Talk but not walk?

Its "The Twilight Zone"

😱😱😱

glupson.

I'm back and my answer will be separated in to two posts.

About the diffusor.  As I probably linked to in the post you saw, I bought this one:

https://www.acousticgeometry.com/products/curve-diffusor-crosstown-birch/

I ordered it in a coffee bean fabric color that actually looks quite nice.

It does not noticeably attract dust and if it does, it doesn't "show" dust at all.  It looks like a sturdy fabric that will last a long time, and look new for a long time.  Besides, vertical surfaces tend not to accumulate dust anything like horizontal surfaces anyway.  So, dust is the very last concern I have with this thing.

I haven't had occasion to clean it and can't imagine it's going to be necessary in any acute way in the future.  But if anything gets on it, a little dust ball or whatever, it easily brushes off with the hand.

I did not want to introduce any new permanently affixed room treatment if I could help it.  The size of this diffusor makes it perfect for my purposes.  I don't mount it on anything, I simply lean it against the area of sidewall near the speaker that I wish.  It's very easy to lift in and out of the room - I store it in my office/source component room and it hides out of the way nicely.  

I wasn't totally happy with the diffusor in the classic "first reflection" position - though that is probably due to the fact it had to be closer than ideal to the speaker.  But I ended up finding a happy spot just beside to the rear of my speaker that seems to add a bit of snap and focus especially to central images. 

I'd give these things a thumbs up as something easy to play with in terms of acoustic treatments. 

glupson,

Reply Pt 2:

I have to admit I looked up your other posts and got an idea or two. It seems that you genuinely have something against those presenting things without full usual scientific research methods. I applaud you for your relentlessness and think you are wasting time and energy on a losing battle.

I can understand how you could get that impression given much of what I’ve written in this thread, and perhaps in the "fuses" thread.

Yes I would argue that science is the Gold Standard of empirical inquiry, the most "epistemologically responsible" method we have, for getting reliable knowledge about experience. It takes the widest view, all our foibles, as seriously as possible in it’s method.

However, there to be noticed is the fact I added caveats numerous times (especially in the fuses thread). Nobody can "do science" on everything they experience, or on everything we buy. That’s just not practical...and often even desirable.

At the same time, it makes no sense to take results from a LESS reliable method of inquiry (e.g. purely subjective impressions) to overturn knowledge derived by our most reliable method. This is why, for instance, it’s not reasonable to replace scientifically-evidenced medical treatments with, say, New Age magical treatment, no matter how grandiose the claims are for their effectiveness. Because new age nostrums tend to be claims based on a really unreliable inference structure and method.

For the same reason when some high end audio tweak is suggested based on a dubious explanation, and it’s effectiveness vetted by the standard subjective method (which can "substantiate" virtually anything people can imagine), then it’s consistent to be skeptical and wait for better evidence.

So what I try to do is scale my confidence - in what I believe and what I would claim to others - with the quality of the evidence I have available.

So if someone is talking about a standard acoustic treatment - a diffuser, bass trap - or talking about the effects of re-positioning a speaker etc - I have no prima facie reason to be skeptical. That these can have audible effects is a well documented and understood phenomenon.

But if someone starts claiming that a tie wrap on a cap alters the sound in some obvious way, I’m going to want to see an explanation that actually makes sense, that for instance people who design caps would endorse, as a starter. And even better if the audible effects were shown under controlled conditions (e.g. controlling for listener bias, etc).

As for my own claims, again, I do my best to scale them with known phenomena and with the quality of the evidence for those phenomena.

I’ll happily talk about the different sounds between speakers...because there is no controversy that speakers sound different.

I’ll talk about, say, what I like about my older Conrad Johnson or Eico tube amps. Because it does not seem controversial, even among "objectivist" nit-picking EEs, that tube amps can in many conditions alter the sound. (Although they can also, I understand, be deliberately engineered to sound identical to an SS amp).

Have I blind tested between my CJ amps and the SS amps I’ve owned?
No. And so I would make any claim about them somewhat modest. I would not simply rule out that it is some level of listener bias I have towards thinking my CJ amps sound the way they do. But, again, there are some technical reasons that suggest it’s plausible I hear what I do.
(And the Eico HF-81, for instance as measured by stereophile, suggests it would be much like a type of tone control in it’s interaction with certain speakers - and I’ve found I really enjoy this effect as I’ve used it with speakers of various types).

I’ve had tweaks before in my system that I didn’t blind test but *seemed* to make a difference. I kept them in for a while, but would have made no claims on their behalf.

Just last night I was about to put up an old "tweak box" for sale and I put it in my system to check that it was working (the SCE Harmonic Recovery Device). It sure as hell sounded like I heard the sound change, and could describe it. So what would my attitude be to this?

I may want to do a blind test for fun and to get more confidence in the result. But I may also not bother and think "Well, seems I heard enough difference, liked it, I’ll keep it in the system."

But what I WOULDN’T do based on my experience is make any strong CLAIM as to this unit’s effects - translating my subjective impression in to some objective claim it was actually altering the signal audibly (it actually does add a bit of gain, technically, but I’m talking if level matched). I wouldn’t claim that MY EARS are so golden and my perception so incorrigible, that this is all I need to declare the claims of the SCE box to be true, and that even if blind tests showed otherwise...MY EARS ARE STILL RIGHT!

And worse, I personally feel I could never, in good conscience, SELL lots of the items in high end without being able to produce objectively verifiable results of the effects, and hopefully vet via listening tests that have good controls.

For instance, given the amazing claims for how super expensive AC cables alter the sound of a system, I’d really want to be able to back up that claim. It wouldn’t be enough to even just show that, say, the cable cleaned up a bit of the AC signal going through it. If the claim is that this goes on to ALTER the sound that comes out of a system, then I’d want to verify this - for instance by measuring any changes to a signal coming out of a DAC, CD player or whatever, with the stock cable vs my super-duper cable. And I’d also, perhaps, want to measure the output at the speaker (if I’m claiming my cable does the things many companies and audiophiles claim for high end AC cables - better frequency response, dynamics, tighter/deeper bass, etc - much of that should be measurable).

If you read my long thread documenting my efforts to re-build my flimsy equipment rack and create a shelf for my new turntable that would control vibrations, you will see how I tried to get *some* level of objective confirmation for the effects of various materials, and scaled my claims to the evidence I had.  As I said, though I went to great lengths to build my "resonance-controlled" stand, I wouldn't make any claims for it's ultimate effect on the sound without having a better method of vetting those claims.

This is btw, one reason why, when I was reviewing for a while, I would not review high end audio cables (though I’ve been sent a number to listen to, and have had access to many through the years, to check out). I could not in good conscience recommend a cable based solely on my subjective impressions. I may be just fooling myself (and it turned out I WAS fooling myself when I blind tested some) and I wouldn’t want to be responsible for someone possibly wasting their money on a product that doesn’t do what it claims to do, based on what I would write. And I didn’t want to bother blind testing every cable - I wouldn’t be sent any if that was going to be my gig. (I wonder why....and why Stereophile doesn’t even bother measuring AC cables etc....)

So that’s an outline of my general thinking and approach. I often feel like an intruder in high end audio. I have always loved the many creative products. But my rational side often struggles with the excesses and magical thinking part of the hobby.

prof,

Thanks for explanation. I have no advance thoughts where to place it, but simply to try to see if anything changes. Frankly, I will not go into thinking why it changes (all those theoretical things that got chewed up on this thread), but just trial and error until I get something more interesting to do. Inefficient to the maximum. I hope that will also give me credibility as a Walker. I try a tune/tweak and I am in. If it does nothing to the sound, damage is relatively low. I did try another tweak today, though. I lifted speaker cables. Sound did not seem to change so I put them back down soon, after I finished vacuuming the floor. In case you try it, too, please report your findings to this fierce community.

mapman,

Walkman! Now you are really talking.