dimora
Anyone who believes placing wooden blocks under their CD transport makes an audible difference should be immediately dismissed.
>>>>>Are you calling them blockheads? 🤖 🤖 🤖 🤖
Talk but not walk?
Hi Guys
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?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
- ...
- 2164 posts total
| Post removed |
To jf47t: Which one of you two are making this stuff up? With the rising number of listeners moving from higher to lower mass systems the original audiopoint that MG introduced in the early 90's worked well with some of the amps of that time, but by the time the mid 90's were here the brass "zing" was becoming obvious as products changed their component materials. News Flash! Material science, manufacturing materials and manufacturer’s financial operating budgets which control materials selections change every day of the year and not every half decade. Your statement bears no merit. To the best of our knowledge this storyboarding cannot be supported or verified by Industry so, do you really expect us to believe this philosophical rhetoric? And... Nice attempt at boxing the Audio Point™ into a small corner - zing! This year we are predicting to succeed a half million units sold, so it is obvious the AP’s continue to work well in a lot of speaker applications, OEM and DIY electronic and chassis modifications including “modern day” electronic equipment packages to boot! Regards to the ‘lower mass systems’ portion of your statement - what exactly are you attempting to convey? Is the lighter mass better than greater mass? Does mass reduction sound better? Is the so called move to lighter mass a result of Industry or public trending? We never knew of this phenomenon taking place and truthfully would never consider it an issue of any importance. When you analyze a well ‘engineered’ mechanically grounded racking system, the equipment chassis weight or materials chemistry makeup being placed on the platform is not a concern. If the device weighs two pounds of plastic or two-thousand pounds of metal alloy - the platform performs as geometry and material science determines function. You can place a speaker, transformer, electric fan motor, industrial machine, CD player, turntable, grand piano, vibes, or any “amplifier from the early 90’s” on top where the product operational efficiency and performance increases remain remarkably consistent. If you look at TuneLand you can see the evolution of components and the need for several different types of mechanical grounding methods and tools.
You will always be making different tools for all types of components and speaker systems because wood is an extremely inefficient material for conducting resonance to ground. Any material of any size or shape will have an audible effect (positive and negative) when positioned between any components or speaker chassis contacting a wood surface or any surface for that matter. We are of the opinion that racking designers who choose wood as a shelf material for mechanical grounding or isolation rack designs attempt to match the resonant frequency of the component and footer system to establish a desired sonic in combination with the audible sound of the wood shelf vibrating. This process becomes rather difficult when the equipment has different types of footer systems. Correct us if we are wrong in this theory but someone has to take a shot at explaining in basic terms how ‘tuning’ works. The variable adjustment or tuning process works towards matching the resonant frequencies of the equipment, footer systems and audible sonic of the wood shelf into one sound by applying tension (compression and expansion) altering the harmonic structure of the whole. Manufacturers who do not use the variable adjusting methodology generally apply a greater mass of wood to dissipate and/or absorb resonance and/or apply damping materials such as rubber, sand, metals, etc to attain their desired product performance. If mechanical grounding is still the determining philosophy on how OP’s racks work then making a host of additional blocks, spheres, cones, springs, etc., will equate to a never ending ‘racking accessories for sales list’. Which ones do or should I purchase to use with what application? The gambit begins... If any component footer outperforms another, the reason is directly related to the rack design or medium on which the footer resides. The difficult part is manufacturing a footer that is well accepted by a majority of listeners, becomes and remains popular for use in multiple applications and stands the test of time. Jf47t, what you describe as a better sounding product may not be the case when considering all the various racking, resonance management techniques and shelving systems available in today's marketplace - zing... As stated earlier, there is never a sonic reference point established using a variable adjusting methodology as everything related to sound reproduction remains in a state of flux.
Everyone here is participating on the "AudioGon Forum". Why not provide direct links to your planned destinations as this will save listeners a lot of time in searching and navigating your site. The down side is you would not have to sell and resell and now more than ever - over sell your website on this forum. Plus it would stop a lot of public confusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuneland We are still waiting for an address location where that tunable recording studio is located; remember the one you recently bragged about with the three variable rooms where all the covers are removed from all equipment including the mixers. Robert PS - I spoke with any old touring friend of mine who worked live sound as an FOH Engineer for thirty years prior to retiring from the road. He is an Industry specialist and repairs both sound reinforcement mixers and elaborate recording desks (one of the few in the country that can repair any make, model, etc). He works out of Bauder Audio Systems in the greater Philadelphia, PA area. I told him the story about the covers being removed from the studio mixers and the response that followed cannot be printed here ⌣. I am definitely under the opinion you will not gain too many followers or walkers from that part of the “plug and play” industry. |
Uh, Robert, we’ve already covered the dodgy subject of why low mass systems have advantages over, you could even say they’re superior to, high mass systems. Your friend and humble scribe laid out all the gory details the other day. Were you on holiday? Here it is again in compressed form. I am not trying to put words in Michael’s mouth, by the way. He almost certainly has his own words. These are my own observations with my own low mass system. Ooops, there’s that word again! Observations. Low Mass System Advantages No big honking 🦆 transformer or one that has been removed and relocated elsewhere. No big capacitors that vibrate and shift the phase. No large chassis that vibrates. No fuse to worry about. Minimizes internal wiring, about 50% of which is soldered in the wrong direction anyway. Plus there is simply LESS things to distort the signal or vibrate. Lightweight components are easier to isolate from vibration. Cost is much lower. You can spend more on tweaks or whatever. 😄 If the low mass system is battery powered (like mine) you get all the advantages of getting off the grid, eliminating ground issues and power cord issues, including RF coming in on the AC line. Also, no fuse, no transformer, no interconnects, no speaker cable. No more teacher’s dirty looks. 🤨 |
- 2164 posts total