Vibratory or Not?

geoffkait,

>>>>When you don’t know, guess. That’s your strategy?

Audio signal in wires is electrical. Audio signal in your head is, for the large part, electrical, too. Stating the obvious, at least obvious to some of us.

The Vibratory Foundation

In HEA we sometimes get stuck in myth building and from time to time need to make our way back to the real world. If you wanted to you could spend your entire hobby life reading or being a part of audiophile theory creating and to go with this product categories that are there to take your hard earned money and leave you with something a little less than "the absolute sound". In the Tunee world our view is a little different. We take what is and build from there. We know that audio is vibration and don’t try to disguise it as any thing but what it is. We do our best to keep up on the studies of vibration scientifically and how it relates to the fundamental interactions that are at the core of Earth’s function.

If there is one thing you can bank on with Tunees it would be, we use the proven technologies that have come before us as our ongoing template of truth. Creating a make believe audio world is not high on our list of things to do. HEA is a creation that in some ways was a good thing but in many ways has failed. "killing vibrations" for example was a major screw up the way it was introduced to the hobbyist and implemented in the components we bought. From the 1990’s forward a mythical audio chapter was implemented that took us off course and all kinds of "Fix It’s" were suddenly needed to be designed to help keep us from falling off the edge of the flat planet. Yep audio tweaks are a huge industry all on it’s own, but it was always going to be the case that the hobby and industry would need to get back to it’s roundness.

I don’t blame the guy who is down on "tweaks" at all. From my point of view components should have been made variable to start with and this whole sidetrack of heavy over built components and speakers and the overbuilt tweaks that have been made to fix them could have never existed at all. It was a big expensive waste of time and could have been avoided if we understood one thing, audio is vibratory. Audio is part of the Earth and the Earth vibrates. Researchers now measure our moving Earth’s hum from 3 variable points of view that ranged from ocean currents to atmospheric turbulence. You have the ocean bed, the surface crust and the atmosphere. Three different types of vibratory structures all interacting and all affecting your sound. Can you isolate yourself from these with audio tweaks? Absolutely, positively, unequivocally No. Attempts at audio isolation existing within Earth’s forces is not going to happen no matter how many HEA myth makers spin theories. We learn this in 3rd grade but were bent on recreating the world regardless when we laid our eyes on our first audio boat anchor.

Now that we have gone through that era we can return to where we were back in the 80’s and move forward as if that misleading chapter was never there. Sure we’re still going to feel the pain of investing so much and then trying to fix it but all will be forgotten as we listen to our variable audio systems of today and the future.

MG

Hi tjbhuler

Well I know this thread will be fun for me seeing the Tunees here.

MG

You can't say kill all vibrations when audio is a vibration. Again that's not anyone putting words into Geoff's mouth as he has said this on many occasions on a couple of forums at least.

"...air leaks out through the rubber fabric, just like it does in bicycles."

"Glubson has this knack for stating the obvious."

"You need to define your terms. Words mean different things to different people."

"...all these words you’re throwing around have different meanings to different people. So discussions can get bogged down rapidly."

Hi Tjbhuler

Geoff said "The audio signal in wires in an AC circuit is actually alternating, not (rpt not) oscillating or vibrating."

That's not putting words in anyone's mouth, that's someone not understanding the audio signal or AC.

So you say "Hi geoff am curious here what is it about vibratory you don't understand ?"

Which to me is the obvious question. As Geoff would say this isn't rocket science. You can't say kill all vibrations when audio is a vibration. Again that's not anyone putting words into Geoff's mouth as he has said this on many occasions on a couple of forums at least.

Geoff, no one would be raising the questions of you if you never said this. It's a matter of why say kill vibrations when that's what audio is. This makes no sense.

And why insult (again) someone you have no clue of his education. Sorry Geoff but both Tjbhuler and audionuttoo have educations way above your pay grade in the area of vibration. One in the electrical world and the other in the medical world.

MG

Say, aren’t you the guy that can’t spell the word totally?

I think it was Peter Moncrieff who many years ago in his IAR publication proposed the notion of there being vibrations both good (Brian Wilson concurs ;-) and bad. All agree the vibrations of music itself are of the good sort (though Buddy Rich hated Country music, and some Country music lovers hate Jazz), but it appears when it comes to bad vibrations there is some disagreement.

Isolation is simply intended to keep non-musical vibrations from polluting the musical ones contained in recordings. How can anyone disagree with that notion? For those agreeing with that notion, the question then becomes how best to minimize the pollution.

I would think so, it doesn't get easier than this Geoff. But, you believe that audio is not vibratory, is this correct? You believe the hairs in your ears don't move, nor does the cone of a speaker? If they aren't moving what are they doing to interact?

If you're concerned over a word, then go ahead and give it a shot. If vibration is being used by these billions of people incorrectly than there must be a singular better word.

Your speaker cones are_______your ear hairs are___________electricity is___________sound is the act of ___________ . You don't like the word vibrating so what word do you want, maybe "moving" maybe "forcing" maybe "interacting". Tell us what one word would you like to use in the place of vibrating and the world can entertain this. I'm not trying to be a smart "A" Geoff, just trying to use what the rest of the world uses when describing sound with a nice easy to understand set of word roots.

MG

Well Glupson did a good job in this case, because he was correct. Remove vibratory from audio and there is no sound. The electricity to the system wouldn't work, the parts that host the signal wouldn't work, the drivers on your speakers wouldn't work nor would the hairs in your ears work.

There would be no pressure in your room for you to hear and we wouldn't be here talking about it cause there would be no Earth, the Earth vibrates :)

Geoff you're trying to remove too big of a part of nature to make your point. Hey an "Audio Point" :)

Folks in audio saying "kill vibrations" makes no sense because that's what audio is. If you kill vibratory interaction the whole planet goes down the drain.

MG

but of course that could be me vs 20,000 somethings or whatever that trolling was LOL

No where we stand is just like Glupson said in the first post here and audionuttoo reaffirmed.

"Sound is, in the simplest term, a vibration. No vibration, no sound."

Where we disagree with you Geoff is when you say "vibrations should be killed" or however you say that phrase. What is it "a good vibration is a dead vibration" or something like that.

Vibrations are very important because it is a word that can be used in the out of tune sense as well as the in-tune sense.

MG

LOL, the star sound card. You crack me up sometimes. You should get a list of all the employees who have been let go from RoomTune after working there for only 9 months 20 some years ago to use in your spins.

Better yet, I'm hoping you and us become friends so we can help audiophiles together and be able to talk through things when there are misunderstandings of communication.

MG

"“Oscillation” not equal “vibration.” You need to define your terms."

Now I feel we are getting somewhere as far as terms. Is your main objection that you feel "oscillations" and "vibration" should not be in the same camp?

MG

Hi Geoff thanks for the reference. Here's why I ask.

 "However, in terms of sound quality the height and internal pressure can vary."

Absolute isolation does not vary. Something that varies is not isolated.

"because there are a lot of variables involved"

Again if we are speaking about "vibratory or not" variables relates to vibratory adjustables.

The reason I wanted to be very clear on your responses is to make note that the responses you gave were completely in line with the audio signal being vibratory, tunable and not isolated from the fundamental interactions.

MG

Geoff when you were instructing with "oscillating or vibrating" memos saying that the audio signal is not either but sighting an alternating current. You do realize that AC is measured in oscillations don't you? In fact in electrical engineering you are taught that AC is vibratory current.

BTW audionuttoo "Certified Professional Engineer and Class A Master Electrician" is pretty high up on the food chain of engineers.

Sometimes I get a little kick out of you and kosst, as you both try to marginalize our teaching here at the tune without knowing our collective schooling. It's kind of a joke amongst us when we talk about "audiophile experts". We usually find that the audio internet EE's who boast the most actually have the fewest courses under their belts in reality, or the most dated.

MG

"Michael, let me draw your attention to my posts earlier today in response to the same and related questions."

Yes I have read your posts thanks. This is why I'm careful to ask with more specificity.

Geoff in regards to isolation you don't believe in the audio signal being vibratory I take it? How do you describe the variable interaction the signal has with the fields, or as some would say field?

In our stage testing we have been able to establish such control as to virtually be able to shape the soundstage by using the audio signal's variables without distortions. With isolation as you term it how are you able to make compensations to the sound. I have never heard any two "isolated" systems to produce the same sound. If a system is isolated you would have the same sound would you not with any other "isolated" system, which has never happened to the best of my knowledge.

interesting conversation

MG

Hi Geoff

Where are you placing your springs? I have always found them to be very sensitive and very equipment dependent (one size or type does not fit all). I've also found them to be material dependent depending on the types of materials being used in the components themselves.

Also with the air tubes you didn't mention that the component needs to be properly weight distributed. The bladder products perform very inconsistent because of the distribution of weight most heavier components have.

When you do your testing do you use more than one bladder. Reason I ask is because using one bladder doesn't seem to work very well because there is less pressure being applied to one area of the skin than another. One part of the bladder may have 8 pounds sitting on it and another may only have a few ounces.

MG

Another problem with the tube is you need to keep your room climate controlled and you can't used the device with any components that produce heat if you're hoping to keep a consistent interaction. Same holds true for any device that is in contact with a surface.

for example

If you are using a tube component with springs and turn off and on your unit the sound will slightly can daily. Same with Class A and some warmer running A/B.

MG

Hi audionuttoo

"Those who don't experience it will always question and debate it."

First, I'm thrilled to death that you have come up! Second, helping people, especially now, in this industry is paramount in the face of the major changes taking place for listeners. We are at this great moment in the hobby of playback where listeners are moving from very high mass systems to systems that are able to produce so much more music. But listeners need people like yourself to help them make the move to a more practical place.

We went through the age of big robust components and to be honest it was a good time, but now we enter a new chapter. This is the era of the listener and the tools of Tuning. The homework has been done over the past 30 years or so and the demos have been made and continue every day. As you said  "Those who don't experience it will always question and debate it." and that's the bottom line. If someone doesn't have a tunable system they're stuck in the world of talking points.

I hope we see more of you my friend!

Michael