2. tech-talk
  3. 135904-110926

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


michaelgreenaudio
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi Bill333

Very nice post! This goes all the way back to recording studio amplifiers. When the amps came off the trucks from shipping we would go through them and remove the shipping ties before we would mount them. It was one of the differences between amps we took on tour and amps used in the studio. Same is true with home audio amps and other components.

The walk here is the fact that caps and the other parts (including cables) weren’t designed and spec-ed out with tie wraps around them. Glue, tie wraps, shipping bolts, chassis and other common parts are not part of the parts manufacturers design. Audio parts are very specifically designed to meet spec and when you add materials (such as a tie or glue) you are of course changing the performance. I am sure some can’t hear the deference, but I have not met many of them.

There is the problem of "over build" in component designing that is getting noticed more and more and causes many listeners to go with a designers basic models instead of flagship models. When you have too many parts too close together the parts are not able to perform at their spec. This actually causes blockage of the audio signal and makes the soundstage start to collapse or get congested sounding. I personally prefer listening to low mass components or at least ones that respond well to vibratory tuning. The Audolici A25M is an excellent example of a well laid out component. Still not light, Valeriy strategically spaced out his parts nicely. Other designers have also created works of simplicity as an art. I do not keep my chassis on any of my components. I don’t like that closed in sound. Plus if I want to do some tuning the last thing I want are plastic ties squeezing my parts. I want to use products at their point of spec design. Meaning I want to use their leads, stems and seals as close to factory design as possible.

Very good posting Bill333

Michael Green

www.michaelgreenaudio.net

for a reference the 40 foot system, designed by us in Nashville

grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,645 posts
 
The tube amp referred to is not point to point wired and all the components are certainly affixed pretty darn tightly to those boards. I much prefer point to point wired tube amps sonically. I looked at internal pics. If one does not glue, or bolt, or clamp a part it is not only vibrating with the music it is potentially dangerous in a high voltage amplifier. The best sounding capacitors are made highly damped such as the Duelund CAST caps. How these realities all work together is most interesting. Removing crossover parts from the bombastic bass cavity of a speaker and placing them outboard does improve the sound. This I have also walked the talk on with experience. Why do they sound better outside the speaker cavity? Two main reasons. You correctly state one now has the room to properly space all the parts - particularly inductors. Also, the parts are no longer vibrating, but are now isolated from the cabinet.
prof
3,534 posts
 
michaelgreen,


The walk here is the fact that caps and the other parts (including cables) weren’t designed and spec-ed out with tie wraps around them.


Have you ever considered that this is because tie wraps are irrelevant to the performance of caps?

Computer circuit boards/drives etc are spec’d for a certain performance, and yet they can be put in any number of different casings, and affixed any number of ways, and the performance will be the same. (You could of course mount them in a way so poorly that connections break or over-heating occurs to failure, but there is a wide spectrum of installation possibilities none of which alter the performance of these items).

If you claim that tie wraps actually change the performance of a cap, what is your actual technical explanation and what is your evidence?

Can you show us measurements before and after a tie wrap has been removed?

And given you have thrown around the word "empirical" and "scientific" in your op, can you tell us the steps you have taken to control variables in your evaluations of these effects - obvious variables such as human bias and error? You recognize these concerns to be an important part of being a good, careful empiricist, I hope?

Audio parts are very specifically designed to meet spec and when you add materials (such as a tie or glue) you are of course changing the performance.


That’s an assertion without evidence, and it doesn’t follow at all.
In industry, ties, glues and all sorts of other parts of a device are used that do not change the performance - if they did, they wouldn’t be used, or the device would be designed with interaction of all the parts taken in to account. (That is, in good design - one can always find examples of bad design - but not everything is badly designed, of course).

I’ve used ties, glue and solder to, for instance, fix or adjust wires in various devices I own (both AV and audio equipment) and it has never changed the performance in any noticeable way (nor is there any reason to have expected any change, so long as I wasn't doing something stupid like running fine signal lines in close parallel with power lines, etc).

In fact, I completely re-arranged all my cabling, with all sorts of different ties, plastic, metal, etc. Did this change the audio performance of my system? No. Not one bit.



That’s when you have too many parts too close together. This actually causes blockage of the audio signal and makes the soundstage start to collapse or get congested sounding.


Again - I see no actual technical explanation you’ve given in support of that claim. Instead it seems, as I mentioned to bill333, a type of folksy association - "congested electronic parts yield congested sound."

If you are really the empiricist you claim, surely you understand how your explanations are wanting.

Michael, you were the one who made a big deal of testing, empiricism, and science. I’m just wondering if you are actually "walking the walk" in terms of being a careful empiricist.


glupson
7,842 posts
 
Michael Green,

Why wouldn't an, for example, amplifier work to manufacturer's specification once received straight from the factory? Ties, rods, rings, whatever else, in place as manufacturer left it. I am not talking about some packaging material, but about a finished product taken out of the box? Why shouldn't we expect that manufacturer, when tweaking and finalizing before releasing to the market, is testing the product as customers would use it? In fact, why would not manufacturer do it? I have a hard time believing that someone engineers a half-baked product and never pays attention to how it sounds when finished? I am sure it is possible, but why would anyone put time and effort into engineering something that she/he would not adjust as the finalized product? Regardless of personal opinion what does or does not sound "better" (tied or untied, etc.). Or, did I completely misunderstand your post, which is also very likely?

If it is only about removing vs. not removing shipping material (as it seems is the case in your example), why would anyone not remove it? Even if you forget the sound, which may or may not be different to someone's liking, the machine would not look the same as what you envisioned when parting with money.

When you have too many parts too close together the parts are not able to perform at their spec. This actually causes blockage of the audio signal and makes the soundstage start to collapse or get congested sounding.

This is an interesting one. It seems that when parts inside some equipment get congested (capacitors etc. closer together), the virtual image of the performance, as heard from your listening position, also gets congested (musicians closer together). Serendipity at work? It would be interesting to know why would that happen just like that. I do not doubt many things (including this) can happen and that is why there are good audio equipment engineers out there who think of all the details, but this one is, kind of, funny. Almost makes me think that, if amplifier is turned to one of its sides, I should expect to hear a cellist sitting on top of a violinist.
prof
3,534 posts
 
glupson,

Nice to see people like yourself bringing critical thinking to MG’s claims.

They apparently don’t allow too much critical thinking on Michael’s forum. Skeptical challenges to their ideas - simple things like asking for measured results for some of the more controversial claims, listening tests constructed to control for the variables of people’s imagination etc - are frowned upon as "bad vibes" and a sign one is not being sufficiently open minded. (You’ll find exactly this attitude on any number of fringe medicine, New Age, psychic medium, astrology, etc groups...funny enough).

There isn’t the luxury of of fan-worship and lack of skepticism when he brings his claims here. (Though I’d like to be wrong insofar as he could actually substantiate some of his claims). So I’m sure it’s not as comfortable for those claims to be brought here.

But then: A wise university professor pointed out: Discomfort is a sign that something that you think is right, is being challenged. And that should be exactly what you want, because that’s exactly when you are most likely to be on the cusp you are learning either that you are wrong - or by taking on the challenge you gain more confidence you are right. One can either take that opportunity to be challenged and learn from it, or use the discomfort to declare those who challenge your claims as "trolls" as a way of running from the challenges.

As for how the crowding of the electronic parts producing crowding of the soundstage, you’ll find quite a bit of these folksy-level "explanations" in MGs stuff. For instance he’s written how running wires close together would produce a "tighter" sound, a bit more apart will yield a bit more open sound, moving further apart yielding even more open sound.

As I said, it’s something of a piece of the folk-wisdom behind homeopathy - the same conceptual appeal of "like cures like" (even though there is no actual basis for the claims made on this hypothesizing).





More to discover