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?
Off course Michael just ignores that my evaluation of his OP, the points I’ve raised, and my repeated requests for clarifications were acknowledge by several others here as valid and on point. (And I’ve also received various private correspondence saying so as well). And that a number of people here acknowledged the self-promotional intent of this thread.
Unfortunately people didn’t automatically genuflect and pat him on the back for his every pearl of wisdom and diss of anyone who doesn’t agree...as he experiences on his own forum. Essentially: "Why can't I just come on here and talk bad about other people without being challenged on it? I just want to state these 'facts' without backing them up. Only a troll would want to challenge my claims!"
So...back he goes to where he won’t be challenged.
Having looked at the exchanges between Geoff and Michael Green in their rancorous stereophile threads, Geoff certainly got one thing right: pointing out that instead of substantive engagement with critiques, Green tends to label anyone who doesn’t agree with him or who challenge his pearls of wisdom as "trolls" or bad vibers.
And we see how this thread ended as well.
Nothing has changed.
Michael Green may well have some good ideas to pass along. He certainly has some fans.
But when he starts a thread to diss other people, and then bridles that anyone dare challenge him on this, then takes his ball and goes home without ever substantiating his claims....he only has himself to blame.
But I doubt he will cease putting the blame entirely on others, as his final post indicates.
Very sorry guys, these internet trolls are not worth my time! Not you glupson, I wanted to add this. I would be happy to talk to you about the questions you have, but not among internet trolling going on.
"...why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?"
Michael Green,
I think I may have an answer for you on this one.
For most of the hobbyists, this is hobby. It is not work. Most do not have websites dedicated to it or businesses to run associated with it. That means, they have no time, and/or probably means, to do testing of everything that might be out there or that they may even come up with themselves. They prefer to conduct reasonable thinking before undertaking. It does not mean they are faking anything, but that they are economical with their time and resources. In a simpler way, that is the way most of the science is practiced these days. That is the way that helped most of us survive to this day. Think antibiotics, food, transportation, you name it. People who invented or designed those things were hardly fakers. You may be looking at this hobby from a different perspective. Some might say that you are calling for a wasteful way of getting to some goal. The approach you seem to advocate may not be wrong, but may not be completely right either. It depends on the circumstances.
Phil Collins' studio builder's response about this thread is about right and this thread, as useless as it actually is, has become amusing like some kind of electronic zoo.
However, on a much more serious note than anything that has been written here, it may not be a bad idea to remind ourselves that this hobby may not be completely benign. Having a studio does not seem to help, either.
So Michael, you have taken your vague and insinuating OP and simply augmented it with equally vague and insinuating paragraphs.
Is it possible we will ever get anything specific from you?
I mean you once again disparage some mystery person or persons in which "folks" in "20 different threads" are speaking of things about which they haven’t the necessary empirical experience. Then you declare to us:
"That’s just a fact."
Um, no. We don’t actually have to take whatever you just declare as "fact." What you have just given, yet again, is simply an assertion. You don’t mention who all those "folks" are, no specific examples or members, so we can’t evaluate your claim to these "facts." Maybe these people are giving a perfectly good account of their own viewpoint. Why in the world should we just take your word on this?
You’ve already shown a cagey and dismissive style - implications and assertions without actual arguments to back them up - with "folks" like me on this thread, so it hardly gives confidence you are giving a fair account of other people’s arguments.
With a hobby that is based on doing and the fact that all of us have a system right in front of us, why would anyone want to put talk above actually doing. Makes no sense to the guy reading these threads. Or as I put it Why talk without walking?
You are doing it again, Michael. Throwing off disparaging comments in vague directions.
WHO or at least WHAT are you actually talking about? Give some sort of specific examples of a case of "not actually doing."
Because for the most part I see people in this forum DOING stuff and reporting on it all the time. We check out new speakers. We report on that experience. We do something more with our system - e.g. move our speakers, change a component, introduce a tweak - and people report on THEIR EXPERIENCE all the time. The vast majority of posts here are people doing things and reporting on it. Or relying on past experiences to inform whatever view they have.
If you are going to come on here and keep telling us that some significant proportion of people deserve your critique, at least have the wisdom and fairness to make it clear what you are talking about.
Nobody can defend a position against your criticisms - to see if your criticisms are even legitimate or fair - unless they know what you are talking about.
If I came on to your forum and said "There's a bunch of people here who just don't know what they are talking about; they simply don't have the experience to warrant their viewpoints." How graciously would that be received? And if I just kept making that assertion over and over, without ever giving examples or bothering to engage in anyone's defense against my criticisms...just how welcome would that behavior be in your forum?
But you apparently think that is "good guy" behavior who just wants peace harmony and to spread the gospel when you do it here? Can you not see how this would be a problem?
So: again: Please just give us a specific example of what you would consider "not doing" or "not walking the walk."
Otherwise you are just polluting the forum with self-aggrandizing mumbo jumbo that simply implicates yourself as enlightened, risen above some unwashed masses you continue to allude to without ever backing your criticisms up . (And of course, this is accompanied by not so subtle hints to come to your web site...)
I am very real. Laminar flow, Reynolds number, DREs, and whatever else. Unfortunately, my questions remain unanswered.
Wondering what someone with experience, website, and business about changing the way rooms "sound" would think about a hypothetical room with different Reynolds number is not much more far-fetched than influencing magnetic field of plastic or elevating cables from the floor to get deeper bass. In fact, I would argue that it is, in theory, way more influential. It is not that far from your idea about cups of water in front of the speaker. Maybe only with much more influence on the sound in the room. As you surely guessed, Reynolds number came to me because of laminar flow which somehow gets organized by those planks stuck on the ceiling. Now, if you could be helpful and explain the mechanism of that, I would be more than appreciative.
I am not sure what you find humorous in my note to testpilot, but I am glad you enjoyed it.
MG the thing is yes this thread that you started has turned out to be a big nothing burger. Your main goal appears to be as prof indicated launch vague criticisms and convince people your place is much better and get them to hang out and maybe spend some money there instead.
I’d say geoffkait is *very* familiar with MG’s modus operandi. Have you ever seen their exchanges on the Stereophile forum? I only just stumbled upon them and...lemme tell ya...watching these evangelical purveyors of flaky audio products troll each other for pages on end is one of the internet’s strangest and most ironic sights. ;-) (Though it gets old very fast...)
Gk You are ANYTHING but an "objective observer" And if you are saying that the op knew exactly how this would all pan out then that is not very encouraging. Lets just leave it at that....
Actually, it appears to me, an objective observer of the scene, that Michael assessed his audience correctly, as one talking the talk but not walking the walk. This is not Michael’s first rodeo. 🤠 That’s what makes this whole thread so amusing. And talk they do. Little chatterboxes. He baited them and they took the bait.
I am afraid I became more confused on the original intent the more times I read it and tried to anaylise it more deeply. Either the OP assumed a bit too much with his audience( we are not in Vegas baby!). Or his audience is much more fickle than the captive crowd he would be used too and asked what became awkward questions.
It seems that you accidentally placed word "back" into your answer about ice-cold water. "Refracting back" would be back to where it came from which is speaker and not listener. Of course, that is assuming that listener is not positioned behind the speaker.
>>>>It’s nice to see someone with a sense of humor. Good for you! 😬 Reynolds number? Are you for real? 😂
I disagree that this thread ever really had a chance to be somehow worthwhile. There are some issues touched upon in the OP that I think are extremely worthwhile and COULD have made for some really great conversation - e.g. the role of empiricism and theory in our hobby.
But if you actually look at the character of the OP, it essentially doomed this thread. This is because it wasn't simply presented as something like 'Let's discuss the role of actual experience, empirical testing and theory in our hobby - what is essential to grounding out conclusions?" etc.
Instead it was actually presented from the outset as a gripe, as an opportunity to diss so Green could implicate some unnamed transgressors as "fakes." This negative characterization is in the thread title, all through his post, even up to his last question "...why fake it?"
In a thread claiming some people (who????) are "fakes" in terms of their views on some high end audio subject...I wonder how exactly this thread could have ended well?
We could of course simply ignore the subject and tenor of the OP and talk about some other subject, and that could have gone well. But I don't see how following the lead set by Green in his OP could have ended up anything but a gripe and diss session: his aim wasn't talk of empiricism per se, but at implicating people as "fakes."
Thanks for your comment. I take your critique and suggestions seriously. I admit the somewhat trollish nature of the OP - even if inadvertent as I explained - does represent a trend that pisses me off, and certainly that came through. But I'm always ready to present my view as cogently as I can, and listen to the other side.
Geoff is spewing even more jumbo-jumbo gobbledygook than usual. He has outdone himself. Definitely worthy of a Gold Star, a Mars bar and extra playtime.
It seems that you accidentally placed word "back" into your answer about ice-cold water. "Refracting back" would be back to where it came from which is speaker and not listener. Of course, that is assuming that listener is not positioned behind the speaker.
I tried to compare your (shadorne and you) statements and cannot find contradiction. I will leave it at that.
Your other pop quiz question, no matter how inspiring it may be, is not valid as a question due to too many variables that can change the outcome and therefore the answer. It is just not solid enough to be a question. It is great for exercising thoughts about "what if" and "how would". Nothing wrong with that, but valid question it is not.
As far as your comment about shadorne's diapers goes, it was neither humorous, nor civil, and was maybe even incorrect.
I am not sure what your apparently negative comment to shadorne connects to as the quoted sentence you posted pretty much confirms shadorne's claim. Could you clarify?
>>>>>I suggest you review the bidding again. I definitely contradicted shadorne. See if you can spot the contradiction. This is fun! A lot of pops quizes today! Oh, boy! Oh, boy!
Pop Quiz - Why does placing 2 or 3 bowls of ice cold water out in front of the speakers improve the sound?
The sound gets refracted back towards the listener due to the change in the transmission medium i.e. hot and cold air
>>>>>I want to get on board your explanation. I really do. Can you be a little more specific and go into detail just a bit? So far I’m thinking hmmmm, maybe partial credit.
I was not even trying to go into that debate. I tried to clarify validity of statement from MG website that puzzled me. My question was this...
"Sound shutters organize the laminar flow that travels along the wall and ceilings" (statement copied from MG website) Isn't laminar flow organized one and turbulent flow more disorganized one? Wouldn't something placed in the path of the laminar flow make it less organized (turbulent)? At least that is how it goes in my line of business. I am not trying to question validity of any or all such treatments for the purpose of making the room sound different (better or not, your choice), but just wonder if that was an unfortunate choice of words.
geoffkait,
I am not sure what your apparently negative comment to shadorne connects to as the quoted sentence you posted pretty much confirms shadorne's claim. Could you clarify?
In interest of not extending the argument who said it first, I will accept that it was you who put it more precisely described although I intended to say exactly the same with my "...as stationary walls are not exactly moving in one direction (absolutely or relatively) as airplane wings are.". So you get a credit of saying it first in the way both of us could understand without further explanation.
To answer your pop quiz correctly, the question should be more precise. Is it two or three bowls? The difference is 50%. Not to mention, what is considered an improvement for this purpose?
On the more focused note, if you have any answer to my earlier questions, I would appreciate it. Formulae are fine, I will manage with time.
I have to thank you for intriguing me with objects on the plane wings. I learned quite a bit about wings since then although I have not found anything that would explain MG's method of "organizing" laminar flow, yet. Even well-known Saric et al. study about Discrete Roughness Elements would not come close to it as their DREs are on the level of micron and applied in a completely different environment.
We need Michael Green to return to this forum as the only way to reliably know how much of a certain flow emanating from the speaker is laminar and how much is turbulent (even at the minimum distance from the membrane) is to measure it. I have no equipment and only relatively small expertise to do it.
Good try, shadorne, I’m sure you had them going for a while. I guess that’s what happens when you cut and paste big words. The only thing elastic compressional are your adult diapers.
“Sound (in air) is made when air molecules vibrate and move (away from the vibrating source) in a pattern called waves, or sound waves. Sound is a mechanical, longitudinal wave (that moves in all directions) and travels in waves of compressions and rarefactions (expansion) as it successively passes through a medium.”
Audio is an elastic compressional - rarefaction acoustic wave. Audio has nothing to do with flow. Nothing flows from speaker to listener. You only get a tiny bit of air flow directly around the transducers edges and the reflex port.
A display of such ignorance as I have rarely seen.
It depends. If the fridge that supplied the ice cold water has an ordinary stock fuse then there is no improvement. If the fridge used to supply the ice cold water has an SR Blue aftermarket fuse then the sound will improve more significantly than any other tweak Evah!
glupson I see that we fully agree on movement of the air around the airplane wings. The only difference is that I wrote it more concisely (absolute or relative) and you more descriptively.
>>>>But I was the one who pointed out the object doesn’t have to be moving for there to be laminar flow or turbulent flow. And that’s really the most important part.
glupson However, sound waves emanating from most of the speakers can hardly be called "laminar flow".
>>>>If they’re not laminar flow what are they? Are standing waves laminar flow? Are reflected waves laminar flow? Are they turbulent flow? Multiple choice.
I can feel your pain but, at the same time, I think you took this thread too close to your heart. Babbling over the Internet with/against some other girls and guys should not be taken that seriously, I think. As much as I may agree with pretty much all you mentioned, I do not think it is worth the energy and anger it projects through your words.
The thread itself turned away from the original "talk vs. walk" argument and became something else. I am trying to use it to decipher something totally new to me that I noticed on MG website and which is against anything I have known so far about the subject(placing objects into the laminar flow path to make it "organized"). I am not getting far with it, but am still hopeful as search for answers over the Internet and three physics reference books has not yielded any success. Maybe someone, if not Michael Green himself, will be able to clarify.
Do not waste your nerves on something as unimportant as an "audiophile" thread. It is really not worth it and you cannot win. Whoever disagrees with you may simply drop off leaving you with no answer at her/his will. Not worth it, I promise.
Thanks for that "reprint" of the article about a special room. It is interesting to read that someone has gone to such a distance. However, as much as it lays down a number of questions many of us also would, it describes nothing of substance, much less does it describe methods used. Is that the whole article? If it is not and it has more description of what was done and how, would you mind sharing it?
Having said that, my question about placing an object into a path of laminar flow to "organize" it is still unanswered. I feel that, for one reason or another, Michael Green has left this thread but I would appreciate anyone's input. I was hoping that Michael would answer as I got the question from looking at his website. I thought he must be the best person to ask.
In fact, I was also interested in methods he uses to determine where to place such obstacles to laminar flow in order to achieve whatever desired effect there is. Every room is different and placing it at the relatively same spot (let's say at third of the length, or something like that) may not be the best way. Ideally, to do it right, one would have to measure airflow in the room, at different levels of it, and do it under a number of different temperatures and positions of the obstacles and the listener. That seems, to say the least, very cumbersome and impractical, if not close to impossible without major equipment and staff expenses. I wondered if he has experimented with different paints, too. Not to mention, what his thoughts would be on changing the Reynolds number of a hypothetical room regarding the impact it would have on sound propagation. Of course, my first puzzle is still that "organizing" laminar flow by placing something in its way.
I see that we fully agree on movement of the air around the airplane wings. The only difference is that I wrote it more concisely (absolute or relative) and you more descriptively. However, sound waves emanating from most of the speakers can hardly be called "laminar flow".
If any of the other posters have any thoughts on this topic, please join.
Thanks very much uberwaltz. We don't need people to just simply agree with one another so much as to at least listen to the case made by someone holding a different view (and hopefully understand and interact with it, even if to show it is unsound, instead of putting someone in a category that you just blow off).
BTW, I will certainly cop to being a wind-bag in some of my posts!
The other part of the puzzle is the professor considers himself a bit of a skeptic’s skeptic. And he likes to write, too. Should be a marriage made in heaven.
“Now this is obviously a post casting negative aspersions at people Green is accusing of "faking it." And also an apparent challenge for the people "faking it" to step up and answer his question.”
>>>>Negative aspersions are the very worst sort of aspersions. They should be banned. Can we have a group sing-a-long of the Simon and Garfunkel song, “Fakin’ it?”
Can someone summarize in a few bullet points what is being discussed (and argued about) here? This has got to be one of the most opaque threads I've ever attempted to read.
@prof Whether I agree completely with your views and methods either here or elsewhere I do have to say you write the most compelling and well thought out posts that are a pleasure to read even if I feel they may be not to my liking. Keep it up sir!
I just wanted to explain why I even bothered entering this thread. Part of it is that I am quite concerned about the level of discourse on forums like Audiogon. I really think we should be able to disagree with one another and not be castigated for this. And also that we should be able to back up whatever view point we are bringing to the discussion.
But first, please notice this: Michael Green keeps playing the "I’m the Nice Guy Here" and others are "negative nellies."
Anyone paying attention should not be falling for this.
Notice that his OP was in fact NEGATIVE. Look at the thread title. He wasn’t here to "start a fight" but his OP went on to cast aspersions at some shadowy group of people who he claims are not being empirical, who are "faking it." And then he seems to talk directly to this group asking "why fake it?"
Now this is obviously a post casting negative aspersions at people Green is accusing of "faking it." And also an apparent challenge for the people "faking it" to step up and answer his question.
And he didn’t want a "fight?" Sure. Like calling people fakes would lead to some people answering: "Yes, that’s right Michael, I fully accept your description that I’m a fake on...whatever issue you have in mind."
As I said before, this is akin to entering a party and saying "Look, I don’t want to start a fight...but some people here are just fakes. The the people who know what I’m talking about, lets talk about why those people are fakes. To the people who are fakes: why are you faking it?"
Anyone who did this and would think they are not being negative, or provocative and wouldn’t expect any pushback is either hopelessly naive, or disingenuous. I wanted to point this out because it happens a lot. Someone thinks it’s gentle or diplomatic to implicate some group of people in a criticism, but thinks it "diplomatic" not to directly address them, or give any concrete examples. That’s not diplomatic; it’s actually a way of being negative, having your cake and eating it too: it’s a way of voicing criticism, without having to back it up to anyone who could directly respond, and just enjoy anyone simply agreeing with you. And people need to recognize this and not be surprised that, when they post in this style, opposing views enter their thread and they get pushback.
As it happens, I had recently been defending my own skepticism of some high end tweak claims (e.g. the fuses thread). As so often happens in such discussions, my position (and the position of some other skeptics in the thread) was continually strawmanned, were people castigated me for absolutist positions and claims I never made, and re-characterized my careful arguments into strawmen silly arguments I would never defend. This isn’t a good recipe for honest and even tempered discussion and it makes voicing any opposing opinion far more fraught than it needs to be.
And one of the main themes when criticizing my (and other skeptic’s) position was "If you haven’t tried X out for yourself, then you aren’t in a position to talk about it, or critique it."
And I argued why that is a fallacy.
Michael’s OP was annoyingly vague in the aspersions it was casting, but it *seemed* to be along those same lines: that someone who holds a view in opposition to another audiophile - for instance Michael’s view on tuning - isn’t in a position to have justified that view if he hasn’t done the same testing Michael has. Michael is being "empirical," the opposing view is just "faking it" insofar as they have not done the tests Michael and his cohorts routinely perform.
As I have seen skeptic’s views so routinely strawmanned...I sniffed some likelihood of strawman, and possibly some suspect assumptions in Michael’s post. I was left wondering exactly what he was talking about, and wondering whether the targets of his criticism actually deserved the criticism. And...if I myself was representative of the type of people he was criticizing. If so...I’d be happy to engage Michael on this topic, since he directly asked for engagement.
But, of course if I wanted to engage in what Michael actually was referring to, it was tough to even start given the vagueness of his critique. Which is why I posted seeking clarification from Michael - "is this what you mean? If so, here is some response to that line of thinking. But please clarify where I would be getting you wrong."
And all I got in return was a completely evasive, dismissive reply that amounted to "What I wrote was perfectly clear, you didn’t get it" and then insinuated that my very reply was an example of the type he was criticizing. But with no actual argument backing this up or clarifying. Just another swipe at someone.
If anyone here can’t recognize what a jerk-move that is, I’m amazed.
Michael started a post, casting negative aspersion on some group of people "faking it," wanted others to discuss these "fakers" and challenged anyone "faking it" to explain themselves.
Then when someone actually steps up, asks "is this what you are talking about? If so, here’s how I would explain myself..." he just blows it off as if none of the arguments presented were worthy of his time.
He just wanted to complain, have people agree with him, but not take any responsibility for his critique or defend it. Oh...and make sure to turn the subject to promoting his room tuning ideas at any opportunity. Oh, and then admit his OP was in fact his "door" to his room tuning ideas (and not to mention: business).
And, naturally, he tries to leave the impression he’s the Good Guy and folks like me who wished to engage in honest discussion are the "negative nellies" and "bad vibers."
Michael continually alluded to his own "empiricism" and asked questions such as:
"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. "
And that is certainly a question I think is an interesting one. I’m very big on empiricism and science as methods of inquiry. And we could have gone more in depth, so see for instance if Michael is indeed "walking the walk" when it comes to employing an empirical method - just how carefully empirical is he, for instance?
But these obvious questions that would follow from his own post will of course be avoided, because in the end he wasn’t really here for open dialogue in which others can explain a view that differs from his. No, if you don’t just fall in line with his claim some people are "fakers" empirically and congratulate him on calling those people out, and if you dare even defend yourself against his critique, well you don’t get any substantive reply; you are dismissed for "bad vibes" and he’s the good guy in this scenario.
Not impressive. To say the least. And it does not in fact contribute to elevating the level of discussion in this forum.
Mr. Green, I have been involved with high end audio for close to half a century now and I have discovered several interesting things over the years. For instance, on a quality electrostatic headphone system listening to a live FM Radio broadcast, that the announcers actually sounded better on FM Radio as opposed to hearing them in person-live. Yes, I noticed that nearly 50 years ago. A few years ago I learned that a Stax headphone system from the late 1970's-early 80's will sound incredible if played thru the record out outputs of a quality Audio Research tube line stage. And a few years ago I developed a true high quality pair of speaker wires, but at a reasonable price. By chanch several years ago I attached a one foot pair of the Shunyata's top of the line speaker wires to my speakers. Now between the Shunyata speaker wires and my them amplifier, a Rega Orisis integrted amplifier, a single Jenna Lab's 18 gage hook up wires. The results were incredible. Over the years I eventually replaced the Shunyataspeaker wires with a one foot pair of MG Audio Design's own topend speaker wires. The same speaker wires at the time used by both Arnie Nudell and Paul McGowan. I added, over time, 6 runs of the Jenna Lab's 18 gage hook up wires per speaker-12 in all. The result is a pair of speaker wires that can easily compete with the "Big Boys". All this time I myself have basically no knowledge of the very basics of audio design whatsoever. What I have created for my own use only. Both MG Audio Design and Jenna Labs are very small wire companies. But I have found that when combining their two wire products together, one silver based and the other copper, that between them I have a pair of speaker wires that can compete against the big named wire products. By the way, my own speaker wire combination averages to a 14.5 foot length. Total cost today about $1800. What I sm attempting to say is trust your own ears. Even the audio experts don't know everything. I have no personal or financial interest in these two companies. No way I can make any money off of them. But it works. I used to workout at Vince Gironda's Gym gym back in the 1980's. Used to train at the sametime as Apollo Creed. Vince used to say that if he ever give free advice that not a single one would ever follow it. But if they paid him money, then they would willingly follow hiss advice completly. It's just human nature. I have had my say.
I’m just being straightforward. The trash is flowing out of your mouth not mine GK as anyone can plainly see for themselves. I’m interested in what Mr. Green has to say here not you.
Is that your “engineer’s” side of your head talking, moopman? We were having a nice physics discussion here until you showed up with trash. Why is it every time you open your mouth garbage comes out? 🤮 Don’t you ever have anything relevant to the discussion to offer? Is that big 🧠 of yours depleted? Have you completely run out of ammo? It’s not as if I mind stalkers, but I would prefer ones who contribute something, even if it’s some pseudo skeptic argument.
@glupson - Breaking News!! Laminar in listening rooms!
But first allow me to say laminar flow can be produced either by an aircraft moving through still air or by air moving around or into solid objects like walls. The air is moving because the speakers are producing acoustic waves, I.e., moving air. It’s the relative motion. In a wind tunnel, where laminar and turbulent flow can be studied, the model of the aircraft is stationary and the air is moving, no?
From the Star Sound web site,
”In 2008 Dr. Andrew Gear, a lifelong audiophile, approached Star Sound on the topic of actually developing such a room so that his passion for the ’live performance’ could be realized through his hi-fi system in the privacy of his own home. He issued this challenge to a few companies and in October of 2012, upon receiving various proposals, he decided to invest in Live-Vibe Technology™ infused into the structural design of his listening room.
"It is not every day an experienced listener comes along and takes financial risk in further developing technology atypical to the majority of industry’s understanding of vibration management, investing it into one of his most sacred assets – his residence.
"For a small research and development company like Star Sound this opportunity presented the challenge of a lifetime". Robert Maicks – President Star Sound Technologies, LLC
Fueled by the passion for invention the team at Star Sound set out to procure the very first mechanically grounded room in all of audio. The thought of developing such a product has been instilled in us since the discovery of Sistrum Platforms in 2001. For years engineering has dreamed about inventing and constructing a world class sound room evolving a newfound technology for use in the structure of recording studios, modern day show environments and critical listening suites.
What if...?
you were listening to music in a room where all the vibrating walls, flooring and ceilings react the same to volume, frequency and dynamics and in unison?
there were no ninety degree angles to conflict with the laminar flow and movement of energy?
the room reduces or eliminates surface first reflection points?
the design could eliminate corner loading effects from all ninety degree intersections further managing detrimental acoustic energies?
the room was avoid of implemented acoustic traps or panels in order to "correct, modify or dictate and change" to the natural flows of energies and sound?
a ’live pressure zone’ of energy was encapsulated allowing for a natural speed and decay of resonance transferring through a continuously vibrating environment, connecting to the same acoustic, electrical and mechanical grounding plane?
What would this room sound like...?
We present to the world - Energy Rooms™ by Star Sound Technologies, LLC”
I have not thought that lack of Michael's explanation/answer of my question is a big deal, although I am interested in an answer. I thought he simply have not read my question either because he has not read thread recently, or he has not paid attention to my question as it was not explicitly addressed to him.
I am in no way an aeronautic engineer and would not be able to discuss the design features of a plane. I believe your statements about wings and that makes me even more curious about its application in the room as stationary walls are not exactly moving in one direction (absolutely or relatively) as airplane wings are. Since yesterday, I have been unsuccessful in locating any explanation of an object placed in the stream of laminar flow making it even more organized (what does that actually mean?). It may be due to my search technique and sources and it may be because I really haven't spent whole sunday looking for it. Still, it is intriguing to me and you opened yet another avenue for my curiosity. If placing something in the path of laminar flow really "organizes" that flow, how does it work in the room? At this point, I am not even interested about its influence on sound, but just plain basic flow of fluids.
I, just like prof, do think that Michael is passionate about what he writes about, regardless if I agree or disagree with him on something or nothing and I do not give him too many negative points for obviously pushing his business here (the man has to pay electricity for his equipment, at least), but I have a feeling he may know something about this topic that I do not. I hope neither him, nor you, find it unacceptable to ask for some knowledge-sharing from those who seem to know better. If it is not acceptable, I apologize.
glupson However, you will have to agree that thread was successful in what you, and I have to admit me too, feel its purpose was. Some of us have gone to the website that we had not gone before, and got informed about it. Now, that is what I would call a successful marketing. I am yet waiting for verdict if my visit was fortunate or unfortunate. I hope to get an answer about laminar flow (asked in one of my earlier posts) as it would be something new learned and, in some way, a breakthrough in my current understanding and practice that relates to laminar and turbulent flow in daily applications. The question is as simple as it gets, the answer may not be, but I am willing to try and be thankful for clarification.
>>>>As I recall there are certain geometrical devices used on aircraft wings to maintain laminar flow, and prevent turbulent flow. Perhaps that’s what his device does, it certainly sounds like it. Why turbulent flow would be a problem in a listening room is another story. But I do not see his lack of explanation to be as big a deal as you do.
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.
