Talk but not walk?

jf47t,

Then I hope he does not get offended by my "not so young" comment. Formal education shapes a person, over time, into a different mold.

folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves.

Michael Green

I just read this whole thread, but have failed to figure out what it was all about, except for moderately angry arguments at times aimed at another person coming from a few sides. Michael Green, could you give a few examples what those guys talking are talking without doing actual empirical testing themselves? There may be one mention of such a situation in the beginning of the thread, but even there I could not find out how you ("any of us") can have absolutely no doubt about what someone, who you only know through few words on the Internet, has or has not done without a person explicitly saying it. Could you describe what they talk and how you figure them out?


As far as crappy recordings go, they do exist. Some may be more bearable on some equipment and some may not, but crappiness exists in this world. I know that many people who prefer to consider themselves "audiophiles" enjoy endless tweaks to get the right sound from each and every recording with whatever scientific or empirical excuse/explanation there is. It may be great for them, giving them more enjoyment. However, if most of the things sound decent on some equipment, and a few sound crappy, I would be suspicious. If the recording cannot be played reasonably well on a decent equipment, I would consider recording at least imperfect.

grannyring and tjbhuler,

I thought the same for the longest time and then I was subjected to "premium" Fender sound system in 2016 Volkswagen. Now I know that it is possible to have a system in the car that can make any recording sound not good. As I like to describe it, it makes your favorite orchestra sound like a garage band. I tried what I could with tone and fader controls, but even the Michael Green's magic adjustments would not help. I am not making fun of them, that is simply how they seem to me and I am in awe. Regarding that awe, I am just talking and not walking. I have never heard Michael Green's stuff.

Ok, I get some of the thinking behind these pressures, rooms, etc. I am not sure I am fully sold on it, but have never tried anything but a plain system made up of a few not-too-fancy components. I did notice that room made a major difference. I will leave it at that, being a bit suspicious and, at the same time, leaving door open that room pressure 360 and the rest is all really true.

However, I am wondering how, for the purpose of this thread, we define poor recordings. Not "poor", but "recordings". Maybe the word "recordings" is used incorrectly.

I will have to assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that Rolling Stones recorded one Some Girls album as the music seems to be exactly the same on whatever sound carrier I listen to. I mean, it is the same music, not the different version maybe recorded minutes earlier or later. However, CD from some early days, let's say end of 1980s or maybe 1990, is clearly much different-sounding than an LP from about 2008. On the same system in the same room. So I would guess it is not only in the room and crappy source material must exist, too. Should we clarify what we consider "recordings" in this thread?

By the way, I would like to remind everybody that all of us here, me included, have way too much free time. I have not fully read the last few posts, but once the thread arguing about existentially-unimportant minutia of poor recordings vs. room pressure, etc. has Kim Jong Un, Planck, Einstein, and what not, in it, it is time to get up and do some actual work.

Thanks, geoffkait

The only release that would correlate with my LP would be 2009 so it may be that "unknown" source is vinyl. I am aware of compression/dynamic range arguments which indicate that anything with less dynamic range is much worse-sounding than uncompressed. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

Having said that, my friend's comment when I played him that 2008/2009 LP and then 1980s CD was "This is worth a criminal charge". CD is so much more unpleasant to listen to that it hurts. According to that chart, 1980s CD has significantly better dynamic range than 2009 release. I am no big analog vs. digital fan and I have CDs that sound great and records that are not that great so I do not think it is that kind of bias.

Of course, there may be a few variables. My CD was Made in Germany and it was in those early years of CDs. I do not know if there could be any difference between that one and the one used to measure dynamic range for this chart. Something like German vs. US release, or wherever that evaluated CD was made. "Unknown" source from 2009 does not necessarily have to be my LP although I bought it around that time and it is the only option in the chart. Who knows, maybe I just prefer very compressed recordings.

bdp24 and whoever is interested in tuning drums,

I have no knowledge or skill about tuning, tensioning, or playing drums and I am not sure if I completely grasped every detail in bdp24's post, but I just stumbled upon a video on youtube where a drummer with probably more experience than most of the people on the forum talks about tuning his drums. I guess they can be tuned. Again, I am posting this just for anyone who may be interested how someone who apparently knows what he is doing is doing it and not for arguments about semantics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd9fcmBLbDQ

prof and aailenk,

Although I am keeping my mind open that some of these tunings may make a difference as I did get fooled into thinking things could not matter just to find out that they did, I think your posts eloquently address a problem with this particular thread. Much earlier, I also asked for examples of things insinuated in OP and I did get the answer. However, I decided not to pursue the discussion and gave that answer benefit of the doubt that it was me who could not understand rather than that the answer was a bit too vague and complicated. That does not mean that tuning techniques mentioned do not work, but simply that they seem way too vague to me to give them a shot. If they do, indeed, work, I am honestly glad that someone is benefiting from them. Aurally or financially.

prof,

I did notice that turn towards tuning and came to similar conclusion as you did, but was curious about the things implied in OP so I asked. I have no interest and time to accumulate all the experience in the world when it comes to listening to music so I could become someone considered "walking, not only talking". If a friend tells me "that is great, you should hear it for yourself, I was surprised", I would do it. However, abstaining from any discussion just because I have not done something myself seems fairly unreasonable.

Prof and Michael Green,

it is really silly to claim that everyone on this forum is selling something. That statement alone waters down any seriousness in that whole post and casts some doubt about remainder of the posts.


I am not here to sell anything. I have a completely different career. I doubt I will be selling anything any time soon, either. I hand my things down.

How many people on this forum are actually selling something? In this particular thread, I found one.

When it comes to no bad recordings (or bad sound carriers of whatever sort), but just about them not being in synch with the room, why do some of my CDs sound worse? It is easily replicated through headphones, too, which I would assume takes away the room factor?

Elizabeth and Michael Green,

As poetic as "everyone IS selling something here" may appear to be, it is far from correct. Especially in early posts (mine included), there were some views and some thoughts, but there were also plain questions with not much else added to them. I am not sure if they were simple as people who posted them seem not to be satisfied with clarity of answers. Maybe those asking are out of tune with those answering. Putting attitude in explanation how everybody is selling anything definitely opens the door for not allowing further questioning by those who question, but has nothing to do with reality. I repeat, there were at least a few posts with questions without any opinion and those people were clearly not selling anything, not even attitude, if that can even be sold. Elizabeth's post reminded me of the way many of my friends in their early twenties were trying to charm girls with deep intellectual thoughts that, in the end, had no meaning. Parallel worlds on two different energetic levels and such.

It just happens that I showed this thread to a friend whose comment was "what is this, some paid advertising forum, the guy is trying to push his thing without answering any question when asked directly". Just like to your friends, who may be a bit biased because they are your friends, other friends with no bias (I just showed the thread and made no comment about anything) may have a different view.

It comes across as your friends mocking retired people, but they are not completely correct. For my part, I am not retired. In some way, I do have to agree with your friends as, many posts ago, I did mention that having Planck, Einstein, and Kim Jong Un in a thread about nothing existentially important (at least to those who had no interest in selling anything) shows we all have too much free time and should go back to doing something. It would be interesting to find out how many of your customers are retirees. I do not have even a wild guess.



Is reading Tuneland supposed to make people converts to whatever is there? OP was not even about Tuneland. Nor was it about Planck, Einstein, or Kim Jong Un, for that matter. It seems that things take turns to unexpected directions originally unrelated to the post.

In this particular thread, I am not taking any side and give a benefit of the doubt that some things may work (tuning) while having some doubts about the extent and usability/practicability of such approaches. I may never know. However, I do notice that thread started seeming more of a sales pitch and, for a lack of better word, ridiculing those posters who are not full believers.


On a completely different note, is there any use in demoing tuning system in a room in Las Vegas and believing that different equipment thousands of miles away will get the same benefit?

oblgny,

I am about the same as what you describe yourself in level of non-sophistication except that I still use my Monster Cable ($30 for a long long spool) bought in 1994. I doubt anyone would argue that the room makes a huge difference and it can be improved to some extent. What caught my eye earlier in this thread is suggestion that there are no bad recordings and they can all be made good by tuning of something. OP was neither about room tuning nor about quality of recordings, but it morphed into it.


I did go to MG website and got puzzled by one of the statements. "Sound shutters organize the laminar flow that travels along the wall and ceilings" Isn't laminar flow organized one and turbulent flow more disorganized one? Wouldn't something placed in the path of the laminar flow make it less organized (turbulent)? At least that is how it goes in my line of business. I am not trying to question validity of any or all such treatments for the purpose of making the room sound different (better or not, your choice), but just wonder if that was an unfortunate choice of words.

Elizabeth,

unfortunately, you read my last post incorrectly. I was not apologizing to anybody or about anything. If, by any chance, my emphasis on not questioning the influence of proposed tuning mechanisms is what you felt was apologizing, you misunderstood it. I just wanted to make it clear that topic of my interest was to clarify what I found on the mentioned website  as it seemed contrary to otherwise well-described behavior of laminar vs. turbulent flow. I left the possibility open that there is something I had not heard about before and that might apply in this case. In fact, does it improve the sound or not is not my interest at all. If I ever hear it, I will know. Until then, I was trying to get something useful from this thread. I have a feeling that MG is deep enough in this tuning/audio business, regardless of those who agree or disagree with him, that he would not just put some utter non-sense about laminar flow. For that reason, I wondered if he just used wrong words or he knows something I do not and would help me clarify it.



I was, still, not selling anything, but you could say I was trying to buy.

prof,

I think I should point out one thing you are mistaken. "Evasive" is not the same as "have no answer to".

As far as this thread goes, I think it is slowly dying down as it seems that whoever is left is mostly a believer, some polite and some seriously bizarre, and questioners have dropped off due to concerns you pointed out. Sadly, it has been clear from early on that the OP has not had much to do with deepening the conversation and conversation itself did not yield much of a constructive insight even about tuning that infiltrated it.


However, you will have to agree that thread was successful in what you, and I have to admit me too, feel its purpose was. Some of us have gone to the website that we had not gone before, and got informed about it. Now, that is what I would call a successful marketing. I am yet waiting for verdict if my visit was fortunate or unfortunate. I hope to get an answer about laminar flow (asked in one of my earlier posts) as it would be something new learned and, in some way, a breakthrough in my current understanding and practice that relates to laminar and turbulent flow in daily applications. The question is as simple as it gets, the answer may not be, but I am willing to try and be thankful for clarification.

geoffkait,

I have not thought that lack of Michael's explanation/answer of my question is a big deal, although I am interested in an answer. I thought he simply have not read my question either because he has not read thread recently, or he has not paid attention to my question as it was not explicitly addressed to him.


I am in no way an aeronautic engineer and would not be able to discuss the design features of a plane. I believe your statements about wings and that makes me even more curious about its application in the room as stationary walls are not exactly moving in one direction (absolutely or relatively) as airplane wings are. Since yesterday, I have been unsuccessful in locating any explanation of an object placed in the stream of laminar flow making it even more organized (what does that actually mean?). It may be due to my search technique and sources and it may be because I really haven't spent whole sunday looking for it. Still, it is intriguing to me and you opened yet another avenue for my curiosity. If placing something in the path of laminar flow really "organizes" that flow, how does it work in the room? At this point, I am not even interested about its influence on sound, but just plain basic flow of fluids.

I, just like prof, do think that Michael is passionate about what he writes about, regardless if I agree or disagree with him on something or nothing and I do not give him too many negative points for obviously pushing his business here (the man has to pay electricity for his equipment, at least), but I have a feeling he may know something about this topic that I do not. I hope neither him, nor you, find it unacceptable to ask for some knowledge-sharing from those who seem to know better. If it is not acceptable, I apologize.

geoffkait,

I tried to compare your (shadorne and you) statements and cannot find contradiction. I will leave it at that.

Your other pop quiz question, no matter how inspiring it may be, is not valid as a question due to too many variables that can change the outcome and therefore the answer. It is just not solid enough to be a question. It is great for exercising thoughts about "what if" and "how would". Nothing wrong with that, but valid question it is not.


As far as your comment about shadorne's diapers goes, it was neither humorous, nor civil, and was maybe even incorrect.

geoffkait,

Thanks for that "reprint" of the article about a special room. It is interesting to read that someone has gone to such a distance. However, as much as it lays down a number of questions many of us also would, it describes nothing of substance, much less does it describe methods used. Is that the whole article? If it is not and it has more description of what was done and how, would you mind sharing it?

Having said that, my question about placing an object into a path of laminar flow to "organize" it is still unanswered. I feel that, for one reason or another, Michael Green has left this thread but I would appreciate anyone's input. I was hoping that Michael would answer as I got the question from looking at his website. I thought he must be the best person to ask.


In fact, I was also interested in methods he uses to determine where to place such obstacles to laminar flow in order to achieve whatever desired effect there is. Every room is different and placing it at the relatively same spot (let's say at third of the length, or something like that) may not be the best way. Ideally, to do it right, one would have to measure airflow in the room, at different levels of it, and do it under a number of different temperatures and positions of the obstacles and the listener. That seems, to say the least, very cumbersome and impractical, if not close to impossible without major equipment and staff expenses. I wondered if he has experimented with different paints, too. Not to mention, what his thoughts would be on changing the Reynolds number of a hypothetical room regarding the impact it would have on sound propagation. Of course, my first puzzle is still that "organizing" laminar flow by placing something in its way.


I see that we fully agree on  movement of the air around the airplane wings. The only difference is that I wrote it more concisely (absolute or relative) and you more descriptively. However, sound waves emanating from most of the speakers can hardly be called "laminar flow".

If any of the other posters have any thoughts on this topic, please join.

prof,

I can feel your pain but, at the same time, I think you took this thread too close to your heart. Babbling over the Internet with/against some other girls and guys should not be taken that seriously, I think. As much as I may agree with pretty much all you mentioned, I do not think it is worth the energy and anger it projects through your words.

The thread itself turned away from the original "talk vs. walk" argument and became something else. I am trying to use it to decipher something totally new to me that I noticed on MG website and which is against anything I have known so far about the subject(placing objects into the laminar flow path to make it "organized"). I am not getting far with it, but am still hopeful as search for answers over the Internet and three physics reference books has not yielded any success. Maybe someone, if not Michael Green himself, will be able to clarify.

Do not waste your nerves on something as unimportant as an "audiophile" thread. It is really not worth it and you cannot win. Whoever disagrees with you may simply drop off leaving you with no answer at her/his will. Not worth it, I promise.

uberwaltz, nonoise, geoffkait

I apologize for my misinformation. I did, wrongfully so, assume that there is no moderator as I cannot understand how some of these posts remain. My bad and thanks for clarifying it.

Shadorne,

Thank you.

I was not even trying to go into that debate. I tried to clarify validity of statement from MG website that puzzled me. My question was this...

"Sound shutters organize the laminar flow that travels along the wall and ceilings" (statement copied from MG website) Isn't laminar flow organized one and turbulent flow more disorganized one? Wouldn't something placed in the path of the laminar flow make it less organized (turbulent)? At least that is how it goes in my line of business. I am not trying to question validity of any or all such treatments for the purpose of making the room sound different (better or not, your choice), but just wonder if that was an unfortunate choice of words.

geoffkait,

I am not sure what your apparently negative comment to shadorne connects to as the quoted sentence you posted pretty much confirms shadorne's claim. Could you clarify?

geoffkait,

In interest of not extending the argument who said it first, I will accept that it was you who put it more precisely described although I intended to say exactly the same with my "...as stationary walls are not exactly moving in one direction (absolutely or relatively) as airplane wings are.". So you get a credit of saying it first in the way both of us could understand without further explanation.

To answer your pop quiz correctly, the question should be more precise. Is it two or three bowls? The difference is 50%. Not to mention, what is considered an improvement for this purpose?

On the more focused note, if you have any answer to my earlier questions, I would appreciate it. Formulae are fine, I will manage with time.

I have to thank you for intriguing me with objects on the plane wings. I learned quite a bit about wings since then although I have not found anything that would explain MG's method of "organizing" laminar flow, yet. Even well-known Saric et al. study about Discrete Roughness Elements would not come close to it as their DREs are on the level of micron and applied in a completely different environment.

We need Michael Green to return to this forum as the only way to reliably know how much of a certain flow emanating from the speaker is laminar and how much is turbulent (even at the minimum distance from the membrane) is to measure it. I have no equipment and only relatively small expertise to do it.

testpilot,

It seems that you accidentally placed word "back" into your answer about ice-cold water. "Refracting back" would be back to where it came from which is speaker and not listener. Of course, that is assuming that listener is not positioned behind the speaker.

geoffkait,

I am very real. Laminar flow, Reynolds number, DREs, and whatever else. Unfortunately, my questions remain unanswered.


Wondering what someone with experience, website, and business about changing the way rooms "sound" would think about a hypothetical room with different Reynolds number is not much more far-fetched than influencing magnetic field of plastic or elevating cables from the floor to get deeper bass. In fact, I would argue that it is, in theory, way more influential. It is not that far from your idea about cups of water in front of the speaker. Maybe only with much more influence on the sound in the room. As you surely guessed, Reynolds number came to me because of laminar flow which somehow gets organized by those planks stuck on the ceiling. Now, if you could be helpful and explain the mechanism of that, I would be more than appreciative.

I am not sure what you find humorous in my note to testpilot, but I am glad you enjoyed it.

prof,

do not take it too personally. You could not win. It seems that I became a troll, too, despite fully in good faith trying to explain why people cannot afford trial and error approach on everything. In fact, many would agree that it would be foolish. I am only sorry that I never got my answer about laminar flow as advertised on the website. It is baffling me.

Which trolls?

"...why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?"

Michael Green,

I think I may have an answer for you on this one.

For most of the hobbyists, this is hobby. It is not work. Most do not have websites dedicated to it or businesses to run associated with it. That means, they have no time, and/or probably means, to do testing of everything that might be out there or that they may even come up with themselves. They prefer to conduct reasonable thinking before undertaking. It does not mean they are faking anything, but that they are economical with their time and resources. In a simpler way, that is the way most of the science is practiced these days. That is the way that helped most of us survive to this day. Think antibiotics, food, transportation, you name it. People who invented or designed those things were hardly fakers. You may be looking at this hobby from a different perspective. Some might say that you are calling for a wasteful way of getting to some goal. The approach you seem to advocate may not be wrong, but may not be completely right either. It depends on the circumstances.

Phil Collins' studio builder's response about this thread is about right and this thread, as useless as it actually is, has become amusing like some kind of electronic zoo.

However, on a much more serious note than anything that has been written here, it may not be a bad idea to remind ourselves that this hobby may not be completely benign. Having a studio does not seem to help, either.

https://www.healthyhearing.com/report/47742-Musician-hearing-loss-phil-collins

Michael Green,

I just noticed your post and am glad I did not end up being a troll. I do think that both you and prof have taken your arguments too seriously. I tried to stay in the middle, focusing on more tangible things.

prof,

I kind of enjoyed this thread. Probably due to its bizarre turns. There were inexplicable characters, weird responses ("your adult diapers are elastic", or something to that effect), some concise and sharp observations, strange non-questions, a few topics completely unrelated to the original one floating around at random, a little bit of basic physics ("what is sound"), some pointers to other websites, one potentially interesting link on youtube (even if it was me who posted it), and food for my own thoughts rising from all the jungle I just mentioned. It was all quite entertaining. I learned, prompted by the thread but not in it, about some design features of airplanes, paint quality issues, how drums get tuned, botany (Nevada trees), CD-making process, dynamic ranges of albums I have, and a few more things. I have to give Michael Green credit and thanks for that. Had I started a thread, it would have died after a post or two. As this is supposed to be "hobby" website, I consider coming here "waste of time" or "entertainment" so I will have to admit that it served the purpose. All along, while following discussions on audiophile website Audiogon, I sat in silence or, at best, listened to Internet radio on $50 Bluetooth speaker. Not that I did not need room tuning, I probably would not have been considered worthy of logging in. Life is good. Just do not take it too seriously. I am sorry you got so upset.

geoffkait,

That is the beginning of what I was thinking about in my hypothetical room, or let’s say that room that you had copied the article about. Although, I was, in my mind, playing with multiple variables of the equation. I was mostly wondering about density and that was, in fact, how I imagined the change in Reynolds number. You picked viscosity. All the same for practical purposes of theoretic imagination. I envisioned different air composition. In my thoughts, I used Helium. I guess 80/20 would be preferred. That led me to thinking what happens to the sound perception (actually, I called it simply "sound") with changes in density of the medium and how it would affect the direction, energy transfer, and whatever else may be involved. Even that unfortunate laminar flow would be greatly affected or enhanced so, if it actually matters, it would affect the sound based on that fact, too. I went through those mind exercises without coming up with any conclusion I would be able to stand behind, but it was a fun exercise for me. Sure, it would be quite complicated to do it in real life, not impossible but prohibitive on more than one level. Making a room Helium-tight would be a decent challenge. For most, just the price of HeliOx would be ridiculous even for a relatively small room (and the one I was imagining was the one on the picture on MG’s website next to where laminar flow is mentioned and it seems quite large). I think that canister is around $700, but may be very wrong about that one. You would likely need many of them. All in all, it was just an exercise, not anything I would consider doing. I was not thinking of change of Reynolds number as means to enhance laminar flow (although that is how I remembered it at first), but as a product of changed density. In my mind, I changed the density which then changed the Reynolds number, and conveniently that would also do something to flow characteristics, in case anyone is interested in that part.


However, it all did come to me from my post you may not recall. In it, I mentioned how I was interested in what methods Michael Green uses to determine where to place his shutters as it seems impossible that placing them in the same position in different rooms would yield same results. You could get it by luck, but then you could also just throw a few pillows around and call it a day, too. That is when I mentioned I find it hard to imagine how it may be done because I would guess it would require equipment and staff for laminar flow measurements and then doing it at different heights and temperatures which I cannot imagine being very convenient even for a well-run business. I may be wrong on that. Temperature was that link from Reynolds number as it, as you pointed out, affects at least viscosity. That is why I actually did stop and think about your ice-cold water for a moment.

Velocities in any kind of listening room are probably very low and likely cannot be greatly influenced, but viscosity and density could, as above. However, there will practically always be some turbulent flow of air in a vessel, in our case the vessel is listening room. If the walls are perfectly smooth, paints differ wildly on that one I just learned, turbulence will increase with distance from the wall, making the middle of our listening room the most vulnerable spot. Of course, add a chair or two and all bets are off. I speculate that, barring a hurricane in the room, turbulent flow will not have much influence on the propagation of sound. I am not saying none, but not much. Of course, for this purpose anything may be important.

That all was just trailing on my initial question about "organizing laminar flow". All of this above had nothing to do with that initial question, but it somehow got out of hand when I thought of it.

The more I think about that "organizing laminar flow", the more I am getting a feeling it is just poor choice of words. Not that I am a firm believer in it for CD-listening purposes, but am focusing on basic statement I read on website.


I am sorry if all of this above is not written clearly, I just wrote as fast as I was thinking about it and as fast I could write it, I did not edit it as it is very late.

For the purpose of this thread, I just talked the talk. If anyone is willing to walk the walk and do what I imagined above, I will humbly admit you are a real walker.

prof,

Thank you for your compliments, but I do not think I deserve them. I do not even think I am using any kind of critical thinking here (this forum), if I even ever do it anywhere except at work. I am approaching these things with some lightness and open mind. Still, I do notice and then ask. I try to stay neutral which means that I keep my mind open that there may be something to whatever someone is claiming. That is why I ask these questions, to clarify what seems odd to me at first reading or to add what I think is the answer to what someone was asking about in some conversation. Enough about me as me.

When it comes to tweaks, lovers of tweaks fiercely defend them and seem to dismiss anyone who is not a follower. Too much time, too much cost, too much uncertainty, too much emotions (at least around here), simply not worth it for some. Some people dedicate their free time and disposable income to tuning/tweaking/perfecting their system (room included) to match the ideal they hold dear. Some cannot care less and intermittently pick and choose what to focus on. I would be a hard sell for tunable cable elevators, or demagnetizers for a piece of plastic injected with non-magnetic material, but if someone likes them and thinks they are worth it, even as a placebo, so be it. It is good for them and it sounds suspicious to me. I would like to know their explanations and maybe become a convert, but that is about it. Sadly, more often than not, any discussion ends up in Internet hostilities and observers, such as I, do not get enough "data" to make our own opinion.


However, I do have to admit that about 25 years ago, a friend of mine and I borrowed Cardas speaker jumpers (those little things connecting inputs on biwireable speakers, a couple of centimeters long), that were costing way more than we could have ever dare to spend, from the local store. Neither was our amplifier anything special (so-called mid-fi at best), nor were the speakers anything great. We tried it for fun as, for all we knew, we could have connected those inputs with metal buttons and it would have been the same. Well, the difference was audible to both of us. We were sure it would not be, but it was. Repeatedly. Another day, same result. I have no idea why it was, even if it was just a bias of some sort, but we heard the difference. Having said that, I have no plans to ever buy "upgraded" speaker jumpers but remember those anyway. I am more of a talker (am I a faker once I admit I am a talker or I become genuine walker in the field of talking?), but appreciate those who try and tell me how it was. I appreciate even more if they explain why it was. Of course, financial disclosures are sometimes needed, but rarely seen in these woods.

geoffkait,

My mentioning of me talking the talk, as practically worthless as it was, and saying that whoever would do what I imagined while not having anything better to do would be the person walking the walk meant just that. The one who fills the room with some significant Helium content and then listens to her/his equipment to investigate if there is any difference in sound would really be The Walker, empirical to the core. I have no idea what would happen but would not mind hearing someone else's experience. However, much more than hearing about that experience, I would like to meet the person and ask "Why? Why on Earth did you fill the room with Helium?" So, for that small unimportant non-experiment purpose, I am not aware that either you, or Michael Green were walkers. Good news is, he never even put one word about it, either, so he is not faking it like you and I (according to initial premise of this thread).

shadorne,

I am sorry for confusion, and I agree that Reynolds number is quite an silly input here, but it all started with the statement that a piece of equipment organizes laminar flow by being placed in its path. That, reminded me of Reynolds number which then reminded me of how I use changes of it in what I do when I am not here. That brought me to Helium and, subsequently, to an imaginary room and what would happen in it soundwise. That room (medium inside of it) would have different Reynolds number than a regular air-filled room so that was my shorthand for "room with changed air composition", I guess. I had no conclusion nor do I still know what "organizing" laminar flow (implied: already existing laminar flow) really means.

Michael Green,

Why wouldn't an, for example, amplifier work to manufacturer's specification once received straight from the factory? Ties, rods, rings, whatever else, in place as manufacturer left it. I am not talking about some packaging material, but about a finished product taken out of the box? Why shouldn't we expect that manufacturer, when tweaking and finalizing before releasing to the market, is testing the product as customers would use it? In fact, why would not manufacturer do it? I have a hard time believing that someone engineers a half-baked product and never pays attention to how it sounds when finished? I am sure it is possible, but why would anyone put time and effort into engineering something that she/he would not adjust as the finalized product? Regardless of personal opinion what does or does not sound "better" (tied or untied, etc.). Or, did I completely misunderstand your post, which is also very likely?

If it is only about removing vs. not removing shipping material (as it seems is the case in your example), why would anyone not remove it? Even if you forget the sound, which may or may not be different to someone's liking, the machine would not look the same as what you envisioned when parting with money.

When you have too many parts too close together the parts are not able to perform at their spec. This actually causes blockage of the audio signal and makes the soundstage start to collapse or get congested sounding.

This is an interesting one. It seems that when parts inside some equipment get congested (capacitors etc. closer together), the virtual image of the performance, as heard from your listening position, also gets congested (musicians closer together). Serendipity at work? It would be interesting to know why would that happen just like that. I do not doubt many things (including this) can happen and that is why there are good audio equipment engineers out there who think of all the details, but this one is, kind of, funny. Almost makes me think that, if amplifier is turned to one of its sides, I should expect to hear a cellist sitting on top of a violinist.

prof,

As much as I feel that many of the "improvements" floated around in audio community are not worth much, if at all, I am aware that no technical explanation for something does not necessarily mean that said something does not exist. That has happened throughout the history and is, I think, the culprit for development of what we these days call science. As science progresses, more answers become available and what used to be magic then becomes a well-understood knowledge now. Who knows, maybe we will all be feeding capacitors with organic gluten-free electricity one day to make them happier after someone discovers a CHF-inhibitor (capacitor happiness factor-inhibitor) in electricity produced close to wheat fields.

I cannot agree more that just claiming something and trying to get points for it without more structured challenge to own's observation is pretty useless and reeks of lack of credibility (Like my Cardas jumpers, although we tried a few times on different days to exclude too fast of a conclusion. The study was aborted because there was a much more interesting party in progress nearby and we never regretted it.).


I know that Michael Green did not elaborate on this crowded capacitors and musicians thought, but I put him in a very similar category as that friend with Cardas jumpers and myself. Probably noticed something, believed in it, and possibly not really thought too long and too deep about why that is. For one reason, or another, I did not expect overly elaborate answer. With all due respect to Michael Green, just a glance on his website made me think he is not a seasoned electronical engineer, but is pursuing different avenues in this hobby/business. I may be wrong on that one and I apologize if it is an unacceptable assumption, but that is how I saw it. If I wanted to get deep to the core of this crowding business, I would go straight to Accuphase engineers (or pick any other heavy-duty manufacturer) and ask about it. However, as Michael Green mentioned it, I thought it was worth dropping a word here, too. I never know what someone may know. The statement about listeners getting biased towards manufacturer seems simplified, but quite plausible, though.

As I write this, I started thinking that problem with these tuning/tweaking supporters and those against them may be in tuning/tweaking crowd trying too hard to gain credibility and then using words and statements based somewhere in current science, but not having it all baked well-enough together. That way, anyone with a minor knowledge of physics or whatever matter is discussed, can reasonably start running laps around them. Now, as Michael Green is some sort of a host in this thread, or at least the lightning rod, I could use him as an example. I have no doubt that his room-manipulations change how the room sounds (sound in the room) and that it is often, if not always, for better. Anyone who has ever entered a cave and a family living room would have to agree that they sound different. In theory, placing a toothpick in a room will change a sound in there, refraction, absorption, change in volume, whatever. He, from what pictures show, places very big toothpicks, so to say. Of course it will change the sound. Now, if you take a bunch of big toothpicks and have enough time for trial and error set-up process, you may get great results. Eventually, you will place them where they work the best for you and that room. If you go all the way, you can experiment with toothpicks made of different wood, too. That is all easy, provided enough time and resources. However, then you want to convince the world how great it is and you start talking after walking. You start using serious words to give legitimacy to your findings and even construct a theory or two why it is so good. That is like throwing a whole bunch of banana peels in front of you. You believe in what you say, and to many it seems quite right, but then there is a guy you did not see coming. He is on the other side of your screen, you have no idea where he really sits and how he looks like, but he reads your posts carefully. And he has PhD about laminar flow and has been dealing with intricacies of the flow for decades. Of course, he could annihilate you on that topic, he'd better be able, but he may not be interested. And then, there is an engineer fully dedicated to capacitors and he is a jerk. And the obnoxious professor who sits on IRB of a major teaching institution demanding structured answers. And on and on and on. In the end, it would have been better if you toned it down from the start than exposing your weaknesses.

Who knows, maybe those demagnetizers work. I personally doubt it.

geoffkait,

Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?

It would be hard for anyone to help you out on this one as you omitted at least one more very possible answer. Maybe they thought of it, applied some theory, did some testing, and decided it was not good enough, or not good at all. In short, maybe they thought and realized something someone else did not.

"...or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear."

Just following this thread you can see that tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear are not that universally held dear. Some of the manufacturers that are embracing what you hold dear may be considered "snake oil salesmen" to others who would rather that manufacturers that they prefer stay away from that kind of approach. That is why there are so many manufacturers and products on the market. Pick and choose what you like.

I cannot find it now to quote it, but someone in the previous few threads mentioned something to the effect of "or flow does not move at all". If it is not moving, would you still call it a flow? "Flow with velocity of zero?"

When it comes to Michael Green’s speakers, as unusual and maybe even strange their design may seem to be, it is probably unfair to blast them as worthless without hearing them. So is the case with any other speaker on the market. Michael Green’s explanation may not be to your liking and may be completely out of what you can accept (logically, technically, even emotionally), but speakers are not Michael Green himself. Don’t deem them worthless without giving them at least some fair benefit of the doubt. probably the only way to check the validity of Michael’s, and your own, claims is to stop by and give them a listen. After that, full attack on them and Michael’s merit as a speaker designer may, or may not, be warranted. You listen to Dynaudio, you listen to Harbeth, you listen to Spendor, you listen to something else and some of them are also designs, improved over time, dragging from the time white vans were about to be invented. I am not trying to defend Michael Green at all, far from that, but I would prefer to stay fair to the speakers themselves.

Michael Green,

Just quickly and only once going over your explanation of laminar flow and its effect in the room (I usually read it a few times not to miss some details and to give my mind time to ruminate on it), I got a sense that "laminar flow" is really quite a bent term in these discussions. Kind of like "bent by 168 degrees". Your explanation does seem fairly simple, but choice of "laminar flow" may be a little incorrect. Ever since I started following this thread, I have been trying to think of a more correct term to use for what you refer to as a "laminar flow" and, even more so. "organizing" it. Your pieces placed on the ceiling, or walls where almost the only laminar flow in the room can be expected, will have a hard time avoiding not disrupting it. This is not to say they may not contribute to changing the sound for better, whatever that better may be, by affecting the propagation of the sound in some way, pressure zones, layman’s echo, reverberation, anything, but laminar flow they will disrupt and not organize (I took that "organize" as "enhance" or "make it laminar"). It is just what it is. Everything else may be up for debate.

geoffkait,

Your question

“Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative?”

is just that. A very simple request to help you decide between two choices you thought you had. It is not a rhetorical question, by any means. I understand you might have not thought of any other option so, just as with your question about ice-cold cups, I reminded you of deficiencies in your question that deemed it unanswerable. I offered one more option for answer and someone else might have thought of a few more I am not aware of.

It is very possible that you are an audio insider and nobody should dispute that. Most of the people here are. Of course, definition of an audio insider could be as broad as we decide to make it.

Most of us know many people, some top notch people, too. Welcome to the club. It does not matter, but it is unclear if those acquaintances of yours are designers of top notch high end amps or they are top notch designers of high end amps.

Maybe you haven’t been paying very close attention. The ones who don’t hold audiophile tweaks and concepts dear are by and large the ones who never try them, who are just having a hoot going after audiophiles who do hold them dear.

Just because some audiophiles, whatever that word even means, do not want to try what they feel would be a waste of time and resources for them does not substantiate the claim that "audiophiles hold those tweaks dear". Surely, some of the audiophiles do hold them dear, but some, for their own reasons, do not. It is easy to imagine that some not-so-shabby manufacturer decides to cater to the group that you do not seem to belong to. It does not necessarily make them incompetent nor does it make your picks superior with any certainty.

More importantly, the way some of your posts are written (choice of words, mainly) is at least odd. They do not come across as anything any of us should be subjected to. I am not talking about your messages to me, but to some other members here. This forum does not have a moderator to take unacceptable posts down so we should, at least, attempt to keep it constructive rather than destructive and personally insulting.

I have been tangentially reading these posts about metal casings of amplifiers. Not to go into details of influence on the sound of current designs that seem to be unacceptable to you, is there any particular material that you would suggest be used instead? I can only guess that it would need to be heat-resistant and have no knowledge what else would be needed.

geoffkait,

I am not sure what your sentence means when it comes to me. The part in which you ask about yourself, I do not have much knowledge about you to speculate what you are altogether. However, from  what you show in your posts, in this forum you are a nuisance.

With a little luck and/or lots of persistence guesswork may also yield great results. Now, why would anyone do it that way is a totally different topic. For some things, a lifetime of guesswork would not be enough.

Michael Green,

Unrelated to any real topic so far, but I would second mapman's opinion about the website. It needs some reworking. As a, more or less, not-overly-excited-very-suspicious-observer, I would say that it would rub only already signed-up true believers right way. Of course, those who are firmly against would not be swayed no matter what, but I find that even for those who would approach it with open mind, but still full of suspicion, it does not provide enough of anything substantial to maintain interest. It is easy to dismiss then, even before giving it any chance. That is just my observation and suggestion. It is understandable, though. Many major international companies struggle with their websites, too.

Well, I will not mention laminar flow ever again and now I can see where the problem stemmed from. However, as soon as you can come up with some other name for what you believe the reason is for what you are trying to achieve, change it. It is a sore sight right now and it does not make everything else look good at all. In fact, I have been fairly tolerant all along, but it has been plain silly since I first saw it. There may be more to incorporate to those theories and practice in order to find correct explanation. Laminar flow just would not cut it. That's it, I will leave it to someone else to remind you. Oh, and that "organizing" has to go.

geoffkait,

As I have mentioned before, your comments are at least odd. Your choice of words is baffling. Your references are often revealing.

geoffkait,

I agree.

prof,

I agree with many of your statements about how things and claims should be presented, confirmed, and supported. No doubt about your approach to it. Even your, now probably long-forgotten, dissection of original post is, to me at least, right to the point.


Where you may not be doing too well in all of this is putting too many emotions into something eventually completely unimportant. Some guy somewhere claiming things you see as bogus and selling it to other people who also have nothing better to do than to pay to play with bricks (wooden, or whatever) and that irritates you. So what? Let them play with their toys in whatever way they want, but do not pay with your new duodenal ulcer. It is not worth the trouble and you simply cannot win.

Michael Green did not avoid all of my questions or concerns. He explained, to the best of his beliefs, knowledge, and understanding how some of his ideas work. It took some time, but he did. Do I think his room treatments (save me from some cable elevators and such things, I would not believe it even if I heard it myself) work to change the sound? Absolutely. Do I think his explanation is correct? Not really. So what? He is trying to come up with something and present it the best he can. It would not be that hard to write down nice detailed explanation why he is incorrect on at least a thing or two in a few pages over the next fifteen minutes, but what would be the point? To show one's superiority over him on that? Not the best place to feed one's ego. To scare customers from him? It would not, they would just say some grumpy guy did not receive a memo about holistic approach to sound tuning. To put things in the world straight? Not worth it, some still believe that Earth is flat and no major harm happens because of that. To humiliate the person who has posted a fairly unfair assessment of others in his original post? Why? It is not going to change him no matter how hard you try. To force him to reveal that he has no proof for his claims that would be adhering to current scientific methods? You already know that. Why would you do it to yourself, it will only hurt you. After all, more people than just Michael Green are claiming things here left and right that are at times grotesque. Some get called, the others just slide under the radar. And the world rotates.


On a different note, who came up with the idea to disassemble a perfectly well-put together amplifier she/he paid dearly for and why? What was the initial idea about taking the cover off? Do people take doors off an expensive car to see if it corners better? Seems strange to me.

prof,

You nailed it again. Not everyone is able to put thoughts into well-written sentences with clear argument around here, but you remain the standard. Despite occasional disagreements with your approach to it, it has been pleasure to read it. Even at the lowest point, when you and Michael Green started exchanging what I would call insults, it remained somewhat humorous and Michael gets half a credit for it. I hope to come across your posts and points of view in the future and I certainly hope that Michael Green remains on the block, too. Like him, or not, he does bring a different whiff and forces you to think. Regardless of final outcome and agreement or disagreement you may have. He certainly provided fodder for my thoughts over the last couple of days.


Keep on a good job, both of you. Michael to make his customers happy, and prof to keep reins on it all.

uberwaltz,

For me the highlight was Planck, Einstein, and Kim Jong Un. You could not make that up, even if intentions were honest. This geoffkait's last poem is a cherry on top. Not much can be added after that. I am glad I witnessed this thread, they don't make them like that anymore.

They will become pseudomagical. For now, they are pseudoposts.

The posts are not removed. They are being tweaked.

mapman,

Why do you bother? The guy may actually be photonically-superior to the rest of us. He does come across as being out of this world and a few more things. What the heck, he has been worth having here if only for this last poem. Could you pull that off? I thought so. Neither could prof, Michael Green, cd318, uberwaltz, or I. So give guy the credit. Except that he would be better appreciated in some other entertainment venue. This is a very narrow-minded crowd.

mapman,

"Carefully" in my experience over the last few days did not translate into "correctly". What can we do? It is like a fun brother you did not ask for, but is around to steal your lollipop every now and then.

mapman,

I had a few posts here and there before this thread, but it had been a relatively tamed experience. I mean, people would argue, but stayed within some logical and behavioral confines. I could follow their thoughts regardless of my different view. Is the new turntable better deal than upgraded old one and such. This thread was a bit different. Now, when the bulk is over, I can loosen up my words. I am curious how your fan GK interacts when not at the safe distance of the Internet chat forum. Is his tone the same, or he adjusts to the actual possibility of stepping on someone's toes a bit too hard while being at the arms length? I have nothing against him, I am thankful for this entertainment he provides for free, but am wondering if the personality he exhibits in the forum goes that well in real encounters.

uberwaltz,

Even the best get tired after a while. It is hard to outdo a poem. Maybe tomorrow?

mapman,

Wow, I thought nobody uses "hi-fi" anymore except a few dinosauri from 1980s, at least not on this forum. I have not seen it mentioned that way since I do not know when. That said, I use it and have not signed up for these "HEA" and "audiophile" terms yet.

prof,

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.

Otherwise, your new turntable looks quite impressive as do your speakers (Thiel 3.something). I have never heard any of those, but just based on the looks it is good enough. I would suggest you demagnetize the turntable belt, though. It is imperative. You have never heard your turntable until you heard it that way. You will get much smoother flow. Of whiskey while listening to it, that is, a reliable friend of mine uses that trick and it works. Use Johnny Walker for that experiment so nobody can tell you that you are not the one. I also heard that 17 seconds of speaker grilles placed perpendicularly to the microwave, running at max, yields much warmer mids.

I saw something (diffusor) that you said you recently bought. Do not laugh at my question, please, but how is it with dust? Is it easy to clean? Washable? How do you make the thing stand? Do you need to bolt it to the wall or it is stable enough just leaning to the wall? I am a very hi-fi and none of high-end and have no interest in major adjustments, but that thing looked simple enough and affordable enough to get to try, play, and dispose of if useless in my case.

robelvick,

No, it does not seem so. Should I hold longer?

robelvick,

Working on it. Typing with the nose. Thanks for tips. I will report about the progress.