2. tech-talk
  3. 147563-110926

Vibratory or Not?

This is a discussion that for me began on the Stereophile forum which went horribly wrong in my opinion. I was wondering though if this same topic could be discussed here as it comes up a lot in one form or another. My background has been about vibratory tuning as far back as the 70's work in the recording industry and continued into home audio and beyond. The audio signal is one that can be easily tuned, I doubt there is much room there for debate, but we will see, it's Audiogon after all. This being the case I have always concluded that the audio signal is vibratory so has anyone I have ever worked with. It's a common and sometimes even daily practice for someone here to make a vibratory adjustment changing the sound which is obvious to all.

On some of these forum threads however you will see posts saying to get rid of the vibration, without any explanation as to how to remove vibration without altering the audio signal. Every vibratory move I have ever seen done changes the performance of the sound. I've also been a part of the variables of the audio signal during play in real time. If the audio signal is not vibratory how does it change?

I invite you to discuss the vibratory structure and nature of the audio signal.

thanks, lets keep trolling to a minimum please

128x128michaelgreenaudio
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"Trying to displace physics variables from this hobby is strange at best..."
This cannot be more correct.

The only practical problem is that, every now and then, someone who does have reasonable knowledge of physics comes to these threads and asks questions or provides explanations. Sadly, more often than not, such a person becomes labeled as whatever the insulting word of choice for that day is. Insults can fly from both sides (tunee or not tunee, follower or oponent of whatever trend is discussed, etc.) depending on the topic discussed.

Displacing physics (laws, variables, whatever else related to it) is at times laughable but more often a sorry example of arrogant ignorance. Unfortunately, some of the pro-physics discussions are just like that, too.

However, even if the physics is applied/explained correctly in some discussion, the fact that that the ultimate receiver is biological material with its own rules and shortcomings gets ignored. Your ears are sensitive, but not flawless. They may not pick up the differences envisioned in an Internet chat.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"It is almost physically impossible to use springs so they aren’t isolators."
At the same time, it is almost impossible to use springs so they aren’t connectors.

There’s no escaping that.

In the end, it may be about the balance of those two actions. That is where it gets tricky. Theory, experience, and a little bit of open mind is needed.

Inner tubes will definitely not get you far if they leak like mentioned in some earlier post.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
michaelgreen,

"...because we already have the credibility we do."
Yes, until the moment you (unknown, not you personally by default) use the word "troll". Then it is game over for credibility in that particular discussion.

"If we were talking about cars right now we would be talking about computers keeping the performance in line yet our audio systems..."
This may be apples and oranges. If for nothing else, because of different media, forces, and what not, involved.
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

The only LIGO I know about is the "Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory" and it is all about Vibratory studying.

http://www.ligo.org/

I'm sure Geoff over the years was joking with us about LIGO being about isolation. That's why I actually haven't had conversations with him about LIGO. 

Geoff over this past few years that you have mentioned LIGO I honestly thought you were kidding. If not the case, my bad. I didn't pay much attention to you because I've always known of LIGO as a research facility that explores the fundamental interaction "gravity" among other vibratory discoveries. I would never have guessed you actually using them as your, as you like to call them, argument for isolation. This is why even this last time I needed to ask the question "did you mean LIGO".

So again I know you're trying to make a joke that I am in the isolation community some how, but as innovation moves forward we all see our most advanced research facilities around the world continue to say there is no such thing. It's all Vibratory just as we who have studied vibrations always knew it was.

As far as the weird part. It's true I have always felt it weird that HEA has used the term "isolation" when there really is no such thing in audio. As I think someone said here, everything is touching something.

Michael Green

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi Glupson

My studies have always been in the vibratory realm so using vibratory analogies are common place for me. Hope that explains why I tend to drift to those areas for pulling examples. I consulted for West Virginia’s engine lab, Herman Miller, Vanderbilt University Laser Dept and was a part of UMI (united musical instruments) among other vibratory ventures (SUNY Music of course) and in doing so have found the similarities that maybe someone else with a different study discipline may not want to make the same connections. Vibratory is vibratory in my studies and lab research from a pure science point of view. This is probably why I have been asked to participate in these ventures that are in and outside of the music industries. They are all connected for me.

hope this helps

MG

More to discover