Do equipment stands have an impact on electronics?

Yes, thanks Ralph, Merry X’s and Happy Holidays to all of you. Even the haters. I never get angry about this stuff. Really. I mostly just enjoy the challenge of explaining things to those who are clearly reluctant to learn. So this is my last comment for now:

As always, a believer (you) when challenged to describe a test he’s willing to take, finds a reason to avoid being tested at all. Ralph, the only analog source I have is a cassette deck, and I have an acoustic guitar. So you tell me exactly how to add gated hash noise while I capture my playing to tape in a way that challenges you to identify the noise, and I’ll send it to you. Or any other very specific and practical scenario you can describe. If you’re unable to describe any practical test I can give you (or others here) that lets you prove you can hear what you claim, I’ll be very disappointed in you (though not surprised).

But really, your claim is disingenuous on its face. All my Artifact Audibility test attempts to show is at what level below music a nasty sounding artifact can be heard. It has nothing to do with digital always adding disturbing artifacts, or whatever it is you believe. If that were even true, those artifacts would show up when recording and playing back a pure sine wave, or some other known source. So already your claim is easily proven false using basic audio test equipment. I should have posted this link earlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Therefore, your criticism of my test is not based on logic, but rather on a denial of basic audio principles. You can’t hear stuff when it’s 80 dB down! And in most cases you can’t even hear it when it’s 40 dB down. If you can’t hear that nasty noise when it’s 40-60 dB below the music, then you can’t hear any of the other stuff you claim people hear that makes digital sound unappealing. I’m sure you realize this. Either that, or you’re engaging in magical thinking. So please let’s resolve this so you can prove your point. If I’m wrong I’ll gladly admit it. Heck, I need to know if I’m wrong! I doubt I am, but I’d like to know for sure.

Nathan _Winer wrote,

"So this is my last comment for now:"

Is that a promise or a threat?

😎

Geoffkait: Really. Besides, lots of things cause that metallic quality. E.g., RFI/EMI, vibration, background scattered light. As I’ve oft stated, in addition to that metallic quality there’s that thin quality, the rolled off quality, the bass shy quality, the congealed pablum quality, the screechy irritating quality, the electronic quality, the boring empty quality, the recorded-in-a-barrel quality, the uninterleaved quality. I trust I’m not the only one who hears it, am I?

agear
Agreed 100%. RFI/EMI is a biggie although a lot of people think that’s hogwash as well (along with the subject of this thread).

right, again. Like seismic vibration especially.

 
bdp24
Things that are more noticed when they are removed than they were by virtue of their presence. It wasn't until I heard the transparency provided by an electrostatic loudspeaker that I realized just how colored, veiled, and opaque cone speakers were.

That's so true! There is also the Last Tweak Syndrome at work here. For any red blooded audiophile who has integrated some tweaks into his system over the years there comes a point when he says to himself, gee whiz, it can't get any better than this, can it? Then the next tweak comes along and he says, Gosh, now it really can't get any better, can it? So the skepticism of many folks is not completely without merit. It's the Last Tweak Syndrome in action.