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

michaelgreenaudio
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
Imo the lack of any clear definition of the "vibration" makes the discussion only marginally useful. Specificity would force a discussion of methodology. A nebulous endorsement or resistance to "vibrations" I find not much more meaningful than marketing. i.e. "Want to banish harmful vibrations? Then you need our product!"   :(

Once again, imo, expending one's efforts at "vibration" control as opposed to focusing on the signal path and quality of equipment (i.e. synergy) to be majoring in the minors, and minoring in the majors.  YMMV

i.e. When a person elects to use a smallish box speaker and then tune the crap out of the room, the stand, etc. they have already forfeited any chance they had to approach SOTA by the methods used. They have chosen to employ their resources on what is a more negligible aspect of performance rather than vastly improve the overall performance by expending time/money on a far superior speaker, i.e. one that can reach lower in LF. 

This is not meant as a troll, but rather a perspective from someone who employ�s radically different means to approach superior sound. One thing is for sure; there are some vastly different perspectives and methods going in this hobby. You pick your authority, and you get your results!  :)

I am not interested in debating my perspective.  




erik_squires
16,892 posts
 
Wait, is the whole point of this threat to distinguish between vibrations in a physical medium, and oscillations which occur in the electromagnetic spectrum? That's why we have oscilloscopes! :)

Best,
E
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,277 posts
 

Everybody knows phono pickups (cartridges), loudspeakers, and microphones are considered transducers because they convert one form of energy to another; pickups from groove modulations to an electronic signal, loudspeakers form an electronic signal to acoustic sound waves, a microphone acoustic sound waves to an electronic signal. Once acoustic energy has been converted to an electronic signal, to what degree is that signal effected by vibrations?

Power transformers create enough mechanical vibration that removing one from a high-gain component (an RIAA phono stage, for example) may provide a worthwhile improvement. Rich Schultz did just that in his modification of the Audible Illusions Modulus pre-amp. Will lifting the wires in a pre-amp off it’s chassis result in improved sound? Will doing so make a Modulus sound as good as an ARC Ref 5 or Atma-Sphere MP-3?

Douglas’ main point above is very well taken; to focus on tweaking an inherently-flawed product instead of replacing it with a superior one is pretty silly; tweaking can do only so much. A power amp exhibiting poor linearity, stability when clipping, power supply ripple, etc., is not going to be transformed by any form of "tuning"; the amp is still going to exhibit those poor characteristics. Why put high-performance tires on a car with a poor suspension?

The most serious vibrations created by a hi-fi system are those of the loudspeaker in the room (the two are inseparable). Room acoustics products convert sound waves to heat via friction, and are the most cost-effective means of improving the sound of any system.

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

For myself it’s a no brainer as to what HEA folks want to call things and I don’t much get involved in the debating team. The signal is highly tunable and that’s the part I care about. Saying that, I’ve always studied in the area of the four fundamental forces (interactions) and don’t see many in this part of the industry talking much about this. The basics though are that these are the four interactions that all other interactions boil down to. All of these are forces and motion and all are a part of vibratory structures. Where the audiophile world wants to weigh in on this is really a variation on the variables.

Glupson said "Sound is, in the simplest term, a vibration. No vibration, no sound." and this is the basic building block. No matter what audio science theory wants there are they must be a part of the fundamentals. Everything else is fun but many times speculation.

What I have found to be true is, I feel, most important to audio here’s why. If the four fundamental forces ring true this means there is no such thing as absolute isolation, no such thing as absolute inert, no such thing as absolute measuring and no such thing as being void of motion. This turns many HEA beliefs on their heads and needs to.

The ultimate technology to successful playback is going to be a variable. That means that at the end of the day there is one basic method for dictating how anything sounds if we are going to be in control "The Method of Tuning". This changes our industry paradigm. It changes the way we look at audio because being variable sets in motion a whole galaxy of old rules that we have over looked.

I’ve attempted to present this many times to our hobby and each time there has been a certain amount of progress but in the end the money that ruled didn’t want to take the marketing wheel this direction. It didn’t change the truth but it effected the reality of the marketplace. Now that we have started to move beyond the paperback days and have gone through the internet cycle of trolling we can get down to business and give a righteous birth to our inevitable future "variable audio". We’ve always had it but got sidetracked by Plug & Play and the money game.

Once our technical heads have a meeting of the minds Tunable Audio will become the norm and the (I don’t want to say next) industry will adapt a more physics based path. Not a what if path but a basic fundamental foundation.

mg

michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi Erik

My point of this thread is the same as I have been telling, teaching and showing the audio industry for all my life. The method of tuning is the method of audio performance. It's not a fixed quantity but a variable one.

mg

More to discover