The biggest secret has been revealed?!

You should have put quotes around your post because you lifted every word directly from the link you posted. Measuring loudness levels in a new way is not tied to the discussion you were trying to create about dynamic range. You are still confusing loudness levels with dynamic range. Anyone who posts that someone speaking in a monotone voice has more dynamic range than jazz recordings has zero credibility on this topic.

Then the article has zero credibility. You sir, are a very condescending man indeed. Must not be easy being you on a daily basis?

I did not confuse loudness for dynamic range. I simply added another interesting topic. You still have not presented me with evidence of a recording of greater than 40dB. You lose.

Here, I'll put the following in "quotes"

"Condescending behavior is having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority; showing that you consider yourself better or more intelligent. It is usually intended to make people feel bad about not knowing or having something and it often works."

Have a nice day...
 
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.

As an LP mastering engineer, I've yet to encounter a recording that actually required compression. Its certainly true that if I had simply used compression I'd have been able to get the job out faster. But I've found that if you spend a little more time with the project you can sort out how to master it without any processing.

BTW anti-vibration is used in more areas of expertise other than audio. That is why anti-vibration stands exist for microscopes. They are also used for telescopes. I hope that the reasons for this are obvious.
 
As an LP mastering engineer, I've yet to encounter a recording that actually required compression. Its certainly true that if I had simply used compression I'd have been able to get the job out faster. But I've found that if you spend a little more time with the project you can sort out how to master it without any processing.

BTW anti-vibration is used in more areas of expertise other than audio. That is why anti-vibration stands exist for microscopes. They are also used for telescopes. I hope that the reasons for this are obvious.

Sure, the active vibration isolation platforms are indeed used for scanning microscopes and other sensitive laboratory equipment but not because any of the electronic components can "shift" or change "value" due to vibration.

I have asked folks before to provide any evidence of vibrations causing a "shift" in electronic components so that the change in an audio signal would then be an obvious answer. I am still waiting to this day.

I am also aware what the military grade testing procedures for electronic components are and no where does vibration measures and drifting values (other than to the point of mechanical failure of solder joints or components themselves) come into play.

It would be tough to send missiles, rockets, shuttles, etc to the Moon, Mars, outside our solar system if vibration encountered along the way would cause electronic components to drift and cause erroneous results... It would also be impossible to completely isolate electronic components from experiencing vibrational levels of high G loadings, such as space flight and leaving our planet. We all see what the astronauts go through while leaving our atmosphere.

It is not a problem for Darpa, NASA, ex Soviet Union tube powered military but it is a problem for the audiophile sitting in his living room and listening to Diana Krall...

Soviet MIG-25 was still using vacuum tubes for avionics (to be EMP proof in case of that scenario playing out) and experiencing G-Loading and vibrational levels way beyond anything encountered by an audiophile.

Give me a break guys... There are things that make sense and those that simply go against science and logic. But if one hears it... what does it matter right? ;)


I am not a recording engineer, I would not argue which recordings do or do not need compression. Common sense tells me that an orchestra is capable of reaching over 115dB and that simply would not be able to be captured by vinyl nor reproduced at home on any grade system without the recording being compressed into a more "digestible" format.
 
"A large orchestra can reach a dynamic range of 60 dB. This means that the maximum level is around 100 dBSPL, which is similar to a disco. If this dynamic range were to be played back without compression in the flat from the previous example, one would have to expect a maximum level of 120 dBSPL!"
 
Sure, the active vibration isolation platforms are indeed used for scanning microscopes and other sensitive laboratory equipment but not because any of the electronic components can "shift" or change "value" due to vibration.

I have asked folks before to provide any evidence of vibrations causing a "shift" in electronic components so that the change in an audio signal would then be an obvious answer. I am still waiting to this day.

I am also aware what the military grade testing procedures for electronic components are and no where does vibration measures and drifting values (other than to the point of mechanical failure of solder joints or components themselves) come into play.

It would be tough to send missiles, rockets, shuttles, etc to the Moon, Mars, outside our solar system if vibration encountered along the way would cause electronic components to drift and cause erroneous results... It would also be impossible to completely isolate electronic components from experiencing vibrational levels of high G loadings, such as space flight and leaving our planet. We all see what the astronauts go through while leaving our atmosphere.

It is not a problem for Darpa, NASA, ex Soviet Union tube powered military but it is a problem for the audiophile sitting in his living room and listening to Diana Krall...

Soviet MIG-25 was still using vacuum tubes for avionics (to be EMP proof in case of that scenario playing out) and experiencing G-Loading and vibrational levels way beyond anything encountered by an audiophile.

Give me a break guys... There are things that make sense and those that simply go against science and logic. But if one hears it... what does it matter right? ;)


I am not a recording engineer, I would not argue which recordings do or do not need compression. Common sense tells me that an orchestra is capable of reaching over 115dB and that simply would not be able to be captured by vinyl nor reproduced at home on any grade system without the recording being compressed into a more "digestible" format.

IMO, vibration isolation is such a grossly inferior methodology I don't even consider it a valid methodology. If, and it is so, the point source for vibrations is our components, the isolation "methodology" traps the vibrations within and causes the universal performance-limiting governor every last playback system is up against. But taken on its face, isolation makes oh so much sense.

And yes, a vibration's behaviors as well as superior vibration controlling methods are universal and unchanging and hence should be eqaully applicable to all industries wherever performance is paramount. Did I mention that when taken on its face, isolation makes oh so much sense?
 
IMO, vibration isolation is such a grossly inferior methodology I don't even consider it a valid methodology. If, and it is so, the point source for vibrations is our components, the isolation "methodology" traps the vibrations within and causes the universal performance-limiting governor every last playback system is up against. But taken on its face, isolation makes oh so much sense.

And yes, a vibration's behaviors as well as superior vibration controlling methods are universal and unchanging and hence should be eqaully applicable to all industries wherever performance is paramount. Did I mention that when taken on its face, isolation makes oh so much sense?

Just to be sure I understand your point. Are you implying that my DAC, Preamp or Amp is creating vibration all of themselves? Or do you mean they are affected by the soundwaves (bubbles actually) created by the moving cones of speakers and propagating through the room while affecting and creating vibration for everything in it?

Do you have any evidence of our components being point sources of vibration? Speakers and mechanical devices such as turntables and tape decks excluded of course which is obvious for any mechanical/moving part.
 
Are you implying that my DAC, Preamp or Amp is creating vibration all of themselves?

This is easy to answer: of course! :D

And this is my point. Does (micro) vibrations introduced / captured by the system increase the distortion, and the subjective (objective?) dynamic perception of the recordings? On the other hand, if we (can) remove this garbage, would we have more pleasure in the listening, with a subjective (objective?) perception of a less compressed sound?
 
This is easy to answer: of course! :D

And this is my point. Does (micro) vibrations introduced / captured by the system increase the distortion, and the subjective (objective?) dynamic perception of the recordings? On the other hand, if we (can) remove this garbage, would we have more pleasure in the listening, with a subjective (objective?) perception of a less compressed sound?

It is not easy to answer at all. I will once again ask for evidence of any drift/shift/change in performance by any electronic component within the context of our system. Mechanical/moving devices excluded. If there is no evidence of any drift/shift/change of values/response of components, why would you assume that something has changed due to vibration? Because your ears are telling you that your system sounds better with a maple vs metal or glass shelf?
 
Just to be sure I understand your point. Are you implying that my DAC, Preamp or Amp is creating vibration all of themselves? Or do you mean they are affected by the soundwaves (bubbles actually) created by the moving cones of speakers and propagating through the room while affecting and creating vibration for everything in it?

Do you have any evidence of our components being point sources of vibration? Speakers and mechanical devices such as turntables and tape decks excluded of course which is obvious for any mechanical/moving part.

Let me try this.

It's important to note that when electrical current flows thru a wire or electronic object, that flow will induce vibrations small or great. For a "great" example, think power supplies.

1. Air-borne and internally-generated vibration will be captured at the component/speaker and nothing can stop this from happening.

2. Floor-borne vibrations will not be captured at the component/speaker because once captured they become the point source and energy's behavior is such that it seeks first and foremost to travel away from its point source. IOW, since the components/speaker are the point source, the flow of their unwanted energy is directed toward the floor - provided they are given such an exit path (not trapped within).

Regardless of which source(s) of vibrations are captured at the component/speaker, once captured the component/speaker becomes the point source.

The isolation method especially the "superior" versions will attempt to ensure that unwanted energy remains trapped within and hence, release its energy within.

That should do it. In a nutshell. Did I mention that on its face, the isolation methodology makes oh so much sense? :)
 
Let me try this.

It's important to note that when electrical current flows thru a wire or electronic object, that flow will induce vibrations small or great. For a "great" example, think power supplies.

1. Air-borne and internally-generated vibration will be captured at the component/speaker and nothing can stop this from happening.

2. Floor-borne vibrations will not be captured at the component/speaker because once captured they become the point source and energy's behavior is such that it seeks first and foremost to travel away from its point source. IOW, since the components/speaker are the point source, the flow of their unwanted energy is directed toward the floor - provided they are given such an exit path (not trapped within).

Regardless of which source(s) of vibrations are captured at the component/speaker, once captured the component/speaker becomes the point source.

The isolation method especially the "superior" versions will attempt to ensure that unwanted energy remains trapped within and hence, release its energy within.

That should do it. In a nutshell. Did I mention that on its face, the isolation methodology makes oh so much sense? :)

The earth spinning on its axis and background micro vibrations is also a source. Where is the proof any of it changes sound? You are speaking of controlling vibrations but offer no proof that it makes a difference. It’s like a mousetrap for a fictional or folklore pest?
 
I will once again ask for evidence of any drift/shift/change in performance by any electronic component within the context of our system.
Because your ears are telling you that...?

You want "keyboard proofs", where everyone writes what they want.
Of course, in the final analysis, it is my ears that tell me that.
And I am not alone. In fact, in the text that served as the motto for this post says

Self-induced vibrations are generated within the component either by mechanical devices (CD drives, transports, etc.), and smaller micro-vibrations generated by transformers.
 
You want "keyboard proofs", where everyone writes what they want.
Of course, in the final analysis, it is my ears that tell me that.
And I am not alone. In fact, in the text that served as the motto for this post says

Self-induced vibrations are generated within the component either by mechanical devices (CD drives, transports, etc.), and smaller micro-vibrations generated by transformers.

Right, so in the absence of any proof, it takes us right back to the fact that our echoic or audible memory is 2-4 seconds and that is a scientific fact. :rolleyes: Besides, if vibration isolation has any effect, then there would be a vector by which one can fine tune the response of whatever component can possibly make that happen. Why would it always be for the best only (as is a list always the claim in audio).

One way to prove it would be an anechoic chamber, a quality a microphone and a resolving enough system with speakers to capture the resulting sound from the components being on a shaker table... Let’s see anything change. If the recording analysis does not show a change from the sound coming out of the speakers, then it is not existent for your ears either. Who is willing to put their product to the test? ;)

I’d love to be proven wrong but until then, I shall remain a skeptic and yes, I have played around with just about every every form of a tweak from A-Z over 30 plus years. So it’s not for the lack of trying.
 
attachment.php
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. :)

I said I would finish the analysis so here it is, with a little background. I confused some folks with the 1 m/sec comment, but remember that is a velocity, not an amplitude.

I used a sine wave in the analysis to make the math simple. Arbitrary waveforms can be analyzed using Fourier analysis. Derivation is in the attachment.

The amplitude A of a vibration needed to create a velocity v of the same conductor is simply A=v/w where w= angular velocity = 2*Pi*f where f = frequency of the vibration.

So, at 1 kHz and a velocity of 1 m/sec we get an amplitude of 160 microns. About the width of a human hair. Slightly larger than an RCH, probably about the same width as a muggeseggele. (Look it up)

Is this audible? I don’t know and it’s not my purpose here to make that call. Believers will believe, non-believers won’t - pretty cut and dried.

Suffice it to say that a small amount of movement in a wire is enough to create a voltage that will turn your beautiful 24 bit signal (really only 21 bits but that’s a subject for another day) into a 14 bit one.


Somebody asked about vibration effects on other electronic components. Sure, there are plenty. Common ceramic capacitors with high Q dielectrics like X7R and COG exhibit piezoelectric properties and so can create voltages under vibration. This is especially true of MLCC SMT capacitors. Other large film and foil capacitors will also exhibit value modulation under vibration. The Crystal oscillators that are so foundational to digital audio are very susceptible to even small vibrations, which modulate their output frequency.
 

Attachments

  • 1831A227-EB38-4D27-873B-2A75C6A69040.jpeg
    1831A227-EB38-4D27-873B-2A75C6A69040.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 146
The earth spinning on its axis and background micro vibrations is also a source. Where is the proof any of it changes sound? You are speaking of controlling vibrations but offer no proof that it makes a difference. It’s like a mousetrap for a fictional or folklore pest?

You neglected to mention that the earth is revolving at the Equator at 1000 mph, the earth is orbiting the sun at 66k mph, and the galaxy is traveling thru the universe at 450k mph. Ever hear of the phrase, still waters? Think that phrase is folklore? Please pour yourself a glass of water and let it settle on the counter and then study it closely for any visual movement. Then again, nothing is entirely stable, is it?

I should note again that it's impossible to isolate any ojbect from all sources of vibration simultaneously. And if one successfully isolates vibrations from one source, then inherently the vibrations from at least one other source remain trapped.

But the bottom line is, unwanted energy can never be isolated or squashed but it can be redirected before it induces its catastrophic harm. Exactly like lightning and a lightning rod, grounding wire, and grounding spike.

BTW, I've already provided a few in-room videos but remember that you're a music lover first.



The folklore lies with the vibration isolation method. In fact, when taken to the extreme, the resonant energy transfer methodology (the one true methodology) I employ not only exposes the vibration isolation method for what it is not, it also potentially exposes about 10 other very popular folklore in high-end audio.

I have better examples but in this video which was already posted, the in-room volume levels were about 104db peak. Most other playback systems start to fall apart long before reaching that volume level. The format is DVD - roughly the equivalent to the supposedly inferior Redbook format. The playback system itself i.e. the source, the amps, subwoofer, and speakers combined retailed new for $11k - which is chump change by today's standards (excluding the $17k invested in extreme forms of electrical and mechanical energy mgmt). But compare this level of musicality to any playback system at any cost. Also, there is no active linestage and yet the dynamics are perhaps more natural and realistic than any active linestage could offer.

Even though this in-room video is a counterfeit of a counterfeit of a counterfeit of the original live performance and you may be listening to it via headphones, listen closely and carefully consider whether your listening perspecive is in the listening room or somewhere / anywhere inside the concert hall. That's because soooo much more music info remains audible above the system's drastically lowered noise floor rather than inaudible below a much raise noise floor. In this video you should be hearing volumes more of the live peformance's ambient info (the lowest of all low-level detail) at the speaker that vibration isolation makes inaudible. I'm guessing you'd be pretty hard-pressed to point me toward another playback system at any price with this level of musicality, dynamics, and sense of realism especially at these volume levels.

I should also note that my just barely reasonble enough listening room contains no acoustic treatments or bass traps which is more folklore. IOW, with the vibration mgmt methodology I employ so much more music info remains audible at the speaker (due to a drastically lowered system noise floor) that most/all room acoustic anomalies are so completely overshadowed, that the room is essentially gone and now your listening perspective should be somewhere / anywhere in the recording hall. This applies to most any inferior-engineered recording including those from the 50's, 60's, etc.

Lastly, I care zero about floor-borne vibrations which is just more folklore required for isolaiton folklore to exist and have purpose. My subwoofer is about 2ft to the right of my custom racking system in the vdieo. Both are coupled firmly to the subflooring and may even share the same floor joist. That's how much I care about floor-borne vibrations and my routine listening near / at live performance volume levels is just more proof that I don't care about floor-borne vibrations. I also don't care about air-borne vibrations or at least I don't think I care. What I do care about is the multitude of internally-generated vibrations or resonant energy induced by electric current flow that establishes a playback system's much raised noise floor perhaps the moment we push the power on button. The one energy type nobody else seems to care about.

And be sure to crank up the volume to ensure you get the fullest effect.
 
Then the article has zero credibility. You sir, are a very condescending man indeed. Must not be easy being you on a daily basis?

I did not confuse loudness for dynamic range. I simply added another interesting topic. You still have not presented me with evidence of a recording of greater than 40dB. You lose.

Here, I'll put the following in "quotes"

"Condescending behavior is having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority; showing that you consider yourself better or more intelligent. It is usually intended to make people feel bad about not knowing or having something and it often works."

Have a nice day...

Now you are confusing someone that points out obvious errors with statements you were trying to present as “facts” with condescension. It’s hopeless to have a meaningful dialog with you. Uncle.
 
Now you are confusing someone that points out obvious errors with statements you were trying to present as “facts” with condescension. It’s hopeless to have a meaningful dialog with you. Uncle.

Remember, I only quoted an article written by scientists involved with the topic. They are the ones who compiled 1000 pieces of music to compare to conversational speech and compare/contrast dynamic range of such. You said it had "zero credibility" undermining other people's work without offering an ounce of proof to the contrary. That really IS condescending in my book.
 
attachment.php


I said I would finish the analysis so here it is, with a little background. I confused some folks with the 1 m/sec comment, but remember that is a velocity, not an amplitude.

I used a sine wave in the analysis to make the math simple. Arbitrary waveforms can be analyzed using Fourier analysis. Derivation is in the attachment.

The amplitude A of a vibration needed to create a velocity v of the same conductor is simply A=v/w where w= angular velocity = 2*Pi*f where f = frequency of the vibration.

So, at 1 kHz and a velocity of 1 m/sec we get an amplitude of 160 microns. About the width of a human hair. Slightly larger than an RCH, probably about the same width as a muggeseggele. (Look it up)

Is this audible? I don’t know and it’s not my purpose here to make that call. Believers will believe, non-believers won’t - pretty cut and dried.

Suffice it to say that a small amount of movement in a wire is enough to create a voltage that will turn your beautiful 24 bit signal (really only 21 bits but that’s a subject for another day) into a 14 bit one.


Somebody asked about vibration effects on other electronic components. Sure, there are plenty. Common ceramic capacitors with high Q dielectrics like X7R and COG exhibit piezoelectric properties and so can create voltages under vibration. This is especially true of MLCC SMT capacitors. Other large film and foil capacitors will also exhibit value modulation under vibration. The Crystal oscillators that are so foundational to digital audio are very susceptible to even small vibrations, which modulate their output frequency.

Tom, as I have mentioned it before in this thread, this can all be easily proved/disproved. Shaker table, anechoic chamber, microphone, software, compare signals coming out the speakers. No difference, zero effect, difference, then some components are changing values due to vibration and thus would benefit from some form of vibrational control or better choice of electronic components. I am aware of the piezo electric effect of "some" capacitors by the way but would never think that the minute vibrations of an audio piece in a listening room would be enough to even register a difference in measurement. I have never looked into it beyond that. Cool analysis, would be good to see it proved! You may be on to something with this.
 
Back
Top