand? It seems perfectly plain to me. Come to AudioGon, ask a question, search for an answer, if someone make a statement or something that seems out of normal or controversial, why is it so wrong to ask for the writer to seek explanation?
amg 56..here is how and why it works..and with further additions pertaining to strapping caps..
theaudiotweak1,676 posts05-16-2018 9:48amSpeakers cones generate shear and polarities of shear before they generate a pressure wave. Thats how speakers work. Polarities of shear on a cone for example travel on all surfaces of the material shape..they also travel thru that material shape. The speed and direction are much determined by that material and shape. Shear can return to the point of emination or the wave launch..this is what we call interfering energy. There are ways to eliminate this interference in vibrational objects that re corrupts the original intended signal. Some methods are easy to see and hear others must be dealt with in new and unique ways or just a new look and understanding of what had always been there. And it has always been there..The best method is the use of a select material contoured with no 90 degree angles and contains a shape angle where shear can be rejected and not allowed to re enter. Some here wish to cancel or eliminate all polarities of shear. If you do so you will reduce all amplitudes of the resulting sound wave. Selective identification of shear polarity and its return into the signal path is what is crucial. Kill all shear..no sound.
Resonators work because they capture a pressure wave and change that motion into shear. The size, shape and material's shear velocity determine the sound and perceived quality of the acoustic waves output off of that solid object.Thats why brass, gold and silver objects of the same exact shape generate a different sound out come. Also that's why most everytime you see resonators they are attached to a solid surface or very near the surface. There is an action reaction between a flat material surface :drywall: and a resonator where the pressure wave that impacts the wall and becomes partially shear and travels thru that solid :drywall: That now altered pressure wave encounters a resonator of some size shape and material alters how the molecules of that original pressure wave actually reacts and sounds to our ears brain and body. This continual rotation between compressive and the shear world is what makes sound..and what makes things sound different. Our ears are also shear generators because of material structure and shape we each interpet the compressive wave in a similar but unique way. Oh and then there is the skull and bone structure and mass. Later on..Tom
and then my response to the tie down of caps..for that matter anything. You can interchange the word drywall above for the words horrid,glue and sawdust below.
The following applies to all material surfaces especially 2 or more dissimilar materials of varied shapes. Adjusting the surface tension changes the surface shear speed of the materials ..becoming either separate,combined or somewhere in between. The result is more or less interfering energy being transferred back and forth between these surfaces in intimate contact or from the compressive world onto a solid then becoming shear. So in many examples of using gucci caps tied down to horrid materials made of sawdust and glue you will have the sound of that cap altered for sure by the larger mass of the material it is forced upon. The size and mass of the same substrate will also give you a different result.The tie down material will also become part of the sound of the cap. As we know vibration is all around and cannot be isolated. We can make vibration a useful tool and most pleasant. Just need to know the why and how..Tom .. Star Sound Technologies and Tone Acoustics
”I grow weary of the long and repetitive argumentative posts from folks who really just need to move on as they will never enjoy this thread.....However, why continue to derail the thread and waste our precious time as some of us would like to expand our knowledge here. Constantly trying to put a negative spin on someone’s motive and methods is just not what these threads are meant for.”
>>>>>Eggs Ackly! And we have a name for them. Pseudo skeptics. It’s been that way since audio forums were invented. Leave it or live with it. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a duck! 🦆 You don’t even have to look up the definition on Wikipedia.
Pop quiz!
Is time real or simply a construct of man? If there were no clocks and watches would time still exist?
@uberwaltz. I was not referring to you really. A little bit of healthy skepticism coupled with your humor is just fine. I grow weary of the long and repetitive argumentative posts from folks who really just need to move on as they will never enjoy this thread. That’s fine if they can’t learn or agree with MG and others here. However, why continue to derail the thread and waste our precious time as some of us would like to expand our knowledge here. Constantly trying to put a negative spin on someone’s motive and methods is just not what these threads are meant for. Today it seems many think it is exactly what these forums are for.
Explain how or why this works. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer?
Nobody here owes you an explanation for anything. Everyone is free to post their own experiences. You are free to evaluate those experiences any way you like.
You may be doing, but not explaining Michael. Why do, if you are not told why it happens. Again you fob off the explanation.
I am not worried if you love Jesus or not, that is not the issue. The issue is science against your explanation of faith in your solution, and faith is losing.
I don't care if you are "doing" but you are not explaining.
Explain how or why this works. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer?
If Jesus was doing snake oil, count me in all day long and twice on Sunday.
Here’s maybe where you are having a problem amg. You think I’m arguing. My friend I’m simply "doing". Amg, you have a steak in front of you, how do you know it will taste good? You taste it. Are you going to measure it somehow to tell you how it is going to taste? Nope. Amg audio is something you do. No one can make you do it, we can only tell you if or if not we liked the steak. We can come over to your table and cut it up in bite sizes but making you enjoy it, that's up to you.
I am sorry Michael. There are elements in life and hardware that logic either accepts with blind faith or it questions and asks why?
Why was Jesus able to walk on water? People accept the fact that he did, yet logically its impossible (unless the water was ice).
Would a person walk off a cliff because someone simply said "don't worry, you won't fall"? Logic and every shrieking intuition would say NO!
Your argument still fails the logic test. I am not going into my system to modify it because someone told me just do it, it will be great afterwards. I would need to know why the change happens, how does it happen and by how much can a person expect the change to be? Can't you see that the logic test has not been proven with your post. You may tell me 100 people snipped their ties, but WHY does this benefit happen, what is the science behind it? If you cannot explain this, you have no right telling people to do it.
Michael, until you are able to explain this, you remain in snake oil territory and you are still expecting blind acceptance of your preaching.
Wow must have been awesome experiencing what MG did and how he did it firsthand. Wish I was staying near to him and have the convinience to learn and work on my system with him around lol!
Even me staying thousands of miles away have had good success with my system via emails and from his forums but seeing him working up a system is definately the best expereice that one can ever get. What you said about settling in is something that I have noticed and experience too.
"Where he started and where he ended up at was more than any amp or speaker change I've ever witnessed."
This is the exact thoughts and experience I had and have mentioned on this thread initially. A good sounding setup has to do more than just having good equipments. Money spent doesn't need to reach an exorbitant level. A simple setup with the ways of tuning can get you there and deliver amazing results.
Michael has developed ways to get ones system up to another level. Its just how open and how far are you willing to listen and try it out. For me after a while getting the hang of it and practising makes it easier to understand what Michael is saying.
Not doing the hobby is when someone speaks as if they have some knowledge on something yet they personally have never done it.
Faking it is the same thing. They will make comments about a subject and yet have never really explored it.
Back to the capacitor thing for a moment. The reason I asked you if you knew the difference between those two caps is so I could see how experienced you were with the sonic differences between audio pieces. Prof some people swear they can’t hear the differences between caps. That to me is a disqualifier for me to want to talk to them about the sound differences. Same goes for the ties snipped from the caps. That’s one of the things I did today to get jf47t response to.
So again back to the caps, I snipped the ties and Jay heard the difference and was able to describe it pretty right on. Now lets say someone said that’s impossible. That would tell me one of 3 things which I think the tunees have already stated. One the system has blockage and isn’t able to let through the changes. Two, the ties were never snipped and the person is just "faking" their answer. Or 3 they are unable to hear the change. Fact is, the change did take place and Jay and others here who have gone and done this experiment while this thread was going on heard the difference and reported it to me. I’ve taken my time responding to you because I wanted to heard from folks who actually "Did" the experiment.
So here’s where the walk and talk comes in. The guys who are walking on that particular topic are the ones who took the time to engage in the activity themselves. There were 6 guys 1 gal who were reading this and actually snipped the ties on both the caps and wires and took the time to report to me their findings, all heard a difference. Some of them have decided to take further steps in tuning. Where the talk would come in is all these posts on this thread meant to derail or be a distraction. I would call all those with the intent to derail, troll or just old farts needing attention "fakes". They were fakes on this thread and no doubt being fakes on other threads. These are the guys who are here to only hear themselves talk and or to start trouble. The people who are "doing" on this and other forums are people who often talk about music, are open minded and who can call out a lonely person or internet troll. Nothing wrong with being lonely, but trying to derail something good by painting a picture of bad is "fake" and done by those who don’t do the hobby usually.
Now prof I understand you came on this thread to try to make it look like I was being negative, but I was being real and still am. If someone doesn’t like this including you, no need to post on this thread other than saying once you don’t get it or agree with it. But when you say I’m being evasive over and over it shows signs of trolling and stalking. Or as you said Dog & Bone. If I’m only doing this to bait you with a bone you’ve fallen for it again, and will respond as such. But prof my mission here was to point out the difference between people who try stuff and people who talk and act as if they do try stuff. I’ve covered this topic forward and backward, up side down and right side up, left to right and back to front. I’ve even provided a real time "doing" field trip. It’s up to the reader to decide if I meant any kind of harm by suggesting that folks not give up on trying simple tuning tips and if folks hadn’t tried so hard to troll by now we would have been into all kinds of tuning tips for people to try. And I’m sure folks like Geoff and others would have added to the list. Sometimes prof it’s smarter to let the grass grow a little before cutting it. You got so intent on schooling me that you became angry when I didn’t want to respond the way you wanted it to go. Sometimes prof you have to let the stew cook slow and not be in such a hurry.
For me this is a successful thread because listeners are "doing". I hope years from now they will keep on doing. All the other stuff my friend was just talk.
Ha, you are up having fun. I’m up working! (Just peeking into the forum for a mental break here and there).
Sounds great. I’d loved to have heard what you heard.
Though I’m still left in the dark about the question I asked. I know Michael’s thoughts about getting the best out of different recordings.
But what I was asking about is Michael saying people aren’t "doing the hobby" ...or "faking it" as he has put it earlier.
I don’t think Michael believes in right or wrong, only growth vs settling for.
But that still leaves me unenlightened as to who would be not "doing the hobby" or "faking it." Since those are the terms in which Michael has been putting things - and they obviously sound negative - I'm trying to figure out what that actually means in practice.
Again, I wouldn’t want to disparage anyone else in terms of what they enjoy doing - or not doing - in the hobby, so I’m unsure why Michael is describing people’s involvement in such negative terms. Is the person who is actually happy with his system...."not doing the hobby" or....faking it? (Because...he has settled for something he finds pleasing and doesn’t feel the need to keep tweaking? Whereas Michael thinks this is stopping "growth"? What exactly is the purpose of "growing" if not to reach the point most people want to reach, which is when they are satisfied in mostly listening to the music?)
I mean, I get if one wants to point out that some people settle sooner along the way in setting up a high end system, whereas others will keep looking for every possible way to keep improving and tweaking. But what I don’t get is disparaging either one, putting one in a camp of "not doing/faking."
Given what I described in my previous post about how I approach my system, would you describe me as "not doing" the hobby? Or "faking it?"
Hi Prof came home a couple of minutes ago, Wow! That was one amazing journey. Even though I am working on my own MGA system I'm not sure I can do what he did tonight. He says "you'll get it" but he has this intuitive spirit about him that must only be able to achieve with practice. I am no where near that level but excited to be living so close to him.
"But I wonder if the sentiment is the same "from your side of the fence" because posts like you just made does continue to imply others are not "doing" this hobby, and if not by implication "doing it wrong."
I don't think Michael believes in right or wrong, only growth vs settling for. MG believes there is always more to get out of a recording and tonight was a major lesson to that end. Where he started and where he ended up at was more than any amp or speaker change I've ever witnessed. It was also far beyond any trade show display I've ever heard by a long shot.
"And certainly, MG himself spends a lot of time posting on forums, writing evangelically about his method."
I don't think I've ever heard Michael say tuning was his method. I've only heard him talk about being a part of tuning, following in the footsteps of instrument and music tuning. He views a stereo system as an extension of the recording process. He can explain this better than me but the way he says it is the recording starts with tuning and playback ends with retuning. The recording is a code and playback is tuning in that code. With what he showed me today that makes perfect sense.
I'm still at Michael's. Peaceful, powerful, thick or body, spiritual, not high end audio sounding, and transformative. I never would have guessed this being the same recording. I had to ask Michael if he can do this with any CD? He said "pick one and come back tomorrow". BTW while I listened MG said "Goodwill night". He left and came back with two bags full of CD's "would you like any". MG is not like any other listener you have ever met. He literally shapes the music so well that it makes a high end audio show system sound incomplete (distorted) by comparison. But what makes these visits so impressive is he always says "you can make this system sound better than I can". MG is a firm believer in everyone being the master of their own sound. I've picked George Michaels "Faith" for tomorrows listening.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
