What it all boils down to in the final analysis is whether or not Tuning causes cancer. Agreed? By the way, I can’t help noticing there doesn't seem to be very much interest in my latest pop quizzaroo. You know, the one about the acoustic resonators. Or any of them, frankly. What’s up with that? I thought we had some brainy people here. Come on, what’s the matter? Not challenging enough? Too mundane? Too stupid? Not interested at All? Hey, there’s a multiple choice pop quiz right there! I personally suspect the self-anointed Uber skeptics are just posing as engineers, intellectuals or whatever. OK let’s see those pose downs, fellas. Work it, baby!
Talk but not walk?
Hi Guys
This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where 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. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
2,135 responses Add your response
bill333, I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that’s not the hobby I’m engaged in. Ok. But would you agree that, just because you don’t find such inquiry interesting, there’s no reason to disparage others who do? Yet if someone starts asking for explanations...and even dares point out an explanation didn’t seem to be a good one....you and people like Michael seem to get very negative on them pretty quickly. Personally, I don’t disparage anyone for buying whatever they wish, or for playing around in any way with his system, rendering improvements as he sees them. I do it. We all do it. If someone wants to pay lots of money for something I think is likely nonsense...that is of course entirely up to them. I buy things that no doubt others think are nonsense. But when someone starts to make CLAIMS of some objective nature - e.g. that altering X produces objective differences that we can perceive - then I reserve the right to think critically about those claims and give a reasoned argument for my skepticism. That’s especially the case when someone would want to SELL me something based on those claims. Do you actually see anything wrong with this? Or should I and anyone else here be simply gullably open to any claim anyone wants to make in high end audio? Simply put, I don’t see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound. Really? You don’t see the relevance of knowing what you are doing? The more you understand, the better placed you are to prioritize your time and money and the more likely you are to achieve your goals. In my case there’s still a lot I don’t understand. But when relevant, I try to learn something about what I’m doing so I’m not just thrashing around in the dark - e.g. understanding room acoustics and other issues in integrating my new subwoofers. (I also renovated my room consulting with an acoustician).
I’m not posing as an audio guru dispensing such advice (let alone asking people to pay me for my services). I’m a consumer like you are, and I’m just assessing the claims being made as I see fit. But if you want any advice: You are much more likely to realize sonic benefits from proper speaker placement and paying attention to room acoustics, than from spending time untying capacitors or raising wires on wood blocks, etc. There’s a TON of research supporting the effects of the former; virtually none that I’m aware of for the latter.
I’d love if you or Michael actually did that! My original reply to Michael, and the theme of my follow up replies, has been: 1. To point out that it is both poor form and deleterious to honest discourse to appear on a forum, create a thread declaring that some proportion of the members are "faking it" - without giving any examples to support that aspersion - and then ignore pertinent questions and challenges to his statements, brushing people off as being part of the problem or "trolls" without lifting a finger to justify all those additional insults. All the while pretending to be the Nice Guy who doesn’t want to ruffle feathers. Not to mention, creating a thread with false pretenses that it was a discussion about empirical testing, while in fact (acknowledged later) it was another way to self-promote his tuneland stuff. Do you really not see a problem with that? 2. As a consumer, and someone interested in high end audio, I’ve been exercising my right to critical thinking, asking completely reasonable questions about Michael’s claims, which he has done nothing but evade. Please, explain to me, what is actually wrong with any of that.
Not at all. I’ve only cast aspersions on someone who has interacted dishonestly in a thread like this, as Michael has here. I think someone who ignores substantive questions and arguments challenging his position and replies only with denigrating dismissals with no substance, deserves to be called on this. Don’t you? And talk about casting aspersions on people who don’t fit a mental model of how things work! Are you not aware of how often, and vociferously, Michael Green has done this himself? He’s continually evangelizing through his Tuning mental model, and castigating other popular high end audio methods, and people who dare say a recording can be revealed as bad, as liars and scammers! Why don’t you apply your criticism evenhandedly to him, I wonder? Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them. And you will find tons of such posts from me too. For instance, many seemed to appreciate my reports on various speakers I’ve heard here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/contemplating-devore-speakers-and-others-long-audition-report... Do I have to put everything I ever wrote into this one thread, to show I contribute what I can as well? Do you think maybe you are jumping to some harsher conclusions than you ought to? But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system. You are falling into the very model set by Michael Green: castigate someone’s view, instead of properly represent and respond to it. My "belief system" is anything but dogmatic. It is entirely against dogma - in the sense of simply accepting as true what an authority would tell me, or accepting principles as simply true and unchallenged" Dogma is one of the worst blights there is, in human thought. Rather, I believe in taking in to account everyone’s fallibility including my own. So any assumptions I may have ought to be challengeable, re-visited, scrutinized, and ready for revision. And even THAT principle...I’m open to revising if someone could argue otherwise. And I apply this lack of accepting dogma to claims in high end audio. I’m not going to believe something just because someone claims to be authoritative on the subject - certainly not someone trying to sell me something. I’m going to look at whether that person’s claims make sense in light of all the other information I’m aware of. Have you not noticed that, when I interact with claims made by someone here, I don’t simply dismiss them - I supply an argument, supporting REASONS for my view over the claim . That’s interacting with intellectual honesty. That’s the opposite of trolling. Now that my position is, I hope, more clear to you: do you find this unreasonable? And if not...it’s essentially the basis on which I’ve been posting in this entire thread....and yet Michael Green has not interacted with ANY of it, and only dismisses my concerns as being that of a troll. Do you really think Green’s interaction, especially with me, has been that intellectually honest? |
kosst amajan I said, IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! And it was NOT only measurements but double blind testing along with subjective listening that Dr.Hirsch championed to weed out poor/snake oil products & why the scientific methodology of reviewing audio equipment was swept under the carpet after he passed.. Contrary to what is perpetuated Dr,Hirsch never stated that all modern amplifiers sounded exactly alike..What he said what that all modern amplifiers with quality components & construction "should"sound the same & that the differences "heard"between amps was nothing more than the result of distortions inherent in the individual components chosen for construction.. |
Somewhere in the archives of my history here at A’gon I said basically the reason there is ZERO scientific testing regarding audio reproduction products is a conspiracy between HEA manufacturers & the established media to perpetuate the myth of performance = $$$! That is why empirical testing of audio products in the mainstream died with Julian Hirsch... |
audionuttoo I’m not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333’s place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears! >>>>>>Not sure I go along with your detective work. The conclusion that “vibration is good” might very well be incorrect and lead to “over generalizations” that are false. The loosely of screws may actually be explained by reducing the physical stress produced when the screws are tight. The same idea applies to transformers that are generally bolted down tightly and capacitors that are constrained with tight cable ties. Reducing stress improves the sound. Voila! But the general conclusion that vibration is good is probably overreaching. One over generalization that is false is vibration is good. And that leads to another over generalization that is also false - isolation is bad. 😬 |
I don’t see how we can put Michael Green into the same category as Roger Paul. As a result of the aforementioned thread where Roger went back and forth with several folks here, claiming to have created an amplifier exponentially better and different from anything else available, and ready to ascend to unquestionable supremacy I offered to pay him a visit to assess his claim. This past November, I spent a half day with Roger, allowing him to demo his amplifier for me. Without going into detail in this post, I predict the next 10 years for Roger will look like the past 10 to 20. Likewise, I would neither lump Michael Green in with a self-proclaimed industry insider / expert and sage without peer on every technology directly or indirectly related to audio offering nothing beyond 24 / 7 Audiogon insulting postings and re-marketed household items infused with whatever required shamanism that renders them crucial in a HEA system without explanation. No, Michael Green has developed, manufactured, and marketed actual products, and sold hundreds of thousands or more of them that even the most dyed in the wool objectivist would consider logical and effective. You can find his products in all manner of settings outside the lunatic fringe HEA circles. Not that he has a corner on the market or anything like it, as every recording studio, auditorium, movie theater, etc. uses acoustic room treatment. As for myself, after remodeling my second system’s room including removing the fabric wallpaper about 15 years ago, I noticed the now exposed hard walls became a dominant factor in the sound, and precluded hearing the effects of many of the component upgrades and changes I made. This is why when folks tell me they tried component X in their system, and heard no difference, I believe them, as I found myself in that very place. Over time, I noticed many friends and local dealers using Michael Green RoomTunes, and it occurred to me I might find benefit in them. Now in all honesty, I didn’t find the $200 - $400 price particularly friendly at that juncture of my life. I also felt I could implement a better version due not feeling the covering would adequately absorb (maybe the intent is reflection as opposed to absorption) and their overall (1/2"?) thinness. From my experience with Fried Transmission Line loading, long hair carded wool was considered to have the best acoustic properties of the most commonly used (foam, fiberglass, polyester batting) materials, and seeing that natural (not a synthetic fiber) burlap held a night and day advantage in terms of fabric open area seemed to offer the best container I could think of at the time for the stuffing. With about $30 in material and a couple of hours of my oldest daughter’s sewing , I had my own 3" - 4" versions in the room’s corners and also above them where they met the ceiling. Upon installing them in the room, and listening, the acoustic treatment provided me with an extremely low-cost, attractive, and effective solution. And with that, my thanks and respect to Michael Green |
audionuttoo, First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world’s best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! That’s clearly wrong, and it should be obvious why it’s so wrong. We are building instruments all the time for detection because of the LIMITATIONS of our perception and senses. For instance: You know there is sound in a frequency range called "Ultrasonic," right? Do you know why it’s even called "Ultrasonic?" Because you can’t hear it. Your ears, if you have fantastic hearing, would top off at approximately 20K. But depending on your age and exposure to noise, it likely caps well below that point. But you can buy, or even build an SPL meter that is FAR more sensitive and can detect frequencies up to 100K, e.g: http://logosfoundation.org/elektron/US_SPL_Meter/US_SPL_Meter.html And when scientists detected the "sound" of black holes emerging far away in the universe...do you think it’s because someone woke up hearing it? Of course not. Instruments vastly more sensitive were used to detect these, and countless other phenomena that our limited hearing permits. So right off the bat, you are starting with a false premise. Trust them - they are the one truth in music! (Putting aside the inscrutable second phrase...) Your ears are part of a perceptual system; that system can and often enough does get things wrong. Just like your eyes. This is well known and demonstrable. At this very moment there is a viral meme going around the internet showing how people’s audible perception varies. Google "yanny vs laurel." Also look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzL9PxtFf0 And then there are all the well documented cases of perceptual bias that will cause you to "hear" things that aren’t there, or perceive changes in sound when there is no external cause. So you are off with TWO fallacious assumptions.
Whoops. Intuitions are often unreliable. In fact much of the fallacious explanations for natural phenomena through history was based on erroneous extrapolations from "intuition." (In fact, right now the Flat Earth Society is based on just that: it’s intuitively obvious the world is flat...forget any contradictory scientific evidence against this! Intuition is the most reliable thing we have!)
Drat. Another fallacy. One can have sufficient reasons to doubt a claim without having direct experience. If I tell you the moon is made of cheese, do you have to have traveled to the moon in order to marshal reasonable doubts about my claim? Similarly, if someone is presenting a claim that is laced with naive understandings of human perception, that already raises doubt about the claim (even if it’s not conclusive against the claim). You are not actually making a good case for your claims. That said, although you have laced your post with some faulty ideas, I did not get enough detail from your post as to what you were actually adjusting. It could still be the case you were adjusting something that could plausibly alter the sound, in a way you found desirable. And that could be really cool. But we shouldn’t have to buoy our claims with fallacious ideas about the reliability of our perception. |
For those who don't think that metal cases can't be detrimental to the sound, there's a very old audio site called Mother of Tone that believes one should build amps and DACs on blocks of wood. This is nothing new. And, +1 for @bill333 All the best, Nonoise |
@prof "bill333 can you give us a non-mystical, technical explanation for how removing the chassis top of a component would cause those audible differences (or releasing of the capacitor)?" I have no technical explanations for this, and no interest in finding any. There may be people out there who enjoy observing scientifically unexplained phenomena and constructing theories to fit them, but that's not the hobby I'm engaged in. I'm trying to create great music listening experiences. Simply put, I don't see how having a well explained system is going to give me better sound. OTOH, if you have practical ideas on how to get better sound from my system, I'd be glad to hear them... "(BTW, I’ve had the top off some of my equipment before - pre-amps etc - for different reasons and...no...it did not change the sound)." There could be any number of factors involved in your not hearing a change in sound. Without being there to hear for myself, and subsequent experimenting with your system and room, I really can't say what happened. The most likely explanation is that some component or components in your system are closed down to the point that upstream changes can't easily be heard. But let's get to the point of your post. You're not here to help people get better sound. Having read through your posts on this thread, I can't find a single instance of you doing or saying anything that would help another person improve their system. You're here to cast aspersions on anyone whose methods who don't fit into your mental model of how things work. Let me be clear in saying that my experiences are my own, and are posted here in the hope that others can benefit from them. These are things that have worked for me. If you, or anyone reading this, tries these methods and benefits from them, I am genuinely happy about that. If you choose not to try, that's ok too. But I have no interest in trying to fit my experiences into your dogmatic belief system. |
Research shows that those who've used serotonergic compounds typically have fewer flashbacks of prior life experiences than those who never have.WTF? All credibility goes out the window when we go into the weeds. Stay on topic folks. This was entertaining in a big brain standoff sort of way. All the best, Nonoise |
I'm not posting as a response to anyone, just adding my own 2 cents. First of all, remember that we have all been born with the world's best and most sensitive listening devices ever conceived - our own ears! Trust them - they are the one truth in music! I have experienced the tunable room in person, at Bill333's place, and know that it works. I was left alone with the tuning wrench and allowed to experiment and make adjustments to my liking. It became obvious very quickly that the adjustments were very intuitive and easy to learn. I was able to turn a small and constricted sound stage into a large open and expansive one that extended in all directions around me! Then I was able to bring it back to points in between and eventually back to where I started simply by adjusting the tension on the panels. Less tension allowed the panels to vibrate more, extending the sound stage. More tension = less vibration = smaller sound stage. Pretty intuitive right? How do I know this works? My ears told me so! Tuning works my droogies! And while not all tuning is as intuitive as this, the idea of loosening things to allow them to vibrate more and increase the size of the sound stage always does work! How do I know this? My ears tell me so! Those who have not heard it have no basis to criticize it. Those who have not should try it. Those who have will know it works if they listen to the music with their own sensitive listening devices - their ears! |
@geoffkait You're lack of facts never ceases to amaze me. Research shows that those who've used serotonergic compounds typically have fewer flashbacks of prior life experiences than those who never have. In other words, you're wrong. Just like your silly wave mechanics. They guy has invented a gimmick and built a whole product line to cater to that gimmick. It's products for fool who have more money than brains. This is why Focal, B&W, KEF, and the like are multi-million dollar companies and this guy never will be. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Hey, listen, people sometimes explain things the best they can. Not everything is Albert Einstein or Charlie Rose. You don’t like the explanation? Tough toenails. You don’t see any explanation? Too bad. You don’t see something that fits nicely into your little playbook? Personally, these days I advise anyone in the business of tweaks not to offer ANY explanations, even ones they’re pretty sure of. There’s no real payoff. You wind up having to deal with a whole lotta nonsense. Of course, drama does have its advantages. A little drama never hurt anyone. 😬 Everybody’s a genius. It’s pretty obvious this thread has become a magnet for all the die hard pseudo skeptics and pretend engineers on the forum. Are they importing them from Hydrogen Audio? From Randi’s Education Foundation? Is prof a ringer from Skeptics Society? Well, whaddya expect? “Build it and they will come.” All you get is the, “Well what about this? What about that?” routine, repeated ad nauseum. Shut the cave door and back to Pygmy Country! |
Shear waves are just transverse vibrational waves. In solids you get both P (longitudinal) and S (transverse) waves. In liquids and air you get only P waves. At interfaces you can get rolling or orbital progressive waves travelling along the interface. Generally the goal is to try and damp shear waves in speaker cabinets, baffles and speaker drivers. The term most people use is critically damped. This means the system will return to zero (stop vibrating) once input excitation stops without any further positive and negative oscillations? This is what your car shock absorbers do....it prevents your springy car suspension from boinging around after a bump. Tuning speaker cabinets in order to have them resonate at specific frequencies is adding coloration at any other frequencies than specifically to match the woofer and porting to get an optimal response from the system. Best response is flat in the bass (no resonance peaks) and critically damped - generally this produces a smooth 12db per octave roll off below corner frequency. |
glupson 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. >>>>>Oh, didn’t I mention, I am an audio insider? I know many top notch high end amp designers. It was strickty a rhetorical question. It’s what I call hyper circuit focused. It’s like having blinders on a racehorse. They never got the memos and if they did they threw them in the curcular file. Even judging by those amp designers who post on this forum, and those who DIY amps they either never heard of the tweaks, don’t care if they did by chance hear of them or are afraid of bringing down the heat if anyone found out they were using controversial audiophile tweaks in their amps. There are a precious few like Mietner who employs cryo, but he’s in the minority. If I’m missing someone who’s been paying attention please let me know. Then there’s the argument, “why should be use tweaks? Our amps are already perfect.” 🙄 gluoson geoffkait: "...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. >>>>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. You, know, audio forum whack a mole. As I said, lots of folks are a little uh, sensitive about being linked to the dark arts. ☠️ As far as any manufacturers embracing these audiophile products there aren’t any. If I’m wrong, please, no angry emails.😁 glupson 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?" >>>>I am pretty sure I already answered that question a number of different ways since last night. I have been known to sing like a canary under water boarding, perhaps if you ask enough times I’ll change my tune. 😬 |
prof, why would I use a part without researching it? Prof, it’s my job to not only consider but to test. Also many of the producers of these types of products are happy to exchange info, like folks doing field testing for them. Excellent. So this time will you answer my question? Can you tell us exactly what measurable performance parameters change when a cap is tied down with a tie wrap? And explain why one would expect those measurable changes would be audible, especially with the character you describe? Can you supply any such measurements for us to see, so we don’t have to just take your word on it? How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course. I wouldn’t describe the sonic difference between those two caps, as I do not presume, without hearing more reason to think so, that they would sound different. (Not that I couldn’t be convinced they could produce sonic differences) So wouldn’t make a claim either way about their sonic difference. But your question clearly implies YOU think they are sonically different. And if you would claim this, then what type of evidence you have for it? As in the tie wrap above: what measurable parameters change between those caps and why would one would expect those changes to be audible? After all, one can alter signals/measurements in ways that are not audible. And if you have "tested" for these audible changes, please explain how you controlled for the variable of your imagination. (If you understand science, as you alluded to in your OP, you would know that pointing to additional tests done with poor control of variables isn’t a way to increase confidence level). Finally, please note the obvious fact: that the question of the audibie difference between caps in certain implementations does not resolve your claim about the effects of tie wraps. (Which is why this seems to be another red herring to avoid answering my previous question). I look forward to hearing more about your careful empiricism on these subjects, Michael. Cheers. |
mapman, Essentially I agree. As I mentioned early on, I find the claims from Green to span from the plausible - likely to make a sonic difference - to the implausible. The tunable speakers (and certain types of room treatment) certainly suggest they would plausibly alter the sound. And they may sound great...I might even love the sound myself. (And I have loved the sound of speakers made by a company that I believe to be making unsubstantiated and unbelievable claims in other areas, e.g. Shun Mook). But it's pretty easy for anyone to make a speaker that sounds different from another speaker. It’s too bad it’s mixed in with other woo-woo sounding stuff that we aren’t getting straight answers to. |
Geoffkait how about walk the walk not just talk the talk endlessly and build some actual audio gear yourself that actually makes music the right way according to you , take over the market, and show them all how to actually do it right, big mouth? You can start now. We will wait. I’m talking source devices, amps and speakers, you know the things that actually produce music, not your comedy act tweaks. |
As I understand it from the answer MG’s approach with speakers is to use resonant cabinets like the housing of a musical instrument and then add a proprietary internal device of some sort to adjust or tune the resonance by applying pressure to the cabs from the inside. Tuning is his thing after all! My reaction is at least that is something that should have an audible effect if intended. There are other vendors that use unusually resonant cabinets (as opposed to attempting to make them as inert as possible or the tuning adjustable by the user). Harbeth is an example I believe. Tonian is another I recall. All cabinets affect the sound that is emitted so it is probably accurate to say that each is tuned a certain way, either by design or accident. So the concept at least makes sense and is something fairly unique and different. That passes test 1. Next from the vendor’s perspective would be the realization of the concept ie how the speaker is designed constructed and actually sounds, if one were interested enough to want an audition. I am not quite sold in terms of the value of the concept to me personally or shelling out the dollars but that’s OK. I do not shell out any dollars for most things talked about here, whether great, mediocre, or total nonsense. Only so many dollars to shell out. Everyone chooses what matters most to them and spends accordingly. I gave the website a quick once over and I did not find it particularly informative though the unified focus on "tuning" is unique. Needs some work IMHO. . |
geoffkait,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. |
Speakers cones generate shear and polarities of shear before they generate a pressure wave. Thats how speakers work. Polarities of shear on a cone for example travel on all surfaces of the material shape..they also travel thru that material shape. The speed and direction are much determined by that material and shape. Shear can return to the point of emination or the wave launch..this is what we call interfering energy. There are ways to eliminate this interference in vibrational objects that re corrupts the original intended signal. Some methods are easy to see and hear others must be dealt with in new and unique ways or just a new look and understanding of what had always been there. And it has always been there..The best method is the use of a select material contoured with no 90 degree angles and contains a shape angle where shear can be rejected and not allowed to re enter. Some here wish to cancel or eliminate all polarities of shear. If you do so you will reduce all amplitudes of the resulting sound wave.Selective identification of shear polarity and its return into the signal path is what is crucial. Kill all shear..no sound. Resonators work because they capture a pressure wave and change that motion into shear. The size, shape and material's shear velocity determine the sound and perceived quality of the acoustic waves output off of that solid object.Thats why brass, gold and silver objects of the same exact shape generate a different sound out come. Also thats why most everytime you see resonators they are attached to a solid surface or very near the surface. There is an action reaction between a flat material surface :drywall: and a resonator where the pressure wave that impacts the wall and becomes partially shear and travels thru that solid :drywall: That now altered pressure wave encounters a resonator of some size shape and material alters how the molecules of that original pressure wave actually reacts and sounds to our ears brain and body. This continual rotation between compressive and the shear world is what makes sound..and what makes things sound different. Our ears are also shear generators because of material structure and shape we each interpet the compressive wave in a similar but unique way. Oh and then there is the skull and bone structure and mass. Later on..Tom |
Pop Quiz. That’s right, boys and girls, it’s time for another pop quiz! Yeah! Pop Quiz (3 parts) part 1 The Stereo Times article on the tiny little bowl acoustic resonators I linked to earlier this morning mentioned that the operation of the aforementioned tiny bowls was measured to extend as high as 3 GHz. How can these tiny little bowls that are about 7/8” diameter operate at frequencies up to 3 GHz? Hel-loo! part 2 One of the more incredible and puzzling aspects of the tiny little bowl resonators is how much they affect very low frequencies. How can three or four of these little guys do that? part 3 Another bizzare aspect of the tiny little bowls is they affect the sound even when they not located in the room. How can that be? |
I’ve always suspected high end amplifier manufacturers were just about the farthest behind the audiophile power curve of any of the major food groups. They always seem to be the last to get the memo for just about every major audiophile development from fuses to wire directionality to power cords to transformer isolation or the myriad other tweaks and concepts audiophiles hold dear, from tiny little bowls to Rainbow Foil to Graphene to Mpingo discs, HEA designers are the last to find out, assuming they ever find out. Help me out, I can’t figure out, are they mildly retarded or are they just very conservative? 😀 |
Speaking of vibrating capacitors and chassis covers, allow me to point out one of the dumbest things ever in all of audio is the bad habit all amplifier designers and manufacturers have of bolting down the large transformers to the amplifier chassis. I mean, come on people! Yes I realize transformers must be bolted down for shipping purposes. But the vibrating transformers should be decoupled from the chassis rather than strongly coupled to it. The best results will be achieved by isolating the entire amplifier from the transformer, even removing the transformer. The transformer can be decoupled using rubber grommets and loosening up the boots or removing them entirely. The transformer can be placed on viscoelastic squares of even placed on springs. But keeping them bolted down is like shooting yourself in the foot. Capacitors vibrate in operation so they should all be isolated from the printed circuit boards, etc. as well, or damped. It’s not really rocket science. 🚀 |
Hi Kosst I'm sorry, were you talking about these speakers? https://www.michaelgreenaudio.net/tunable-speakers So I'm listening to Michael Franks "The Art Of Tea" what are you playing? Since you asked about my speakers I'm playing the Rev6 Signatures & Rev SW-15 Combo. And by golly they do sound pretty smooth around 6KHz. You know how I can tell? Because the splashing of the cymbals have that immediate attack but then there's that ultra smooth cymbal float that covers the room. I'd be happy to describe the soundstage to you. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
costco-emoji wrote, “And just like good ole’ Roger, it looks like Mike is loosing his cool under scrutiny and resorting to sophomoric insults and attacks. It’s rather pathetic.” >>>Whoa! Hey, didn’t he get the memo? I was under the distinct impression you are supposed to be the only one who’s permitted to resort to sophomoric insults and attacks. What’s up with that? |
Someone just mentioned Franck Tchang’s Acoustic Resonators. I mentioned them the other day while discussing mapping the 3D space of the room for sound pressure levels in connection with a number of room acoustics solutions. Since we are discussing pressure zones, sound pressure and air it might be worthwhile to take a gander at what the Stereo Times article says about the Acoustic Resonators. I am posting excerpts from the Stereo Times article below. The entire article can be found at, http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/francktchang/resonators.html Franck Tchang Acoustic Resonators (review at Stereo Times), excerpts “The resonators also become focal points for intense overtone radiation. That is denser at their points of origin than in the surrounding air. As directional organs, our ears key into these radiation sources and our acoustic perception of the space we’re in is altered. Again, no music needs to be played to sense this spatial overlay. Speech will do, or the sound of our own foot fall. Being completely passive, the resonators can only be activated by received energy. As HF modulators, a full-range input obviously isn’t needed. Franck Tchang has used a spectrum analyzer to corroborate this action up to 3GHz. By affecting the ordinary acoustic damping through adding parallel values from the resonators, original HF content reappears. It becomes audible again and rebalanced against the LF energies. Treble decays improve and the subjective impression of audible space deepens. The resonators equalize air pressure differentials and can be installed in a fridge, mailbox or outside a room. Distance will not affect their efficaciousness. That’s quite a fatal blow to common sense but there it is according to the maestro. Franck has treated recording studios, performance venues, bars, living spaces and entire buildings. His demand as an expert tuning maestro is growing. That brings to mind Combak Corp.’s Kiuchi-San who enjoys a similar reputation in Japan. The moment you think air exchange where an entire building is submerged in, permeated and surrounded by air (except under the foundation of course), the picture begins to focus. That’s how these resonators defy distance. They’re equalizing the ocean of air that surround us, rechanneling certain turbulences, sync’ing up patterns. If you’ve got a massive geometry-induced pressure zone outside your house for example -- an area where gusty winds get trapped to apply structural pressure -- relieving this pressure must have an audible effect inside. It’s all connected. The mind cracker is simply the clash of scale. Big pressure, tiny devices. LF issues, HF solution. That’s where the mind hangs up. We’ve become conditioned to equate acoustic treatments with <300Hz attacks. That means bass traps. It means huge Helmholz resonators as notch filters. It means giant absorbers and diffusors. Time and again we’ve been told that low frequencies require large devices to counteract. That’s why Rives developed an elaborate in-ceiling address. The ceiling tends to be the biggest blank surface in a room. If high enough, you can hang in a faux ceiling and hide your monster traps in-between. Think about it. If you sound proof a room by sealing it shut, you increase its internal air pressures the moment music starts. You’re effectively making the room smaller than it was before. That compounds the issue. It’s out of phase with Franck’s views. His isn’t a brute force approach. It isn’t about dominating and straight-jacketing nature. It’s about helping acoustical energies flow again. It’s about dissipating clusters so that like water which always finds its own level, air pressures level out and equalize. This is a franck response: "I view my room as a bass guitar body, the resonators like strings and the air movement as the player’s hand." According to him and how far I can follow thus far, excess LF energy gets converted to HF radiation by making his resonators work. Work means getting them to oscillate. These devices are passive. They’re not perpetuum mobiles. To keep ringing, the resonators must continue to consume acoustical energy in their environment. However, they’re not drains. Energy isn’t killed by absorption or damping (actually, heat conversion to be technically correct). Acoustic System simply upsamples energy from lower to higher octaves. Bass energy enters the resonators. They oscillate. The resonator in turn puts out harmonics. LF goes in, HF comes out. That seems terribly oversimplified of course. Doubters will point at the fixed resonant frequency of the tiny oscillator and wonder how things add up.“ |
Awesome, Mike! You built a tweeter that beams like a tactical light at 6KHz! On top of that, it doesn't look like there's anything between the woofer and tweet sections of the cab. Kind of hard to imagine how there would be given the giant hole in the back right between the two sections. This whole post is about walking the talk, supposedly, and you claim to have some vast wealth of experience and knowledge, but I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing any intellectual property here. I'm not seeing measurements. I'm not seeing technical analysis. Did you miss the part where I suggested your power strip is a fire hazard? If that "20G" in the name of the product is meant to suggest that's the gauge of wire used, I hope you go to prison for premeditated murder should one of those cause a fatal fire. At least Geoff is smart enough not to sell things that might kill people. None of your AC power products would pass any kind of certification. Snake oil is one thing. The things I saw on your website illustrate abject ignorance of basic electrical safety. Nothing there suggests an advanced knowledge of engineering or acoustics. |
prof said "Have you ever considered that this is because tie wraps are irrelevant to the performance of caps?" prof, why would I use a part without researching it? Prof, it’s my job to not only consider but to test. Also many of the producers of these types of products are happy to exchange info, like folks doing field testing for them. Can I ask you a simple question so we can see if we can get on the same page somewhat? How would you describe the difference in sound between the Vishay 1813 (yellow) and the ERO 1822? 3.3 of course. |
I can see some confusion that many people are facing concerning words like laminar flow or pressure zones. Well not to worry even initially I too had a though time trying to wrap my head around it. How would one define the meaning on laminar flow or pressure zones? Where are all these found in a given space or room? What is the first step should I do in order to have an understanding on them? Well these were all the questions that I was asking to myself again and again. After years of practicing hopefully i could shed some light to those who are still not clear on them. It has got to do with pressure build up by your room itself. For an example if you walk out from a room to an open space your voice will sound open, less focussed and the loudness will be lesser as in comparison when you are in an enclosed space. This is a simple example on what a pressure in a room is causing towords our speakers when they are singing away and activiating or loading a given room. Of course speaker to room size ratio and thier placement is important as that will also determine how much of pressure zones will it activate in a room. Now what we are tuning here are these pressure zones. To give them a much more effective and organized way to work with our speaker and room itself. Pressure zones will be more towards acoustical space within the room itself and laminar flow are the pressure build up around the corners travelling along the walls of the room. I tune them by using my voice which i hear and feel the resonance within me. Hearing a change of tone and openness in my voice dictates if the flow is moving away or concentrated in that one particular area. Now I'm not here to argue or prove myself at all. Bringing in physics and other methodological manner is not what im interested as what im doing is more than enough for me to understand and make it work for me. But what I would love to hear from others here is to give it a try by voicing yourself in your room and listen for the changes this itself should give you some idea on what is tuning all about. Now from what Michael has mentioned above concerning those simple cardboard excersises was exactly what I did a few years back which brought out a whole different way of thinking and mind set to me in this hobby. Now onto what Bill has mention concerning on addressing mechanical and eletrical side this is another level of tuning that is equally important. I have removed most of my cable ties in my equipments that I can get my hands on and to be honest I was shocked with the improvments heard and it was a big improvment. As I said I came in with an open mind to what Michael has to offer and was very happy with the results. What got me thinking was how much of improvments I got just from listening to Michaels advise which was tottaly free. Of course knowing that he has such great depth of knowledge eventually gained my trust and of course I looked onto his products to augment my system more. |
The Tunable Speakers I’ve been making speakers a long time like many of you. Early on in my adventures I noticed a problem. Everytime I walked into a different recording studio the same speakers sounded different and I ended up spending all kinds of time playing with the EQ to try to find a reference point between the "Live Room" and the "Control Room" and than there was the playback or "Mastering Room". Guys would take the recordings and play them in their cars, and some used headphones and some just decided to suffer through the control room monitors. You’ve all seen pictures of the recording console with several different pairs of speakers. Many times JBL, NS10’s and one or two others on stand by. In the late 70’s I finally got tired of having to deal with this when I was doing the setups, and I started playing with the idea of making a speaker that I could use with some kind of consistency. For years I would build custom speaker stands and speakers and speaker clamps until I finally landed on something that worked for me. The first tunable speakers were crude torture looking things, but they worked and studios started using them for main mix down monitors the "studio 5". Time went on and I was asked to be the acoustician for UMI (United Musical Instruments). This opened up the door to work more closely with the actual making of horns, wood winds, cellos, guitar, violins, violas and the coolest of cool, building rooms for Steinways. Around 1989 or so I started to make my speakers out of instrument woods instead of MDF and found tons more tone to play with. This put into action the next 15 plus years in design hunting for the right drivers and parts and pieces so that I could make the most simple to drive speaker that I could (and low mass). For tweeters I used ribbons, silk domes, horns and pretty much the full range of everything I could find. Every time I went more complicated I ended up needing crossover work done and my goal was to go crossoverless. I had found the sound of the cap I wanted to use but drivers were a bugger. Finally I threw out everything and started from scratch. On the cabinet side I was doing pretty well as I got the inside tuning bar down to a science. The Tuning bar works like this. Instead of building heavy cabinets the tuning bar applies the force from the inside and the tuning bolt and washer on the outside supplies the inward force. Because the cabinet has both inside and outside force going on you can adjust the cabinets tone. Where most cabinet designs push outward mine equalize the pressure. The wood of the speaker is low mass compressed board treated with instrument finish. Except for the front baffle board which is a guitar body board. The whole speaker is then veneered in cherry. The drivers however were a pain. I didn’t like anything I heard. There use to be some nice stamped drivers made in Europe but lately nothing that was what I wanted. I decided on modifying the standard Vifa D27 or ScanSpeak but still I wasn’t happy. Then it dawned on me to make my own baskets. This changed everything. I saw Kosst said I used 3.5" paper tweeters (stamped) as if that was a bad thing lol. Well it would be a bad thing except my baskets are redwood. Again the "walk" Kosst. All my drivers are redwood voiced drivers. The tone is out of this world. Ask the folks who have them. They’re pretty darn snappy pappy:) The tuning is just as cool as the speaker. Lets say I’m playing cymbals and they are a little loose sounding. Lets say the halos are a tad too wooly. All you do is barely tighten the Tuning Bolt and the cymbal will tighten right up. The new Revs are pretty special. And yes if someone wants the ribbon or silks we do custom sets. We’re doing a set of ribbons right now. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
All this makes interesting, if not debatable reading. I have been to what is one of the acoustically greatest stages in the world, the Sydney Opera House. The magic that happens there is truly a wonder of the world. If I could get my music room to sound 10% of that I would be a happy man. If I could afford I could a worthy stereo, I'd be happy. I read recently about the work Franck Tchang did with his static resonators with different metallic properties. Fascinating. Then there is the SOH with its phenomenal acoustic properties. I haven't travelled to the majestic concert hall of the world, but I will freely admit that acoustics can be changed using all sorts of materials and placement. I would not think there is one spot where a stereo system is perfect in placement in a room. What does change though is the listeners perception of change. I can sit in one chair or another in my lounge and the same LP will sound perceptively different, or the hearing in my ears are way different. Probably the way the breeze passes from one and out the other... :) |
Hi glupson OK, Laminar flow, effect or line. You & Geoff were on target for the name even though my use of the words had to be bent some as I looked at what to call the energy there. If you look on TuneLand you can see the drawings and more description but for the short version here laminar effect works like this. When a source produces the oscillatory motion in a room it stimulates the already established patterns of pressure. Meaning the info contained in the new motion may be different but the pattern has been in play since the enclosure (room, house, dissipative mingle) was built. Part of these mechanics is the room's walls, ceiling and floor. Your room is electronically charged by the Earth's fields. It's actually a continuum capacitor, not only because it is enclosed but also because most homes have electrical wiring surrounding the internal structure. Geoff talks about "time of day" listening. This is a very real event that never stops. Not only does the cycle have certain shifts but also seasonal shifts change the Earth's fundamental interactions inside of every room. Your not hearing things, or should I say you are hearing things. Your hearing things and your feeling things all the time and even though you might think your standing or sitting still watch what happens when you have an inner ear infection, you loose your balance. That's all part of the power your system has. To listen to your particular laminar effect in your room is simple. Pick a wall with not much on it. If you start talking aloud in the center of the room and move toward that wall, when you get about 8" or so from the wall you will hear a sort of splashing sound that travels along the wall heading toward the intersections (seams) of the room. Back away and move forward a few times and you can pin point where the on coming sound pressure engages with the pressure coming back off the wall. This is called the laminar line. From the laminar line to the wall itself is called the laminar flow. Every suface in your room that is able to produce a reflection has a laminar effect. As I said earlier it's a continuum. You don't turn it on or off it's always there. Walk inside of your house and listen to the different sounds of each of your rooms. They all sound different. That's because the materials and their structure (LxWxH) are all different. There's more but I usually break things down to 4 variables, size, material, gravity and charge. How much does the laminar effect play in this? Get 2 friends of yours and try this free experiment. Cut 2 pieces of cardboard out 5"x24". Place your ear about 5" from that wall we were listening to. Have your friends from either side approach you with the cardboards edge touching the wall (the cardboard will be out from the wall about 5"). If you look on TuneLand you will see this. As they approach you from either side you will hear the Laminar zone shrink and as they get right up to you it will sound like the rest of the room has somewhat disappeared. Have them move in the other direction and you will hear the zone open up again. Once you start playing with this you can make your own Sound Shutters out of cardboard or hobby wood and you will be shocked by the control you will gain over your walls. Michael Green www.michaelgreenaudio.net |
@prof I find myself completely falling into your camp of opinion and perspective here, especially after scouring the OP's website for anything that would withstand analytical scrutiny. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, I found myself somewhat appalled sorting the cable section. None of the terminations except the AC cables have any sort of connector body on them. It appears their solder joints are open to the world. And the power strip... It looks like the one in my listening room I run my lighting off of, but mine still has the stock 14AWG cable instead of what I'm assuming is 20AWG based on the name. That strikes me as a fire hazard. 20AWG is only good for about 11 amp in short chassis runs. And speakers with 3.5 inch paper tweeters??? In stamped steel baskets? With ceramic magnets? That jazz would be out of place in today's white van speakers! Finally I clicked on the "More Info" under "About Tuning". To my utter surprise, not a single freaking word! Just a slide show of some rooms. Given the propensity of the site creator to randomly splatter the site with pictures of himself, "Harold", composers, instruments, still life, and women I'd like to see naked, I'm not going to make any bets on these pictures. A tuned dressing room??? Really? Are drop tile ceilings truly the optimum ceiling substrate? Just about every picture has them! Sorry, but I just can't take a lot of wood blocks, incomplete cables, and 3.5" tweeters seriously. There's absolutely no substance. It's vacuous ad copy. There's not even description of what the stuff might do this way or that to tempt a customer to use the product to solve a problem he might have. Except for the tuning bar in the speaker... it loosens or tightens the timbre, whatever that's supposed to mean. This reminds me of my dealings with Roger Paul, the snake oil salesman who invented the "holographic cloning" amplifier. LOTS of claims his stuff did things nothing else in the world can do, which most stuff in fact does, or claims that were just pure lies. NO actual substance to the claims whatsoever. That's the kinda feeling I'm getting here. And just like good ole' Roger, it looks like Mike is loosing his cool under scrutiny and resorting to sophomoric insults and attacks. It's rather pathetic. |
