In the meantime... I have this past two weeks been working once again with the distinctly different modes of the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition speaker.
Guess what I have been doing? Building systems, and comparing active x-over to passive x-over setups. I will tell you now, this kind of activity is quite fun! Lots of different sound experiences, and some great insights into systems. Using the identical speaker for both modes is a distinct advantage.
Similar to the comparisons with the methods/tweaks that I wrote about in the articles. There is no replacing experience in many respects, and having the experience of actually informally testing such things gives clarity to what is important in building a superior system, and of course, enjoying to the fullest the system. :)
I dont think audio2design is some sort of troll or has some failing I just think he and others feel some need to save us from ourselves and our hard earned dollars which I dont understand. This camp does usually seem to imply either gullibility or stupidity which is a bit frustrating. I defer to them as being wiser, more educated and having better hearing. But for now I thank the stars that I am stupid and gullible. Also you can throw in a bit of first world decadence for good measure.
On first joining this site a few years ago one of my first interactions was with this one guy who I first thought was sincere but misinformed. We do such a lousy job teaching science and I thought that's all it was. Immediately though it became clear this guy was not at all earnest, he was in fact using what little knowledge he had to insult, confuse, and demean.
This was my first time coming across a bona fide psychopath and so rather than leap to that conclusion I did a little web searching to try and prove the guy wasn't as malevolent as he seemed.
No such luck. What turned up instead was a guy who met him at a show and said he enjoys mocking, tricking, and ridiculing audiophiles. But that was just one guy, so I kept looking. Turns out he also has a website that deserves a Guinness World Record for word salad and audiophile mockery. Although I fail to see the humor in charging a grand to improve your system with a phone call.
Since then I have seen a number of these, sad individuals with nothing better to do. Well it is a public forum. Like a sidewalk in a big city, you are going to have to walk past the occasional howling mad. A good metaphor. When you see them, look away. Do not engage. Nothing good will come of it.
The biggest burn in you can do is warm up your system with music on for hours before you actually listen critically and warm up your cartridge with at least two albums to loosen the suspension or your system will never reach the sound you paid for no matter what you buy.
How would you possibly know what I spend on audio and obviously you do care...alot. This much is obvious and it is really confusing. Just the fact that you state we are wasting our money really doesnt help your position not knowing what we own. Scientific facts achieved through psychic abilities I guess. So what do I own? I am thinking about it right at this moment.
I defer to all as providers of information and then I wade through what mirrors my experience. My silly stuff has nothing to do with science but I never ever bloviate. With your permission I will contact the moderators to make this a bloviate free zone.
Near tears. When we interact I feel like I just had the underwear in high school dream. You may not be making this stuff up but I think you are confused in when and how to apply. Science is not static nor is it as pure as some would like. Science is also full of scientists that create a methodology which at its very core is intended to do nothing more than prove their initial hypotheses correct.
So you decided on getting this current gig after designing the Hadron Collider? You did say about contributing to science so this is the scale which I thought was in keeping with the bloviating in paragraph 2.
And yes I am trying to have a bit of fun and to take a bit of starch out of your britches.
My findings in regard to the tweaks and methods I assessed are applicable to all systems, and cost of system is irrelevant. So, there is no point in a debate on that subject.
Give me any relative good system at low price i will make it reach the stars...Even if am an average guy i love audio tough.....
I am not arrogant like audio2design with my alleged "superior knowledge" it is only elementary acoustic science directly coming from Helmholtz...I called that simple listenings experiments...
When you dont even know that "timbre" is an acoustical concept and an experience impossible to recreate without acoustical room control , when you think that "imaging" comes from the electronic design of speakers mainly.... What do you know in audio? Way less than Helmholtz for sure...
I read the thread about "imaging" and i deduced that most people dont know how to create it with 2 speakers in a room... Precise location or angle between speakers, volume, synchronisation of drivers, etc are not enough sorry...
I discovered 2 days ago the solution in a japanese research article in acoustical physics written in 2008... Understanding what imaging is finally, at least for me the beginning of an understanding, the same night i devised immediately an experiment, very simple one that recreate an imaging better than the one i already have , filling all my room ....
No it is not related to the drivers, intensity, phase, volume, orientations of the speakers mainly...they play a role for sure but NOT the main role....
You know why?
Because "imaging" is not FIRST a physical concept in engineering, it is an acoustical concept and a phenomenon in the neurophysiology of perception.... Then how to recreate a perfect imaging? It takes 2 facts put together here, one in Helmholtz acoustical physical science and the other is a law in neurophysiology of acoustic perception... You add the 2 and you have "imaging" and the way to create it in any room with any speakers...
I ask audio2design to read the article, he never reply....He bashed "audiophiles like if they all are the same idiot", he does not take anything seriously because he think he knows everything...He dont understand "timbre " i prove and verify it with a musician here and he react by accusing the musician to be a liar, the same for "imaging" and he does not even know that he dont understand these concepts ,all his arguing with another engineer whom he bashed to be an ignorant about speakers drivers illustrated this perfectly...
Anyway It takes me a few hours to translate the japanese research in an experiment which by the way was a complete immediate success...
i know how to create "imaging" with any speakers now, not by virtue of my unborn knowledge or superiority above others but ONLY because i stumble on the right paper explaining clearly what is this phenomenon exactly....And my knowledge, even if elementary of Helmholtz acoustic, helped me a lot... one +one+ two...
I will not wait for audio2design impression of the article, i am too "limited audiophile " for him to adress that with me...
Anyway i wll comment this article and my experiment on the week to come in my thread about "miracles in audio".... This experiment make me able to create my last acoustical embedding control device...
I sell nothing save creativity... Hi-fi experience cost peanuts when you know what to do....All the rest is consumerism...And boasting about pricey electronics....Hi-Fi experience is mainly working ACOUSTIC ,nothing else....
My point is that when doing evaluations regarding tweaks and the like quality of the equipment is critical. You may hear it on a budget system but not to the same degree or at least not in my experience.
Awkwardly written and more than a little deterministic in your argument. Agreed that most tweaks are not beneficial, but alterations to the sound invariably occur, however slight they may be. Degrees of difference do take time to experience. As for any component changes within a system, and or two different systems used for evaluation, if at any point you can not hear a difference, stop writing and keep such inconsequential musings to yourself.
My point is that when doing evaluations regarding tweaks and the like quality of the equipment is critical. You may hear it on a budget system but not to the same degree or at least not in my experience.
I dont know what a "tweak" is... Save for the fact that it is considered by half audiophiles useless and "snake oil", that is to say costly secondary additions to the system which basic electronic design is the most important part of the H-i-Fi experience for most...Sorry but to good electronic design which is half of the story, you must add the system tuning being the other half of audio experience...
I am sorry but controls over the 3 working dimensions of a system comes from exprienced and experimental listenings, may dont cost a dime, are not secondary additions to a system, but on the opposite the tools by which this system would work at his peak potential...
All systems at any price vibrate and ask for a control over vibrations and a control also over resonances... It is the mechanical working embedding dimension....No system at any cost can replace these controls...
All systems at any price contributed to the electrical noise floor of the house grid where they are embedded and to the noise floor of the gear with which they are connected.... All that noise ask for a minimal control over the general noise floor and not only of each piece of gear to optimize his working... No system at any cost could work without being embedded in a general electrical noise floor to which they contributed too individually.....
All systems at any price are embedded in a room where the quality of air pressure will varied zone to zone, and will ask to be controlled by the law of Helmholtz acoustic controls, the reflecting sound waves will be such reflected , absorbed such and diffused such, and will asked also to be controllled in the right balance for any system to be working at his optimal acoustical potential....These ask dor passive material acoustical control and more active one...The room is NOT a passive player....
If you think that these controls over the three embeddings working dimensions are only illusions, secondary "tweaks", snake oil, if you think that the price of a system is a warrent against vibrations, against a too high noise floor of the house grid and room, a warrent against some basic acoustical laws which are the most important laws in the perception of musical sound.... Think again...
Go from consumerism in audio magazine to basic very elementary science....Or go on with the fools calling that placebos or snake oil and warmly recommending to throw money on "upgrades" till the end of the world and the end of technology....It is called chasing the moon and chasing your tails....
My low cost system has been trasnformed by elementary science, elementary common sense, and basic listenings experiments, at low cost... It is not necessary to buy costly "tweaks", you can devise yourself all which is necessary by listenings experiments....
When the piano or complex harmony decays of harpsichord fill the room, a brass orchestra, or a choir, the sound filling the room , exceeding all limits from the speakers, with the benchmark test of a deep imaging balanced between his width and his hability to encompass the listener, when the natural timbre of instrument and voices is there and rightly perceived, the goal is reached...
Price has nothing to do with a very good experience BUT tuning, controlling the working embeddings dimensions is the ONLY key...
Nobody can make a good hi-fi experience violating mechanical physic, electrical physic and acoustical science.... Sorry...
The designer designed their good gear, they do not controls the location, the connection, the synergy with the precise other pieces of gear with which their own gear will be working, nor the noise floor created in the house/room/system and certainly no designer of any piece of gear even the speakers can act on your acoustical setting in the room at distance and in advance...
My 3 maxims are simple:
The tuning of a system is more important than the system itself...
Dont upgrade anything before embedding everything right...
ONE single straw could kill a room or ressuscitate it....So powerful is Helmholtz science....
Audio_audition, Building hundreds of rigs of all levels, from lower end HiFi (i.e. approx. 5K) to much more significant (100K) all systems have capacity to reveal changes from such things as power cords, interconnects, treating CDs (Back in the day; it was one of the very few cheap activities - I distinguish it as a treatment rather than tweak - that did result in an audible change), etc.
The system I did the testing for the current article was approx. $60K MSRP. You were happy to dismiss the article/findings with a mocking comment of the Peachtree integrated used in the first article. That turns out to be a great choice now, as persons such as your self who express skepticism about the quality of the system used in the comparisons are shown to be wrong, as several of the variables under comparison were the same in both tests. The rig used in the second article was approx. $60K. This demonstrates nicely how systems at lower MSRP can teach the audiophile the same principles as rigs at higher MSRP. One might expect that, as this is all HiFi gear. Now, if you want to talk about testing a $300 plastic fantastic system from Best Buy, all bets are off! :)
You seem to find glee in argument, even when shown to be wrong several times. I’m not interested in extending correction to you indefinitely.
Daveb, thanks for your reply, but you seem to have missed the point entirely. Allow me to explain. It is necessary when writing an article on methods/tweaks that purportedly cause audible change, when comparing two systems, to report on whether there is an audible change.
Perhaps you don't find that terribly important, or helpful. Great, thanks for your input. But if you haven't noticed, there is an audio industry that has a very healthy tweaks market, and many methods that are questioned/debated with regularity. That someone should step up and write about it, combined with comparisons, may have pertinence to many. Maybe not you, fine. You have made your point, which was oblivious. Enjoy your listening. :)
Doug, The core problem is that you think your opinion has more credence than the opinion of others. I believe that for publications, the reviewers quality of writing is of more consequence than the ability to hear. When you add this preconceived notions, personal and professional industry affiliations with the need for ad revenue we have a fundamentally broken model in which true objectivity is illusive. This is especially true of the big 2, but is unavoidable at all levels. You cant blame the listener for succumbing to a myriad of subconscious factors and then deny that you are immune to any of these. At the end of the day it is simply one enthusiasts opinion and one with which I disagree. A simple disagreement is the whole of it.
We're pretty far away from our original conversation but, I had to break in Scansonic MB2.5 speakers as they required a lot of movement for stiff rubber surrounds. It was weeks of face to face, out of phase playing. I listened periodically and the fullness of bass (albeit a tiny speaker) did increase very noticeably. With the brand-new sound I'd have returned them. I did know of this req'd break-in beforehand. It worked as specified.
Have not had the occasion to compare 'broken or burned-in electronics as most of my gear was/is used (for cost/benefit ratio). Likewise no knowledge on for wire burn. Can't imagine tubes don't need it.
Blind and long-term listening tests both have a place for me, especially with cables and other tweaks, real or imagined.
audition_audio, that was a well thought out, inoffensive reply, so I will respond further. :)
I am replying to your statement, "
When you add this preconceived notions, personal and professional industry affiliations with the need for ad revenue we have a fundamentally broken model in which true objectivity is illusive."
There are standard presumptions in regard to reviewers, and I see some of these in your statement, and I think it colors your understanding of my article and motives. I have said before, and I'll say again, that I am not paid to write. That changes the ball game entirely imo. I feel zero pressure to conform to some expectation of a publication, aside from integrity at a high level. I doubt seriously that the article would have even made it into print in a physical magazine, frankly, something for which the community should be grateful that I and Dagogo.com had the guts to do so.
I was not assigned the topic, and it's entirely disassociated from anything, quite literally, that happens at Dagogo.com in terms of advertising and income. I have no clue about those aspects of the publication - and I do not wish to! I want to be entirely free of the pressures, politics and associated issues with the public in regard to the business. I wish to write and explore audio. Constantine Soo, Publisher of Dagogo.com has been wonderful in that he has allowed me to explore and has published my work, even if it is not appreciated by all.
I do not know what it is about the community, but no matter how many times I stress that I have zero involvement or interest in the advertising, or any business aspect of the publication, the inferences on up to insinuations keep coming. It seems an unavoidable result, given that there are new eyeballs here regularly. The easy thing is to apply the standard presumption and full bore skepticism in reply.
What, precisely, do "industry affiliations" have to do with this? In a word, nothing. I do my articles such as this out of my interest. No one asks me to do this with their equipment. Some of it I have owned, as in the first article, so I can do as I wish. Some is on loan for review, and frankly, I don't have to tell the company I'm going to do the comparisons. It's a separate article, and it could be done with any components, cables, speakers, etc. In this instance I did tell the amp and cable companies, and they were elated, thinking it would be an interesting project. That gave the opportunity if they were afraid, to block it. I don't think their company would be hurt by it, but some manufacturers are paranoid of community reaction. It's a real treat dealing with them. :( I get zero benefit from the industry or affiliations doing the additional work, aside from my learning and desire to share it. It has no impact on reviews, or industry accommodation.
So, maybe you can dial back some of the skepticism with which you approach me and this topic.
Finally, I will correct you once again; I'm not going to keep doing this, as you seem deaf to it. It is NOT one opinion versus the other; its an opinion (yours) without any attempt to verify, versus informal testing which confirms or falsifies an opinion. Obviously, it's all conducted by listening impressions; you're not making a salient point by continuing to state that. It's convenient for you to discount the testing process and refer to it merely as an opinion, but it's not true. We certainly do have a difference of "opinion", but mine is a conclusion informed by testing/comparision, while yours is not. BIG difference. If you can't accept that reality, and continue to misrepresent it, I'll stop talking to you. I'm not here to waste my breath on people who are resistant to correction on patently clear things. You could make yourself useful, and do a couple comparisons if you wish to have something more important to say. :)
My "model" how I conduct myself and produce such articles, is not broken, and now you know. :)
Actually, your continued skepticism and misjudgments have allowed me to once again clarify for the community the integrity behind the articles. So, there is some benefit to having to explain this all again. Then, there will be the people so jaded they won't believe me. So be it.
Bias is not the main problem. Is it that difficult for you to imagine that much of this hobby cant be empirically proven or accurately measured? Why does this bring you such a high degree of discomfort?
The claim of the ignorant. We have 0 issue measuring differences. What we can’t do is interpret how some may perceive that. However, we are pretty good at determining if it will be perceptible.
How do you measure natural timbre perception in a room refining the room settings WITHOUT human ears?
For depth imaging it is the same thing ? HOW ?
I forget that you dont even know they are MAINLY and FIRST and LAST neuro-physiological phenomena coming from the room AND the speakers tuning, not from electronic settings which is necessary but secondary....
Then they are NO WAY to measure timbre perception and depth imaging WITHOUT human ears...
An electronic tool is only that a tool, not a MEASURE of the perceived timbre or depth imaging....The real measure is provided by the listening ears....For sure it is theoretically possible if we use an A.I. to mimic that, but we speak here bout the normal tools at hands and the usual condition in audio experience...
Anyway, anyone knowing what are these phenomema and when emerge these phenomena in a room for some ears know that it not possible to recreate them out of electronic method ONLY....
Save for a perfect audio laboratory where all variables could be controlled no ears are needed there for sure except at the end to assess the job done... Then your affirmation that all could be measured witout EARS is false in the usual settings of the average listener... EARS are mandatory here to controls the parameters of ALL tools at hands...
Once again I ask: When are you guys going to prove empirically that all cables, caps, etc. sound the same? We're waiting for a full test on induced noise of all types plus study of impedance matching, phase coherence, etc. Do you really still use 18ga zip cord on your speakers?
if you want empirical, Abbey Road Studios uses Van Damme cables throughout, 2.5km of it, at £4 per metre. If spending more than that was necessary, I think they would. Good enough for them, is good enough for me. I use it throughout too. But not 2.5km !
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.
