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
whostolethebatmobile's avatar
whostolethebatmobile
290 posts
 
Whatever happened to AVM (Anti Vibration Magic)? It seems to have vanished. I used to use it sometimes on printed circuit boards. It was very ugly but very effective...
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

Hi Geoff

When you did your research on the 4 above you did not find any variables? I have yet to find any audio placements to not be consistent with the four fundamental interactions.

I don't see any differing definitions within the physics teaching here. The laws of interaction seem to have always been pretty clear to me or anyone I have ever studied with. How did you break away from the four fundamental interactions?

mg

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Whoa! What! When did I break away from the four fundamental interactions? Them’s fighting words! I embrace the four fundamental interactions. Let me ask you a question or two. Which fundamental interaction is seismic vibration? How about acoustic wave vibration? What about vibration induced by CD vibration or vibration of the CD transport motor? Why are you ignoring those fundamental interactions? More to the point, why do you think the audio signal in wire is immune from those fundamental interactions? Why do you think you are not subject to the same laws of physics as everyone else?

Next up, which fundamental interaction does the audio signal in wires and cable fall into? What about current?

Also next up, can one fundamental interaction affect another fundamental interaction?

Also next up, the difference in physics between a variable and a constant.
Post removed 
tjbhuler's avatar
tjbhuler
55 posts
 
This is a great thread Michael! I was always confuse when companies talked about resonance tuning. For example Shun Mook talks about sympathetic resonance tuning, Marigo simply says it as resonance tuning and Harmonix says it as controlling negative and positive side of the energy. Are they all talking the same thing as you have been for the past 3 decades when you say vibratory tuning ?

 For the past several years after reading your descriptions regarding variable tuning and vibration control I've tried out more and more of your ways and have found that using even a simple wooden chip placed under an equipment or PZCs on walls can seriously affect the sound. This is not something new but it takes my thoughts all the way towards how much can we tune in our preexisting system and how much of an improvement we can make by applying your methods.

More to discover