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
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio OP
1,019 posts
 

I would think so, it doesn't get easier than this Geoff. But, you believe that audio is not vibratory, is this correct? You believe the hairs in your ears don't move, nor does the cone of a speaker? If they aren't moving what are they doing to interact?

If you're concerned over a word, then go ahead and give it a shot. If vibration is being used by these billions of people incorrectly than there must be a singular better word.

Your speaker cones are_______your ear hairs are___________electricity is___________sound is the act of ___________ . You don't like the word vibrating so what word do you want, maybe "moving" maybe "forcing" maybe "interacting". Tell us what one word would you like to use in the place of vibrating and the world can entertain this. I'm not trying to be a smart "A" Geoff, just trying to use what the rest of the world uses when describing sound with a nice easy to understand set of word roots.

MG

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
This is becoming quite an excellent example of the Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby routine. But I can’t figure out if you’re the Tar Baby or Mr. Fox. 🦊

Just to be clear, I never said audio is not vibratory and I never said audio is not vibration. You are putting words in my mouth. This was bound to happen when you don’t define your terms. As Dylan says, words have different meaning to different people. If I say the word house we all have a different picture of what a house is. If isolation was not real as you seem to believe then LIGO would never have been able to detect and observe gravity waves. Just like the optics in LIGO the optical system must be isolated and protected from vibration that would interfere with the observation of gravity waves the optical system in CD players must be protected from vibration, especially the very low frequency seismic type vibration, otherwise the CD player will not sound as good as it could. The same logic applies to turntables since very low frequencies excite the circa 10 Hz Fn of the tonearm and cartridge. 
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
chazro580 posts03-27-2019 3:24pmGeoff - Earlier you stated how you were an early customer of Michael’s. It seems like you’re no longer a believer (a tunee!?) and I’m wondering what happened? Did you initially hear the benefits, or were they never there? I’d really like to hear the story.

>>>>>There is no story. Nothing happened. It doesn’t mean anything. Don’t be such a drama queen.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
10,096 posts
 

I think it was Peter Moncrieff who many years ago in his IAR publication proposed the notion of there being vibrations both good (Brian Wilson concurs ;-) and bad. All agree the vibrations of music itself are of the good sort (though Buddy Rich hated Country music, and some Country music lovers hate Jazz), but it appears when it comes to bad vibrations there is some disagreement.

Isolation is simply intended to keep non-musical vibrations from polluting the musical ones contained in recordings. How can anyone disagree with that notion? For those agreeing with that notion, the question then becomes how best to minimize the pollution.

tjbhuler's avatar
tjbhuler
55 posts
 
Hi geoff am curious here what is it about vibratory you don't understand ? 
More to discover