Hello prof,
If I may jump in and reply to your initial set of questions previously addressed to the audiotweak (he is on Holiday time:)
The question remains: how much vibration is *actually* occurring in any component in question, or in the case of any cap, and then; does it have *audible* consequences.
Electromechanical, mechanical and acoustic resonance caused from vibration establishes component and environmental operational inefficiency. Resonance affects performance.
Audible is the primary focus when adapting or applying our technology to any device. Increasing operational efficiency on fan motors must be measured and is inaudible however when our technology is applied to air conditioner compressors the results are audible as well.
it’s not JUST a hypothesis that the phenomena in question exists; it’s the hypothesis that the tweak, or product, under consideration produces AUDIBLE CHANGES in the output of a stereo system.
Anyone can do their own RTA, FFT and SPL tests in order to ‘see’ the results from any of our product offerings. This type of testing is more on the subjective side of science but is easily charted. You will ‘hear’ the evidence provided by highly AUDIBLE increases in performance from the product.
Operational temperature of an amplifier pre and post using Sistrum Platforms™ is more of a scientific approach to proving function. When the thermal temperature reduces from implementing any Sistrum Platform, it becomes visually obvious that the operational efficiency of the amplifier has increased. From the more subjective standpoint so will the musical quality of sound increase from reducing heat.
This is the Big Red Flag in high end audio claims. Appeal to science and engineering all the way up to the point where you ask for measured results, and then suddenly it’s handed off to marketing.
Agreed. Our problem with providing measured results has always been one of financial procurement and investment. In order to provide the correct data avoid of any doubt or people who insist on doubts as to the test and results requires third party independent testing in a well respected laboratory.
Most companies generate a few charts or graphs involving some type of test in hopes 'seeing is believing'. Have you ever reviewed any “in house” test that did not favor the product in question?
Then ask yourself, how the test relates to audio reproduction?
Example: In our case placing a rack on a shaker table or stomping up and down on a floor or whacking the product with a hammer is meaningless as those obscure situations do not exist in a listening environment. Add to that, the 'in house' test is never truly defined whereas an independent lab would provide information on all the variables including information on the structural environment, equipment list, date of last calibration of test equipment, testing methods, data before, during and after the test is completed, etc…
Anyone can design and produce a chart or graphs that display positive results for their own offerings - now that’s what we call handing it over to marketing - creative marketing.
The harsh reality of third party testing is financially based. Questions immediately arise such as; what is the total financial outlay going to do for the immediate growth of the company and can the company absorb the cost. The CFO has to determine how the tests will be paid for. As you are aware we are not talking pocket change as independent third party testing plus hiring the D.D.E. who will analyze and write opinions on the results costs a lot of money. In our case, that kind of cash buys the next prototype or manufactures the next product or increases existing inventory to keep up with sales demands. AND let's not forget there can be many types of tests involving a single design.
Regards to measurements: We use FFT and appropriate software plus SPL measurements in order to assist us in analyzing and determining if we are on the correct approach.
Example: The mechanically grounded studio environment recently constructed in Madison, WI was tested with recorded data each step of the way. Began with an empty structure then added grounding instruments on the forward wall - took measurements using four types of test recordings then adding the grounding instruments to each wall thereafter where the same data was recorded. This information was forwarded to a well written and respected seismologist who is heavily involved in the study of shear and velocity of sound. She also holds multiple patents and has a vast knowledge of musical instruments. The information is also forwarded to highly respected sound engineers for further review and opinions.
In the case of an average electronic component - say a CD player sitting in my rack or whatever - how much vibration would the unit actually be undergoing? Have you measured this? I can tell you that, at least with my ipad seismometer app (obviously more crude than a professional device) it can easily measure vibration levels I can’t even feel. It registers no detectable vibration when simply sat on any of my components. Zero. And that’s a device *looking* to register vibration.
I really do not like answering a question with more questions but we need more information.
What were the testing parameters? Volume up or down? What was the room SPL and did you attempt to use various volume levels, etc, what material was the equipment setting on?
On the social side of things:
Do you believe that electricity flow generates vibration in electronics circuits (on all active electronic parts that are passing signal) and that vibration forms resonance where said resonance propagates on all smooth surfaces hence blocking or restricting all signal pathways? Have you ever researched Coulomb's law?
I am not attempting to avoid, distance, distract alter conversation or argue but we do require more information prior to forming an opinion in your test case scenario.
Do you have measurements showing the average ambient vibration on a component? Do you have measurements showing this ambient vibration actually alters the values or performance of a tied vs untied cap? Those are pretty obvious questions, right?
The answer is no to the first question as we do not know what an average ambient vibration on a component is or how many chassis’ it would take to come up with an average. Who is in charge of paying the freight charges on those five hundred to a thousand chassis required for testing?⌣ Every chassis is constructed of different materials, thicknesses, sizing and weights which is what we would have to document before establishing test parameters. No to the second question, never had a reason to pursue the issue and not sure about the term ‘obvious questions’ relative to the capacitor conversation.
Then do you have measurements from any output of an audio device that uses capacitors that indicates the audio signal would have changed? How did you measure, how did you test?
Placing our technology into an existing amplifier design we mechanically grounded all critical parts to the chassis (transformer, cap bank, output and principle circuit card) then placing the amplifier on a Sistrum Platform completing the high speed grounding pathway from parts to chassis to the greater sink (mass), the floor.
Were the results audible - yes very. Did the operating temperature of the amplifier reduce - yes significantly. The only measurement taken besides temperature was the RMS output. There were many changes made so we cannot state that the capacitors were the only part responsible to improving the sonic of the amplifier.
This initial test led Star Sound to build forty mono amplifiers that were sold to the public which paid for the project. Steve Keiser (B & K) provided the circuit design and was responsible for sonic signature of the amplifier. We mounted all the critical parts in a Star Sound fashion using Sistrum geometry. The project was considered a success and advanced our understanding of a developing new technology. The amps were built in 2003 where there was one issue related to failure since that time so we believe the operational efficiency of the product has established a track record for longevity.
In 2004 we did the same type of project manufacturing forty pair of monitor speakers (included caps) and titled the speaker Caravelle.
If only via listening tests, did you account for listener bias?
Every product we manufacture is based on listener’s recommendations, opinions and objections. In 2000 we chose to sell factory direct and have yet to open web based purchasing. We prefer to communicate with every client in order to learn more about audio or solve problems and earn your business. For nineteen years we worked with people in this manner which has provided us a greater capacity to innovate, further advance our technology and grow the company from hands on listener experience.
Robert
Star Sound
