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?
Just to be up front about the whole thing, for those that may not already know (I know you’re out there) I’m selling, but not so as you would necessarily know. I’m here strictly for the action. 😁 For the back and forth as it were. I do not (rpt not) mention my products unless cross examined; very occasionally I will use a product or two of mine as examples of something or another, you know, usually in the context of controversial tweaks, especially ones that seem to exasperate and anger skeptics and Physics majors the most. Not to mention, like everyone else, I wish to “sell” - at least to some extent - how smart I am and that I’m not gullible. 🙄
For those that don’t already know, Michael Green and I go way back, not did we engage in a whole lot of hand-to-hand combat a few years ago on Stereophile Forum (much fun was had by all, including May and Peter Belt (RIP) and a host of others, particularly in view of the extremely low key moderation, if you know what I mean) but I was also one of the first customers of Michael’s Room Tunes stuff way back, including Echo Tunes and those very cool big old ballistic brass cones he used to sell.
geoff kait machina dynamica we do artificial atoms right!
Aaaand....again from Michael we don’t get any more answers or clarifications, only more disparaging comments, where he and his pals laugh at anyone here who dares question Michael’s wisdom.
Maybe my friends and me are just a bunch of snobs.
Maybe?
Re: people who have things to sell:
Of course it is, I was being metaphorical. As in everyone’s selling something.
Disingenuous, again, Michael.
You should know there are actual concerns on forums like this about the participation of salesmen and industry folk who ACTUALLY have an interest in selling PRODUCTS. You ACTUALLY have something to sell, and trying to obscure your own interests by suggesting "everyone else doing it" via semantic games is disingenuous.
Against some who think salesmen have no place here, I’ve defended on this forum the right of salesmen and industry people to contribute. So long of course as they conduct themselves honestly and in good faith.
You, however, started a thread that:
1. Disparaged some group of people who, one presumes, have been skeptical of certain claims.
2. Posed as opening some general dialogue about the subject of theoretical vs empirical.
But really it turned out only to be a way of casting aspersions at skeptics, and just another way for you to talk about your Tuning methods. When simply asked to clarify your points and engage in response, you became evasive and dismissive, and continually turned the conversation to your Tuning methods.
Then you finally admitted your OP was your "door" to your Tuning ideas that people either want to walk through or not. So it wasn’t actually about the vague, generalized request for dialog on empirical vs theoretical. It was essentially a way of getting other people to join you in mocking and dismissing critics of claims (including your own it seems).
And you apparently wonder why anyone would question or be souring on your posts? Instead of it always being the other person’s problem and misconception, don’t you think it’s worth wondering "Maybe I could have been more upfront and clear on those points...?’
And if you want to trade reading impressions, someone I know in the audio writing profession read this thread and gave me his impression of your exchanges. Trust me, you don’t want me to repeat what he said.
Finally, although I have heard of you and your tuning before, I’ve never paid that much attention. I took this opportunity to check out your participation and posts in other forums, checked out your web site and....yeesh!....no wonder you didn’t want to engage on the type of "empiricism" you are defending. Your claims range from "likely to make a sonic difference" (various room treatments) to nonsense like tuned cable risers, and getting different sounds by spacing cables at different distances, "tuning" CD players etc. I can pretty much guarantee you have not vetted such claims under the type of conditions that would weed out relevant variables (e.g...your and other people’s imagination).
I know there is a market for these things; there’s a market for anything you can get someone to believe. But, now that I see where you are coming from, and your disingenuous, sales-oriented interactions, I leave you to whoever you can influence here.
By the way there are a couple of very obvious reasons why some records (or CDs for that matter) sound better than others and there’s not too much you can do about it. Those two things are (1) Absolute Polarity and (2) overly aggressive dynamic range compression. For the former you can switch Polarity for each record and pick the one that sounds best. Or employ a Polarity switch. Otherwise, you get what you get. News flash! At least 50% of audiophile records are actually in inverted Polarity. Alas, even in Audioland there are no standards for Polarity. Who dropped the ball on that one?
For overly aggressive dynamic range compression, the only recourse one has really is to search out earlier issues of the recording that weren’t compressed as much. Otherwise you’re what they refer to as shirt out of luck. Of course, there are many other reasons why some records inherently sound better than others, e.g., they were made back when vacuum tubes were used in the tape recorders and mastering process, the engineers were superior, the recording venues were superior, etc.
No matter how much you wind up with in the END you would have had EVEN MORE if you had started out with MORE. - old audiophile axiom, the Law of Maximization 😢
unfortunately, you read my last post incorrectly. I was not apologizing to anybody or about anything. If, by any chance, my emphasis on not questioning the influence of proposed tuning mechanisms is what you felt was apologizing, you misunderstood it. I just wanted to make it clear that topic of my interest was to clarify what I found on the mentioned website as it seemed contrary to otherwise well-described behavior of laminar vs. turbulent flow. I left the possibility open that there is something I had not heard about before and that might apply in this case. In fact, does it improve the sound or not is not my interest at all. If I ever hear it, I will know. Until then, I was trying to get something useful from this thread. I have a feeling that MG is deep enough in this tuning/audio business, regardless of those who agree or disagree with him, that he would not just put some utter non-sense about laminar flow. For that reason, I wondered if he just used wrong words or he knows something I do not and would help me clarify it.
I was, still, not selling anything, but you could say I was trying to buy.
I think I should point out one thing you are mistaken. "Evasive" is not the same as "have no answer to".
As far as this thread goes, I think it is slowly dying down as it seems that whoever is left is mostly a believer, some polite and some seriously bizarre, and questioners have dropped off due to concerns you pointed out. Sadly, it has been clear from early on that the OP has not had much to do with deepening the conversation and conversation itself did not yield much of a constructive insight even about tuning that infiltrated it.
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.
I hear you. Though I think "evasive" or "dismissive" are still apt descriptors of MG’s replies to my posts (and some others) in this thread.
But yes, of course his relentless self-promotion across many forums no doubt draws some people to his website. He has been doing this in forums and comment sections for decades. This is pretty typical MG evangelizing/hawking his company:
It’s just wreaks of self-promotion and advertising...which of course it is. (Although I DO think he is sincere and so I do get some of the evangelical nature of his posts - he's passionate. But the posts really do also seem business-driven).
I had seen MG posting on various forums over the years, but never really paid much attention. Now I know it was probably best to keep not paying attention.
(BTW, I in no way conclude that all MG’s techniques are without any merit, or that he can not "tune" a room to possibly sound excellent. But I have to admit now being put off having noticed the character of his posts, and certainly a number of his claims fall well into the dubious woo-woo land of audiophile tweaks, nuzzling happily with things like demagnetizing CDs and many other tweaks that have brought our hobby in to ill-repute).
Hope everyone had a great weekend of listening. I can hardly believe it is Sunday night. I’ll go back through and read the posts when I get a chance. Over the course of this thread I have now received 13 emails about the thread from Audiogon members who have been reading along and expressed their opinions to me.
I haven’t gone back to see how many posters there have been on this thread, but what I have seen is that there are 4 or 5 of you here that have spoken in the same light as these emails. In general you are positive about the hobby and have had a few choice words for those who are negative. I don’t know if I am the exception or the rule here, but I appreciate the mail. What I feel is the same Vibe as I visit this thread. After a while I tend to look for the posts that are from the ones giving off good vibes and skipping over the ones giving off negativity. I do go back and read the negative ones but am getting to the place where I am less wanting to. There have been a few highlights for me, and the drumming video is one of them. When I see folks digging into tuning and what can be done that excites me. As I was listening today, I was looking at my system thinking how similar it is to that drum set and how easy it is to get from one sound to the next.
For those onlookers, I hope you have been able to take away the positives, your own highlights, and most of all the desire to take your systems to a place of flexibility that you haven’t had in the past. The more you explore the audio signal as a variable and your system as a tool of adjusting the audio signal the more you are going to be able to bring more out of your recordings. The debate over good and bad recordings will change for you as Tom Miiller said in TAS, Guy Lemcoe Stereophile, Les Linton, Harry Pearson, Mike Gindy, Jeff from TONEAudio and lots of others. What these folks and myself are saying is there’s a big picture out there and you can go anywhere you want within the picture. When you start to let the music be your guide instead of only one setting on your system, you are going to find all kinds of open doors on recordings that you never knew was there, whether it’s a recording you thought was substandard or ones that have always sounded great to you. The folks who have come up here saying they can play almost every recording they have to a higher level of enjoyment, is a goal that can make any listener jump for joy.
I also think it’s great that some folks have found products for room correction as a tool. Our recordings are treasures and when we discover how to open them up more it’s like finding a new hobby that we didn’t know existed before.
As far as the folks who have been negative about me and tuning, that really doesn’t matter. There’s always going to be those folks who try to pry open the negative in any way they can (I saw this on the Stereophile forum as well), and to be honest, who knows if they were on purpose trying to be negative. On TuneLand it is a different vibe altogether. When they (negative Vibe seekers) came up on this thread and started to do their thing I went to a few other threads here that started pretty much the same way as I did. I think many folks who post here try to start off with some kind of plea for civility cause there is so much trolling taking place. It’s kind of like "ok guys, I’m going to start this thread please don’t beat me up before we get a chance to get into some thoughts" lol. That’s life on Agon and many other public sites, no biggie. After a while I’m sure readers learn their sifting through techniques and move on. I'm sure the mods here have their hands full at times, even though there are many great folks here.
You folks have a great start to your week and thanks to all of you for participating on the thread. I wish we could have gone a little deeper, but I’m not crazy about spending my time in the negatives when there is so much to be positive about in this hobby.
“(BTW, I in no way conclude that all MG’s techniques are without any merit, or that he can not "tune" a room to possibly sound excellent.”
>>>>Gosh, that’s awful decent of you. What a guy!
“But I have to admit now being put off having noticed the character of his posts, and certainly a number of his claims fall well into the dubious woo-woo land of audiophile tweaks, nuzzling happily with things like demagnetizing CDs and many other tweaks that have brought our hobby in to ill-repute).”
>>>>>Unfortunately for your “argument” demagnetizing CDs is actually not snake oil, woo or pseudo science. And even if was, that line of argument is just another one of your many logical fallacies, people that believe in Tuning probably believe in UFOs, that sort of thing. It’s actually people like the professor who are bringing the hobby to ill repute with his long-winded pseudo arguments, diatribes and smear campaign. Better luck next time, professor.
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.
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 - 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”
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.
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.
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 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.
@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!
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.
“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?”
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
