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?
When you guys start shouting (and most of the time with anger) VooDoo that really only tells the listening world that you haven’t reached the level of empirical testing.
No, Michael. No.
People who call out your voodoo do so on a firmer understanding of empiricism than you seem to have.
You only use words like "empiricism" and "science" to pay lip-service, to give some reputable gloss on your claims, but without actually "walking the walk" of truly responsible empiricism.
The whole point of science has been to come up with a more reliable, empirically responsible method of inquiry.
"Experience + Testing" does NOT automatically yield science, or reliable results. We can misinterpret experience in all manner of ways, and we can have unreliable methods of "testing" that yield incorrect results. So just invoking THOSE aspects do little to justify your "method." Because mere experiencing/testing is used to "confirm" virtually every crackpot theory in existence. It’s what the Flat Earthers are claiming as well. They "experience" that the world is flat - hey, just use your eyes! You can see it’s flat so that’s the right conclusion! - and they "test" their idea in all manner of ways. But it is of course the faulty nature of their tests, and bad assumptions, and ignoring of any data inconvenient to their beliefs, that continue to...what a surprise!...support their belief system! And yet actually reliable empirical methods show their conclusions are ludicrously off-base.
A good hypothesis will usually build on already robust and reliable bodies of knowledge. If for instance you proposed that shifting the angle of X speaker in Y room will alter the sound in X manner, then there would be mountains of firmly established theory and evidence - based on carefully scientifically controlled variables! - suggesting the plausibility of this hypothesis. I’m unaware of any such evidence, mountain or otherwise, for your claim that tie wraps cause capacitors to alter the sound in the ways you claim. Which is why I keep asking for that evidence. But of course...never get it.
And when one is being a truly responsible empiricist, you try to acknowledge the reality of variables - e.g. data on listener/experimenter bias - and incorporate that into your method of testing.
I’ve been asking about your method; to what degree you control for variables and how (including listener/experimenter bias). But of course from you...silence.
Someone who understands science scales his beliefs to the evidence, and doesn’t simply IGNORE counter evidence, and doesn’t ignore skeptical challenges from others. In fact, it IS skeptical challenges from others that makes science WORK. Skepticism is GOOD for you, Michael, if you actually care about the truth (or warranted confidence level) of your beliefs.
People who understand this have no problem when someone asks them hard or skeptical questions about their claims.
Casting skeptical questions as "negativity" is what you get from PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS.
What you get in pseudo-science is lip service to terms like empiricism and science and method and testing....but no actual principled adherence to the virtues of science. People doing pseudo-science embrace any support for their belief, embrace only "positive" feedback, but reject skeptical feedback.
Hence they can keep whatever beliefs they have going, unsullied by skeptics or a truly honest empirical method that seeks to prove themselves "wrong" as much as "correct" (that’s what you are seeking, if you are seeking truth).
Michael, your every bit of behavior here, especially to my queries, have fit the very model of pseudo-science. It’s really no mystery why you won’t and can’t answer the substance of my questions.
So go ahead of course, and keep on Tuning. More power to you.
But please don’t try to keep claiming some empirical high ground with lip service to science. You’ll be called on it, unlike back in your forum where people apparently don’t know better.
And please don’t pretend you are taking the high ground here, given the ways your pseudo-scientific evasions lower the level of discourse. It’s easy to play The Nice Guy when people just lap up your wisdom and thank you for it. But this is a public forum so you have to also Play Nice, that is show good faith replies and intellectual honesty, to the people who DON’T automatically greet you with open arms, and who exercise their right to critical thinking, asking your harder, more skeptical questions.
Evading those questions, while casting those people as negative people or trolls...is pernicious to healthy, open discourse. And you will be called on this here, as well.
I think that was of 2004, but I can call them if you would like. Now that I look at it maybe older. The picture looks like around 1989. I think that was a thing MTV did for closing credits on a show I did with them. Wow was I young. Then I think we copied it for an old site. Those were fun times. That was when I was going from pro to HEA. I think I was standing in one of my stereo stores.
Btw folks someone mentioned Fresh Aire on another thread, and I’ve been wanting a Mannheim Steamroller Fest ever since. So, I’ve got them lined up in my listening room, so excited! It’s been quite a while. Man were there some great electronica recordings during that era.
"For those who don't think that metal cases can't be detrimental to the sound, there's a very old audio site called Mother of Tone that believes one should build amps and DACs on blocks of wood. This is nothing new.
(Btw, I'm quite sure I can infer your motive for the question about
caps. But my answer didn't actually give you what you want - I didn't
proclaim any conclusion either way and simply said I'd look at the
evidence - that's why you can't actually interact with the substance of
my reply).
Remember, you've been making claims: I've been simply asking for evidence for the claims, and how you go about testing the claims with a mind to the concerns I have raised - completely reasonable questions which you've studiously avoided answering.
I've even acknowledged you may be on to something and produce some great
results...but I have questions about some of your claims and methods.
So I address what you write, and when you ask me questions I answer them...but you won't never answer mine? Or even ever explain the pertinence of your
question?
This is the "open minded" "sponge for information" "ready to be challenged" "science/empiricism-loving" Michael Green? And yet, when people who actually know something about the nature of empirical science ask relevant questions you freeze into silence and imply they are trolls?
"bill333 can you give us a non-mystical, technical explanation for how removing the chassis top of a component would cause those audible differences (or releasing of the capacitor)?"
I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that's not the hobby I'm engaged in. I'm trying to create great music listening experiences. Simply put, I don't see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound. OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I'd be glad to hear them...
"(BTW, I’ve had the top off some of my equipment before - pre-amps etc - for different reasons and...no...it did not change the sound)."
There could be any number of factors involved in your not hearing a change in sound. Without being there to hear for myself, and subsequent experimenting with your system and room, I really can't say what happened. The most likely explanation is that some component or components in your system are closed down to the point that upstream changes can't easily be heard.
But let's get to the point of your post. You're not here to help people get better sound. Having read through your posts on this thread, I can't find a single instance of you doing or saying anything that would help another person improve their system. You're here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don't fit into your mental model of how things work. Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them. These are things that have worked for me. If you, or anyone reading this, tries these methods and benefits from them, I am genuinely happy about that. If you choose not to try, that's ok too. But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system."
This is very true and very powerful. It's how I felt about Prof saying he needed to be convinced that things sound different. Prof that's not on anyone but you. I found out this stuff about caps in particular when I was in my early teens. I found out because I did it and watched others do the same thing. Maybe there's a mental need for some to go through the exercises they do, but "walking" is about the actual doing and applying the doing. Some of you guys who are spinning here are never going to enter the hobby that some of us are talking and doing. That's the point of this OP. If you choose not to hear the difference or can only understand it by looking at a chart or screen that's one hobby (and very legit) but that's a different hobby. When you guys start shouting (and most of the time with anger) VooDoo that really only tells the listening world that you haven't reached the level of empirical testing.
BTW the Tunees who have been up here so far are EEs, Doctors, Musicians, Reviewers and heavy duty listening explorers. I don't think any of us would put down another's path to successful listening. I can say this because we believe in the variables of the hobby. Again it's like the OP is saying, there are those that walk and others that talk. The ones that walk are more than happy to help those through the first few steps into the bigger world of tuning the variables, but when someone can't hear the difference between caps, and questions that there is a difference it kind of spoils the desire to jump in to the mental state with them.
"How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course."
"I wouldn’t describe the sonic difference between those two caps, as I do not presume, without hearing more reason to think so, that they would sound different. (Not that I couldn’t be convinced they could produce sonic differences)"
I spend a lot of time thinking about the words I want to use at times and other times they just kind of fall out like they were meant to be, like RoomTune. SAM and Laminar Flow were two that came with a little more effort. What helped me with Laminar flow was a visit to the space shuttle lab. The particular things they were asking me about was demoed by a display of Laminar flow over a huge surface. The connection was enough for me to use the term comfortably.
Because I have been the starter of some of these things in HEA I try to come up with names that one stick, and two have a tie to the actual event.
"I gave the website a quick once over and I did not find it particularly informative though the unified focus on "tuning" is unique. Needs some work IMHO."
Hi mapman, when you went to the site did you also visit the forum? I don’t want the site to get too crowded but I also don’t want to have it too vague. 2 years ago we started to redo sections and are thinking about doing some unique stuff. I’m glad the theme came through for you which is the main thing. I want people to be able to see that tuning happens start to finish. It was also important to build up the forums (started in 2004), that’s the proof in the pudding. Seeing short write ups and pics is cool but actually seeing the listeners doing the tune is the key, and that’s what the forum does.
thanks for taking the time to look and to give your opinion
This last year couple of years we have had a renaissance in tuning and making something relatable is very important to me. It takes a lot of effort to get something like audio tuning documented, and the Tunees have done a fantastic job of sharing their systems with us. It's been an intense and thorough labor of love, but every day I see more work that needs to be done.
Thanks for your comments. Having the website and TuneLand has been a wonderful way to get to know listeners and the sounds they may be wanting to go after. I'm not sure ads, shows and reviews have quite the same impact as they once did, ads and reviews for sure. Word of mouth from owners have been a big part of my speaker biz. The reviews were nice and a welcome starting point, but since those days, recommendations from owners has been the biggest seller for me.
@Glupson. No worries my friend. In all honesty the mods do not run around this site all day long just checking on who has been a naughty boy lately although they are fully aware of notorious "problem" threads. It usually takes a member or two to actually report a post before one of them will cast an eye over it and decide if it merits removal.
I apologize for my misinformation. I did, wrongfully so, assume that there is no moderator as I cannot understand how some of these posts remain. My bad and thanks for clarifying it.
More importantly, the way some of your posts are written (choice of
words, mainly) is at least odd. They do not come across as anything any
of us should be subjected to. I am not talking about your messages to
me, but to some other members here. This forum does not have a moderator
to take unacceptable posts down so we should, at least, attempt to keep
it constructive rather than destructive and personally insulting.
?? There are a number of mods on this site and at times they can be VERY active at removing unjust posts....ask GK......
“Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?”
is just that. A very simple request to help you decide between two choices you thought you had. It is not a rhetorical question, by any means. I understand you might have not thought of any other option so, just as with your question about ice-cold cups, I reminded you of deficiencies in your question that deemed it unanswerable. I offered one more option for answer and someone else might have thought of a few more I am not aware of.
It is very possible that you are an audio insider and nobody should dispute that. Most of the people here are. Of course, definition of an audio insider could be as broad as we decide to make it.
Most of us know many people, some top notch people, too. Welcome to the club. It does not matter, but it is unclear if those acquaintances of yours are designers of top notch high end amps or they are top notch designers of high end amps.
Maybe you haven’t been paying very close attention. The ones who don’t hold audiophile tweaks and concepts dear are by and large the ones who never try them, who are just having a hoot going after audiophiles who do hold them dear.
Just because some audiophiles, whatever that word even means, do not want to try what they feel would be a waste of time and resources for them does not substantiate the claim that "audiophiles hold those tweaks dear". Surely, some of the audiophiles do hold them dear, but some, for their own reasons, do not. It is easy to imagine that some not-so-shabby manufacturer decides to cater to the group that you do not seem to belong to. It does not necessarily make them incompetent nor does it make your picks superior with any certainty.
More importantly, the way some of your posts are written (choice of words, mainly) is at least odd. They do not come across as anything any of us should be subjected to. I am not talking about your messages to me, but to some other members here. This forum does not have a moderator to take unacceptable posts down so we should, at least, attempt to keep it constructive rather than destructive and personally insulting.
I have been tangentially reading these posts about metal casings of amplifiers. Not to go into details of influence on the sound of current designs that seem to be unacceptable to you, is there any particular material that you would suggest be used instead? I can only guess that it would need to be heat-resistant and have no knowledge what else would be needed.
What it all boils down to in the final analysis is whether or not Tuning causes cancer. Agreed? By the way, I can’t help noticing there doesn't seem to be very much interest in my latest pop quizzaroo. You know, the one about the acoustic resonators. Or any of them, frankly. What’s up with that? I thought we had some brainy people here. Come on, what’s the matter? Not challenging enough? Too mundane? Too stupid? Not interested at All? Hey, there’s a multiple choice pop quiz right there! I personally suspect the self-anointed Uber skeptics are just posing as engineers, intellectuals or whatever. OK let’s see those pose downs, fellas. Work it, baby!
I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that’s not the hobby I’m engaged in.
Ok.
But would you agree that, just because you don’t find such inquiry interesting, there’s no reason to disparage others who do? Yet if someone starts asking for explanations...and even dares point out an explanation didn’t seem to be a good one....you and people like Michael seem to get very negative on them pretty quickly.
Personally, I don’t disparage anyone for buying whatever they wish, or for playing around in any way with his system, rendering improvements as he sees them. I do it. We all do it. If someone wants to pay lots of money for something I think is likely nonsense...that is of course entirely up to them. I buy things that no doubt others think are nonsense.
But when someone starts to make CLAIMS of some objective nature - e.g. that altering X produces objective differences that we can perceive - then I reserve the right to think critically about those claims and give a reasoned argument for my skepticism. That’s especially the case when someone would want to SELL me something based on those claims.
Do you actually see anything wrong with this? Or should I and anyone else here be simply gullably open to any claim anyone wants to make in high end audio?
Simply put, I don’t see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound.
Really? You don’t see the relevance of knowing what you are doing?
The more you understand, the better placed you are to prioritize your time and money and the more likely you are to achieve your goals.
In my case there’s still a lot I don’t understand. But when relevant, I try to learn something about what I’m doing so I’m not just thrashing around in the dark - e.g. understanding room acoustics and other issues in integrating my new subwoofers. (I also renovated my room consulting with an acoustician).
OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I’d be glad to hear them...
I’m not posing as an audio guru dispensing such advice (let alone asking people to pay me for my services). I’m a consumer like you are, and I’m just assessing the claims being made as I see fit.
But if you want any advice: You are much more likely to realize sonic benefits from proper speaker placement and paying attention to room acoustics, than from spending time untying capacitors or raising wires on wood blocks, etc. There’s a TON of research supporting the effects of the former; virtually none that I’m aware of for the latter.
But let’s get to the point of your post.
I’d love if you or Michael actually did that!
My original reply to Michael, and the theme of my follow up replies, has been:
1. To point out that it is both poor form and deleterious to honest discourse to appear on a forum, create a thread declaring that some proportion of the members are "faking it" - without giving any examples to support that aspersion - and then ignore pertinent questions and challenges to his statements, brushing people off as being part of the problem or "trolls" without lifting a finger to justify all those additional insults. All the while pretending to be the Nice Guy who doesn’t want to ruffle feathers. Not to mention, creating a thread with false pretenses that it was a discussion about empirical testing, while in fact (acknowledged later) it was another way to self-promote his tuneland stuff.
Do you really not see a problem with that?
2. As a consumer, and someone interested in high end audio, I’ve been exercising my right to critical thinking, asking completely reasonable questions about Michael’s claims, which he has done nothing but evade.
Please, explain to me, what is actually wrong with any of that.
You’re here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don’t fit into your mental model of how things work.
Not at all. I’ve only cast aspersions on someone who has interacted dishonestly in a thread like this, as Michael has here. I think someone who ignores substantive questions and arguments challenging his position and replies only with denigrating dismissals with no substance, deserves to be called on this. Don’t you?
And talk about casting aspersions on people who don’t fit a mental model of how things work! Are you not aware of how often, and vociferously, Michael Green has done this himself? He’s continually evangelizing through his Tuning mental model, and castigating other popular high end audio methods, and people who dare say a recording can be revealed as bad, as liars and scammers!
Why don’t you apply your criticism evenhandedly to him, I wonder?
Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them.
And you will find tons of such posts from me too. For instance, many seemed to appreciate my reports on various speakers I’ve heard here:
Do I have to put everything I ever wrote into this one thread, to show I contribute what I can as well? Do you think maybe you are jumping to some harsher conclusions than you ought to?
But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system.
You are falling into the very model set by Michael Green: castigate someone’s view, instead of properly represent and respond to it.
My "belief system" is anything but dogmatic. It is entirely against dogma - in the sense of simply accepting as true what an authority would tell me, or accepting principles as simply true and unchallenged"
Dogma is one of the worst blights there is, in human thought.
Rather, I believe in taking in to account everyone’s fallibility including my own. So any assumptions I may have ought to be challengeable, re-visited, scrutinized, and ready for revision. And even THAT principle...I’m open to revising if someone could argue otherwise.
And I apply this lack of accepting dogma to claims in high end audio. I’m not going to believe something just because someone claims to be authoritative on the subject - certainly not someone trying to sell me something. I’m going to look at whether that person’s claims make sense in light of all the other information I’m aware of. Have you not noticed that, when I interact with claims made by someone here, I don’t simply dismiss them - I supply an argument, supporting REASONS for my view over the claim . That’s interacting with intellectual honesty. That’s the opposite of trolling.
Now that my position is, I hope, more clear to you: do you find this unreasonable?
And if not...it’s essentially the basis on which I’ve been posting in this entire thread....and yet Michael Green has not interacted with ANY of it, and only dismisses my concerns as being that of a troll.
Do you really think Green’s interaction, especially with me, has been that intellectually honest?
kosst amajan I said, IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! And it was NOT only measurements but double blind testing along with subjective listening that Dr.Hirsch championed to weed out poor/snake oil products & why the scientific methodology of reviewing audio equipment was swept under the carpet after he passed.. Contrary to what is perpetuated Dr,Hirsch never stated that all modern amplifiers sounded exactly alike..What he said what that all modern amplifiers with quality components & construction "should"sound the same & that the differences "heard"between amps was nothing more than the result of distortions inherent in the individual components chosen for construction..
Somewhere in the archives of my history here at A’gon I said basically the reason there is ZERO scientific testing regarding audio reproduction products is a conspiracy between HEA manufacturers & the established media to perpetuate the myth of performance = $$$! That is why empirical testing of audio products in the mainstream died with Julian Hirsch...
audionuttoo I’m not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333’s place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears!
>>>>>>Not sure I go along with your detective work. The conclusion that “vibration is good” might very well be incorrect and lead to “over generalizations” that are false. The loosely of screws may actually be explained by reducing the physical stress produced when the screws are tight. The same idea applies to transformers that are generally bolted down tightly and capacitors that are constrained with tight cable ties. Reducing stress improves the sound. Voila! But the general conclusion that vibration is good is probably overreaching. One over generalization that is false is vibration is good. And that leads to another over generalization that is also false - isolation is bad. 😬
I don’t see how we can put Michael Green into the same category as Roger Paul. As a result of the aforementioned thread where Roger went back and forth with several folks here, claiming to have created an amplifier exponentially better and different from anything else available, and ready to ascend to unquestionable supremacy I offered to pay him a visit to assess his claim. This past November, I spent a half day with Roger, allowing him to demo his amplifier for me. Without going into detail in this post, I predict the next 10 years for Roger will look like the past 10 to 20.
Likewise, I would neither lump Michael Green in with a self-proclaimed industry insider / expert and sage without peer on every technology directly or indirectly related to audio offering nothing beyond 24 / 7 Audiogon insulting postings and re-marketed household items infused with whatever required shamanism that renders them crucial in a HEA system without explanation.
No, Michael Green has developed, manufactured, and marketed actual products, and sold hundreds of thousands or more of them that even the most dyed in the wool objectivist would consider logical and effective. You can find his products in all manner of settings outside the lunatic fringe HEA circles. Not that he has a corner on the market or anything like it, as every recording studio, auditorium, movie theater, etc. uses acoustic room treatment.
As for myself, after remodeling my second system’s room including removing the fabric wallpaper about 15 years ago, I noticed the now exposed hard walls became a dominant factor in the sound, and precluded hearing the effects of many of the component upgrades and changes I made. This is why when folks tell me they tried component X in their system, and heard no difference, I believe them, as I found myself in that very place.
Over time, I noticed many friends and local dealers using Michael Green RoomTunes, and it occurred to me I might find benefit in them. Now in all honesty, I didn’t find the $200 - $400 price particularly friendly at that juncture of my life. I also felt I could implement a better version due not feeling the covering would adequately absorb (maybe the intent is reflection as opposed to absorption) and their overall (1/2"?) thinness. From my experience with Fried Transmission Line loading, long hair carded wool was considered to have the best acoustic properties of the most commonly used (foam, fiberglass, polyester batting) materials, and seeing that natural (not a synthetic fiber) burlap held a night and day advantage in terms of fabric open area seemed to offer the best container I could think of at the time for the stuffing. With about $30 in material and a couple of hours of my oldest daughter’s sewing , I had my own 3" - 4" versions in the room’s corners and also above them where they met the ceiling. Upon installing them in the room, and listening, the acoustic treatment provided me with an extremely low-cost, attractive, and effective solution. And with that, my thanks and respect to Michael Green
First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears!
That’s clearly wrong, and it should be obvious why it’s so wrong. We are building instruments all the time for detection because of the LIMITATIONS of our perception and senses.
For instance: You know there is sound in a frequency range called "Ultrasonic," right? Do you know why it’s even called "Ultrasonic?" Because you can’t hear it.
Your ears, if you have fantastic hearing, would top off at approximately 20K. But depending on your age and exposure to noise, it likely caps well below that point.
But you can buy, or even build an SPL meter that is FAR more sensitive and can detect frequencies up to 100K, e.g:
And when scientists detected the "sound" of black holes emerging far away in the universe...do you think it’s because someone woke up hearing it? Of course not. Instruments vastly more sensitive were used to detect these, and countless other phenomena that our limited hearing permits.
So right off the bat, you are starting with a false premise.
Trust them - they are the one truth in music!
(Putting aside the inscrutable second phrase...)
Your ears are part of a perceptual system; that system can and often enough does get things wrong. Just like your eyes. This is well known and demonstrable.
At this very moment there is a viral meme going around the internet showing how people’s audible perception varies. Google "yanny vs laurel." Also look here:
And then there are all the well documented cases of perceptual bias that will cause you to "hear" things that aren’t there, or perceive changes in sound when there is no external cause.
So you are off with TWO fallacious assumptions.
Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so!
Whoops. Intuitions are often unreliable. In fact much of the fallacious explanations for natural phenomena through history was based on erroneous extrapolations from "intuition." (In fact, right now the Flat Earth Society is based on just that: it’s intuitively obvious the world is flat...forget any contradictory scientific evidence against this! Intuition is the most reliable thing we have!)
Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it.
Drat. Another fallacy.
One can have sufficient reasons to doubt a claim without having direct experience. If I tell you the moon is made of cheese, do you have to have traveled to the moon in order to marshal reasonable doubts about my claim?
Similarly, if someone is presenting a claim that is laced with naive understandings of human perception, that already raises doubt about the claim (even if it’s not conclusive against the claim).
You are not actually making a good case for your claims.
That said, although you have laced your post with some faulty ideas, I did not get enough detail from your post as to what you were actually adjusting. It could still be the case you were adjusting something that could plausibly alter the sound, in a way you found desirable. And that could be really cool.
But we shouldn’t have to buoy our claims with fallacious ideas about the reliability of our perception.
The metal chassis is just a holdover from the 70s when all the amp manufacturers believed it would prevent RF from entering their precious circuits. Monkey see, monkey do. 🐒 Not...too ...swift. Of course, you can’t tell them anything.
For those who don't think that metal cases can't be detrimental to the sound, there's a very old audio site called Mother of Tone that believes one should build amps and DACs on blocks of wood. This is nothing new.
"bill333 can you give us a non-mystical, technical explanation for how removing the chassis top of a component would cause those audible differences (or releasing of the capacitor)?"
I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that's not the hobby I'm engaged in. I'm trying to create great music listening experiences. Simply put, I don't see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound. OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I'd be glad to hear them...
"(BTW, I’ve had the top off some of my equipment before - pre-amps etc - for different reasons and...no...it did not change the sound)."
There could be any number of factors involved in your not hearing a change in sound. Without being there to hear for myself, and subsequent experimenting with your system and room, I really can't say what happened. The most likely explanation is that some component or components in your system are closed down to the point that upstream changes can't easily be heard.
But let's get to the point of your post. You're not here to help people get better sound. Having read through your posts on this thread, I can't find a single instance of you doing or saying anything that would help another person improve their system. You're here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don't fit into your mental model of how things work. Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them. These are things that have worked for me. If you, or anyone reading this, tries these methods and benefits from them, I am genuinely happy about that. If you choose not to try, that's ok too. But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system.
I'm not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world's best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333's place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears!
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.
