The biggest secret has been revealed?!

A very good question! No bad questions really. The first thing you imagine is a wire moving back and forth a meter! I know I did.

But remember that this is a velocity, not an amplitude. The amplitude needed to achieve this velocity will depend on the frequency of the induced vibration. I’m thinking it is quite small at say, 1 kHz, but I need to work the math problem. I’ll do it later this week when I have some more time.

On a more anecdotal note, if you’ve ever done live recording you’ve experienced microphonics in Mic cables.

Tom, have fun with it but the cable microphonics are well documented and explained. Google triboelectric effect and condenser mic effect. Many guitar players are familiar with the concept of "handling" the guitar cables. Dealing with CABLE MICROPHONICS – PedalSnake Blog

In fact, some few decades back, we were in the habit of suspending speaker cables on fishing line from the ceiling so they never touched the floor, to prevent static induced signal degradation. There was nothing that could be done for speaker/room borne vibrations obviously and if that even has an effect. (very unlikely). Many careful listening sessions later, we abandoned the silly practice with my audiophile buddies as none of us could ever conclusively hear any difference, not even in the driest, most static inducing winter season when the humidity gets really low in the house...
 
A conductor moving in a magnetic field will create a voltage proportional to the length of the conductor, the strength of the magnetic field, and the velocity the conductor is moving through the magnetic field.

emf=l*h*v

This is Faraday’s Law.
l=length of the conductor in meters
h=field strength in Tesla’s
v=velocity of the conductor in meters/sec.

The earth’s magnetic field is about 0.00005 Tesla.
A 1m cable vibrating with a velocity of 1 m/s would create. 50 uV signal which is actually well above the noise floor of a good system.

I need to do the calculus on just what kind of displacement that is at 1 kHz but it isn’t very much.

Sorry to geek out on you but I am a believer in the basic laws of physics. :)


Impressive. And I accept your apology. :) Along Spock's line of thought, isn't it true that according to laws of physics, bumble bees cannot fly?

According to laws of physics, is it possible to simultaneously isolate an object against all sources of vibration?

In the case of audio, we have 3 primary sources of vibration, floor-borne, air-borne, and internally-generated. In which of your physics books did you read that air-borne vibrations are of primary concern or induce the most harm in our electronics? Which physics book said that once vibrations are captured internally at the component, their source still matters?

Do you have any evidence to share, performance-wise, that might substantiate anythng you may have done from an air-borne vibration mgmt perspective? For example, did your playback presentation do anything other than leak out a tad more musicality? If not, could I not just swap in a superior pair of interconnects and probably outperform all that you may have accomplished with your understanding of laws of physics?

If you're gonna' play the physics card, which always sounds impressive in the forums, where's the fabulous performance gains that sets you apart from those who lack any understanding of physics?

What evidence might you have to share that substantiates the importance of the physics you espouse? Do you have an in-room video you could share of your playback system's performance?

Sorry to play the common sense geek card. :)

BTW, regarding the laws of physics, is it not true that there exists certain unchanging fundamental behaviors regarding energy? For example. Is it not true that energy (perhaps all energy?) seeks first and foremost to travel away from its point source? If this is true, then can you explain how the oh-so-popular vibration isolation methodology meshes with that behavior?

Moreover, since you are a proponent of air-borne vibrations inducing the most sonic harm, how do you address the other two primary sources of vibrations i.e. floor-borne and internally-generated? Does not the laws of nature or physics dictate that if one were to successfully isolate vibrations from one source, does that not imply that one or more other sources of vibrations captured at the component will remain trapped within? If so, isn't a secondary unchanging fundamental behavior of energy that when its ability to travel is restricted or trapped (think isolated), will it not release all of its energy somewhere within that trapped space?

I have no formal education with physics but I too am a firm believer in basic laws of nature (physics). And in my executions with the methodologies I follow, I do all I can to try to stay within those basic laws / principles (not try to twist or change them) and carry them out to their utmost extreme. As such, the results of my endeavors are massive, they are many, they are across the entire frequency spectrum, and after 19 years of dabbling I've yet to encounter a single negative. IMO, those are exactly the kind of results anybody should expect when staying entirely within the laws of nature.

How is it that we both can have such diverse understandings of these same basic laws of nature?
 
Just because UFO are exhibiting maneuvers that are beyond our own technology, they are not necessarily breaking any laws of physics.

Well, you mix everything up.
So, for a theme, we should accept the phenomenon and go looking for the justification for it, reviewing and improving the laws of physics beyond what is conventionally known. But when we talk about audio, we only can apply the conventional rules, and the phenomena that so many testify to are completely emptied.

As to the two cups and a string, that is "mechanical" vibration that has nothing to do with electrical signal propagation in a speaker cable.

You like to have the last word and to win the conversation.
But why don't you just try it and then say something?
Then you can even tell me: I tried it and I didn't hear any differences. That would be enough for me.
 
Well, you mix everything up.
So, for a theme, we should accept the phenomenon and go looking for the justification for it, reviewing and improving the laws of physics beyond what is conventionally known. But when we talk about audio, we only can apply the conventional rules, and the phenomena that so many testify to are completely emptied.



You like to have the last word and to win the conversation.
But why don't you just try it and then say something?
Then you can even tell me: I tried it and I didn't hear any differences. That would be enough for me.
What was it I am supposed to try? Stretch my speaker cables tight?
 
Yes.
Maybe a device like this can help

NCF Booster | FURUTECH
I've played with all kinds of cable risers as well as suspending speaker cables from the ceiling. It is only when one understands the physiology part of the human brain, specifically that our "echoic or auditory memory" lasts only 4 seconds, then one understands that in this hobby, you will hear many different things with many different tweaks, be they real or imagined... Perhaps not even all that important. If you "think" you hear a difference, then enjoy the new level of performance.

Test the echoic memory concept for yourself. The fact that one has to even wonder or guess if there is a difference says it all. How Bad Is Your Auditory (Echoic) Memory? - AcousticsInsider.com - YouTube
 
I've played with all kinds of cable risers as well as suspending speaker cables from the ceiling. It is only when one understands the physiology part of the human brain, specifically that our "echoic or auditory memory" lasts only 4 seconds, then one understands that in this hobby, you will hear many different things with many different tweaks, be they real or imagined... Perhaps not even all that important. If you "think" you hear a difference, then enjoy the new level of performance.

Test the echoic memory concept for yourself. The fact that one has to even wonder or guess if there is a difference says it all. How Bad Is Your Auditory (Echoic) Memory? - AcousticsInsider.com - YouTube

Our audible memory is pretty bad and no doubt it gets in the way routinely. But if it's so bad, how is that the high-end audio industry even exists? If you truly belief our echoic memory is so bad, why are any of us high-end audio enthusiasts?

I didn't watch the youtube video yet, but I'm guessing they make no mention of some who are able to train or develop an ability to discern / interpret what we hear? I find it odd how audio enthusiasts can so easily accept that none of us are inheritly born with the developed skills to be a connoisseur of fine art but they must first be educated and/or trained. Yet, when it comes to our listening skils many think we were just born with such abilities to discern / interpret what we hear so long as we passed a hearing test two years ago.
 
Our audible memory is pretty bad and no doubt it gets in the way routinely. But if it's so bad, how is that the high-end audio industry even exists? If you truly belief our echoic memory is so bad, why are any of us high-end audio enthusiasts?

I didn't watch the youtube video yet, but I'm guessing they make no mention of some who are able to train or develop an ability to discern / interpret what we hear? I find it odd how audio enthusiasts can so easily accept that none of us are inheritly born with the developed skills to be a connoisseur of fine art but they must first be educated and/or trained. Yet, when it comes to our listening skils many think we were just born with such abilities to discern / interpret what we hear so long as we passed a hearing test two years ago.


Good questions. IÂ’ve been into high end audio since the late 80Â’s. Took me 25 years to address and understand the answers those same questions.

1. All our senses can be fooled. Our eyes can even make us hear things differently as strange as that is. Echoic memory is 2-4 seconds, Iconic or visual memory is half a second...

2. All experts are also fooled as documented by wine experts, professional violin players, recording engineers and many others when it comes to not being able to see or not having other information to rely on. Hence far from perfect.

3. Define high resolution... recording engineers, the guys that work with the music were 50/50% or random guess determining high resolution. Recording and careful mastering is much more important than resolution. High resolution, as a measure of quality of the build of the gear itself, as in preserving the fragile signal and remaining faithful to the groove, tape or ones and zeros is obviously important but it is also dependent on the source itself or recording quality or it is wasted or only serves to highlight the flaws of the recording itself.

4. 1 in 10,000 people has pitch perfect hearing. I do not so canÂ’t comment. Perhaps they can hear things differently. Judging by blindfolded violin test fail, maybe not so different than the rest of us...


5. LetÂ’s get philosophical... What are your goals in this hobby? I know my goals and they are to acquire gear to listen to my favorite music that beings me pleasure. Mission accomplished. Period. No new shiny boxes every month for me. What I have is completely satisfactory and I have had serious gear in the past.

If your interest lies in the gear itself, great, itÂ’s your hobby, passion and money. Does a new shiny box, new cables, new power conditioner bring you closer to music? If yes, there you go.


6. What absolutes are you trying to achieve? Our hearing declines with every year that ticks by, many suffer from at least mild tinnitus, hearing loss, 3% of the population suffers from a condition they are born with called phonagnosia, where they do not recognize voices of even loved ones.


So why does high end audio exist? Why does any hobby or passion exist? Cars, art, watches, fine wine or even gourmet food and fancy restaurants? I think the answer is obvious. Yet the wine experts still fail... confusing white for red blindfolded.


The moment Diana Krall’s piano and voice rang out “temptation” in that studio, on that day in space and time, just like we are no longer in the same place in the universe, so is that moment, forever gone and replaced by a less than perfect copy of the event. You weren’t there, I wasn’t there, what I hear at home is absolutely fine for my purposes of this hobby. Perhaps you need to get closer still.

Will a new cable get me closer to the less than perfect recording? Even if it did, I have been perfectly happy with my speaker cables for over a decade now, whatever they do or donÂ’t do. IÂ’m listening to much more music than ever yet interest in gear is just about nonexistent unless I decide to setup another system or need to change due to new technology pushing me there.

Perhaps others have other ideas and a different philosophy.
 
Good questions. IÂ’ve been into high end audio since the late 80Â’s. Took me 25 years to address and understand the answers those same questions.

1. All our senses can be fooled. Our eyes can even make us hear things differently as strange as that is. Echoic memory is 2-4 seconds, Iconic or visual memory is half a second...

2. All experts are also fooled as documented by wine experts, professional violin players, recording engineers and many others when it comes to not being able to see or not having other information to rely on. Hence far from perfect.

3. Define high resolution... recording engineers, the guys that work with the music were 50/50% or random guess determining high resolution. Recording and careful mastering is much more important than resolution. High resolution, as a measure of quality of the build of the gear itself, as in preserving the fragile signal and remaining faithful to the groove, tape or ones and zeros is obviously important but it is also dependent on the source itself or recording quality or it is wasted or only serves to highlight the flaws of the recording itself.

4. 1 in 10,000 people has pitch perfect hearing. I do not so canÂ’t comment. Perhaps they can hear things differently. Judging by blindfolded violin test fail, maybe not so different than the rest of us...

With all due respect, after 25 years of being into high-end audio, these negatives are your walk-away?

5. LetÂ’s get philosophical... What are your goals in this hobby? I know my goals and they are to acquire gear to listen to my favorite music that beings me pleasure. Mission accomplished. Period. No new shiny boxes every month for me. What I have is completely satisfactory and I have had serious gear in the past.

So you acquired gear and mission accomplished? Yes, you are a music lover no doubt about it. But where does hi-fidelity or high-end audio enter the picture? There are perhaps over 7 billion music lovers who do not subscribe to high-end audio forums. Why do you?

If your interest lies in the gear itself, great, itÂ’s your hobby, passion and money. Does a new shiny box, new cables, new power conditioner bring you closer to music? If yes, there you go.

Has it ever occurred to you that plug'n play systems i.e. hardware acquired and plugged in and played is like the most base level of musicality one can achieve? Even SOTA-level playback systems must be carefully configured and nurtured to great degrees before they're worth listening to.

6. What absolutes are you trying to achieve? Our hearing declines with every year that ticks by, many suffer from at least mild tinnitus, hearing loss, 3% of the population suffers from a condition they are born with called phonagnosia, where they do not recognize voices of even loved ones.

Yes, our hearing declines but there are also compensations for that. Additionally, much of that decline is in higher frequencies but the bulk of music is below say 10kHz so most of us are good for some time to come.

So why does high end audio exist? Why does any hobby or passion exist? Cars, art, watches, fine wine or even gourmet food and fancy restaurants? I think the answer is obvious. Yet the wine experts still fail... confusing white for red blindfolded.

Actually, I asked if echoic memory is sooooooo short for us all, why are any of us here in a high-end audio forum and why is there a high-end audio industry? My hunch is the so-called experts who tell us these things e.g. we only use 3% of brain capacity (now they say it's 10%) aren't really quite the experts we make them out to be. And high-end audio seems loaded with that stuff.

The moment Diana Krall’s piano and voice rang out “temptation” in that studio, on that day in space and time, just like we are no longer in the same place in the universe, so is that moment, forever gone and replaced by a less than perfect copy of the event. You weren’t there, I wasn’t there, what I hear at home is absolutely fine for my purposes of this hobby. Perhaps you need to get closer still.

Understood. Yes, the live performance occurred in a moment in time and is now history. But we do have recordings that captured the live performance. How much less than perfect a copy is that recording? That's an easy question. Those who do nothing to improve their playback system's presentation will tell us recordings for the most part are very poor facimilies. Those like Spock might say, it's absolutely incredibile how much of the live performance was captured in any given recording.

Will a new cable get me closer to the less than perfect recording? Even if it did, I have been perfectly happy with my speaker cables for over a decade now, whatever they do or donÂ’t do. IÂ’m listening to much more music than ever yet interest in gear is just about nonexistent unless I decide to setup another system or need to change due to new technology pushing me there.

Perhaps others have other ideas and a different philosophy.

Understood and no worries. You enjoy music and you have no problem listening to playback music perfoming at its base level. Many are satisfied with that. I just hope that you or those like you are not trying to bring others like Spock or anybody else down to your same base level of enjoyment. Personally, I'd rather you be alone in your music pleasures. Some people are performance driven and I get the impression somebody like Spock is looking not at acquiring new equipment (though he may) but rather is looking under every corner of the carpet, experimenting and trying new things to extract the very most from what he has. It's probably his nature to extract the very best from whatever he has a passion for.

Spock may experience many more frustrations than you in his quest, but my hunch is he is also experiencing far more pleasure from his playback system than you. But it's just a hunch.
 
Thanks for the replies. It is a very broad hobby that encompasses many different aspects. From the love of music itself, as well as the pleasure of collecting and enjoying music, to the ever evolving and quite impressive gear from the masterminds behind it, the appreciation of the expression of such technological advancements as an art of creating absolute gems of musical pleasure. If one enjoys the hobby, does it really matter? Who cares what one can or cannot really hear and if some aspects are real or a figment of the imagination based on the limitations of being human..

The point being, you only live once, so enjoy to the fullest, whatever turns you on.
 
Some people are performance driven and I get the impression somebody like Spock is looking not at acquiring new equipment (though he may) but rather is looking under every corner of the carpet, experimenting and trying new things to extract the very most from what he has. It's probably his nature to extract the very best from whatever he has a passion for.

You are absolutely right and you nailed it.
Because I am the first critic of my system and its flaws, I always hear my audiophile friends saying to me: you need to buy this you need to buy that.
Sometimes I feel tempted, but then I do another experiment that reveals another layer and once again I feel that there is still a lot to explore in the active components that I have. As you say
An inferior foundation creates a universal performance-limiting governor that ensure our components can only operate at their base performance levels whereas a superior foundation allows our components to perform far closer to their optimal levels. Levels that even their designers could only dream of.
-------------------------------------------------------------xx--------------------------------------------------------
Those who do nothing to improve their playback system's presentation will tell us recordings for the most part are very poor facimilies. Those like Spock might say, it's absolutely incredibile how much of the live performance was captured in any given recording.

Once again you hit the nail on the head.
Many years ago, in a portuguese forum, a group of audiophiles complained about bad recordings (which they claimed to be the majority) and protested against the compression and loudness war, as if everything was compressed. As always, they write, write but do not give examples. After much insisting, there were some examples, including Michael Jackson's Thriller and Metallica's Black Album. After I made the defense of the recordings in question, one of them came to say that anyway, his system played a lot of jazz and that this was the style of music that he listened to the most.
And here begins the first big mistake of many audiophiles: a system does not have to play a musical genre well. It must play everything.
 
You are absolutely right and you nailed it.

....

Once again you hit the nail on the head.

....

And here begins the first big mistake of many audiophiles: a system does not have to play a musical genre well. It must play everything.

Spock, do you ever feel like you're being watched? :)

Agreed. One of the popular folklore is that playback systems handle some music genre well but not others. Sure some of us may purchase limited-range speakers rather than full-range, etc But that's our doing and has nothing to do with a system's actual playback presentation limitations. To say our playback systems are limited to certain genre is essentially saying our playback systems possess the intelligence to discriminate between genre's and last time I checked the pluck of a guitar string is a pluck of a guitar string, whether it be a rock concert or a hillbilly ho-down.
 
Spock, do you ever feel like you're being watched? :)

Ah! :thumbsup:

To say our playback systems are limited to certain genre is essentially saying our playback systems possess the intelligence to discriminate between genre's

I would not say that some systems chooses a genre of music, but that they rejects other genres.
It is not by chance that the most mentioned genre is jazz. In jazz we find mainly small groups (trios, quartets), with musical compositions often based on a protagonist instrument, which allows the system to shine.
But when the music gets more complex and the system goes down, something is not right. I remember my Pioneer stereo from the 90s. It played everything! Then I went looking for that more refined sound, with another instrumental separation and I also found myself thinking (and excusing the system) that now I had a much more correct view of the quality of the recordings and if I didn't play well it was because it was poor recorded. As everything in life has a meaning, going through this phase allowed me to open my musical taste to jazz (which I didn't particularly like) and other more experimental sound proposals, but not very complex from the point of view of the number of instruments.
 
I would not say that some systems chooses a genre of music, but that they rejects other genres.
It is not by chance that the most mentioned genre is jazz. In jazz we find mainly small groups (trios, quartets), with musical compositions often based on a protagonist instrument, which allows the system to shine.
But when the music gets more complex and the system goes down, something is not right. I remember my Pioneer stereo from the 90s. It played everything! Then I went looking for that more refined sound, with another instrumental separation and I also found myself thinking (and excusing the system) that now I had a much more correct view of the quality of the recordings and if I didn't play well it was because it was poor recorded. As everything in life has a meaning, going through this phase allowed me to open my musical taste to jazz (which I didn't particularly like) and other more experimental sound proposals, but not very complex from the point of view of the number of instruments.

Good point. But have you considered the possibility that the audible impact of unchanging distortions (think a playback system's much raised electronics-induced noise floor) become more easily apparent with greater dynamic / complex passages? The very same reason many cannot listen to their system near or at live performance volume levels? And that's why many prefer jazz which is a genre often times considered less complex / dynamic to numerous other genres?

BTW, I'd like to discuss what you've got going on with your cabling. Could you pm me or at least point me to your most detailed posts about the subject? Thanks,
 
Good point. But have you considered the possibility that the audible impact of unchanging distortions (think a playback system's much raised electronics-induced noise floor) become more easily apparent with greater dynamic / complex passages? The very same reason many cannot listen to their system near or at live performance volume levels? And that's why many prefer jazz which is a genre often times considered less complex / dynamic to numerous other genres?

BTW, I'd like to discuss what you've got going on with your cabling. Could you pm me or at least point me to your most detailed posts about the subject? Thanks,

Complete and total nonsense. Jazz recordings are known for their dynamic range and their lifelike sound.
 
Recorded music has limitations... If one is to appreciate the lowest to loudest passages within a reasonable SPL, compression must be used.

Conclusion:
The dynamic range of recorded music across genres based on an audio corpus of 1,000 songs was found to be smaller than the dynamic range of monologue speech in quiet. Samples from modern genres such as pop, rap, rock, and schlager generally had the smallest dynamic range, followed by samples from jazz and classical genres such as chamber, choir, orchestra, piano, and opera. Only in the lower frequencies was the dynamic range of speech surpassed by the dynamic range of music, and then only in the case of chamber music, opera, and orchestra.
 
Recorded music has limitations... If one is to appreciate the lowest to loudest passages within a reasonable SPL, compression must be used.

Conclusion:
The dynamic range of recorded music across genres based on an audio corpus of 1,000 songs was found to be smaller than the dynamic range of monologue speech in quiet. Samples from modern genres such as pop, rap, rock, and schlager generally had the smallest dynamic range, followed by samples from jazz and classical genres such as chamber, choir, orchestra, piano, and opera. Only in the lower frequencies was the dynamic range of speech surpassed by the dynamic range of music, and then only in the case of chamber music, opera, and orchestra.

That's not possible unless they cherry picked 1,000 songs recorded during the loudness wars.
 
That's not possible unless they cherry picked 1,000 songs recorded during the loudness wars.

Current world record is 113dB singing and 121dB shouting/yelling. Both females. The human voice has a frequency range from 85Hz to nearly 5KHz. So from the softest whisper that can be heard just above the noise floor of the room to potential 121dB. Can your recordings and system match that?
 
Back
Top