Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Blackmorec]

I already explained, it’s not (rpt not) a classics physics issue, it’s a quantum mechanical issue. No, I’m not hot dogging you. Only the electric fields on CDs issue is a classical physics issue. The issue with books is also a quantum mechanics issue. Furthermore as I’ve commented on previously there are a great many things in listening rooms that hurt the sound that are quantum mechanical in the way they operate. Even though all these things are in no way in the signal path anywhere in the system, not house AC, speakers, electronics,, acoustic waves, etc.

An attempt at satire? What possible reason would I have to do that?

Here are examples of what I’m referring to, but certainly not all by any means,

Cellphones
Watches
Clocks
Radios
TVs
Computers
Laptops
Unused audio gear
Musical instruments

The reason a lot of the gear mentioned affects sound has to do with the passive loudspeakers they contain that absorb and reradiate energy at various frequencies

To demonstrate the effect, play a piece of music with good rhythmic drive and imaging then play the same track with a passive loudspeaker placed between your speakers and see if you can hear a difference.

 

[Geoffkait]

The reason a lot of the gear mentioned affects sound has to do with the passive loudspeakers they contain that absorb and reradiate energy at various frequencies

To demonstrate the effect, play a piece of music with good rhythmic drive and imaging then play the same track with a passive loudspeaker placed between your speakers and see if you can hear a difference.

I have a hunch people assume it’s because of the passive resonance of the speakers or some such thing. What I am referring to is unused electronics in the room, unused cables and cords, musical instruments. It’s the same idea as the CDs or LP# in the room, people assume any change in sound is due to their acting as diffusers or resonators or dampers. Careful experimentation will prove otherwise. By the way they say the same sort of thing about cellphones in thr room, that the culprit is the tiny loudspeaker in the cellphone. Cut me some slack Jack. You can remove the tiny loudspeaker and the cellphone still affects the sound.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

Cut me some slack Jack

Jack, you may have all the slack you desire. And that's a fact, Jack. Some of these other items, to me, wander a bit away from the neighborhood of fact. At least to me. But I am nothing, if not a "live and let jive" fellow, so carry on bravely.

 

[Geoffkait]

Jack, you may have all the slack you desire. And that's a fact, Jack. Some of these other items, to me, wander a bit away from the neighborhood of fact. At least to me. But I am nothing, if not a "live and let jive" fellow, so carry on bravely.rush in where

People would generally be better off if they believed in too much rather than too little. - PT Barnum

The river is deep and wide, break on through to the other side. - Anonymous

 

[Robh3606]

People would generally be better off if they believed in too much rather than too little. - PT Barnum

Considering the author and his other famous quotes

"Many people are gullible and we can expect that to continue"

And "You can fool most of the people most of the time"

An odd man to reference in a thread about "everything makes a difference"

Rob

 

[Geoffkait]

Considering the author and his other famous quotes

"Many people are gullible and we can expect that to continue"

And "You can fool most of the people most of the time"

An odd man to reference in a thread about "everything makes a difference"

Rob

The world’s greatest showman brings down the heat. Didn’t Abe Lincoln say that last one, who knows? Be that as it may, the actual quote is, “You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.”

From somewhere in cyberspace,

“”There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum, an American showman of the mid-19th century, although there is no evidence that he actually said it. Early examples of its use are found among gamblers and confidence tricksters.”

Knowledge can be sometimes be defined as whatever’s left after you forgot what you learned in school.

 

[Blackmorec]

But I’m not referring to that particular thing, although I have a hunch everyone assumes it’s because of the “passive resonance of the speakers or some such thing. What I am referring to is unused electronics in the room, unused cables and cords, musical instruments. It’s the same idea as the CDs or LP# in the room, people assume any change in sound is due to their acting as diffusers or resonators or dampers. Careful experimentation will prove otherwise. I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. By the way they say the same thing about cellphones in thr room, that the change in sound with the cellphone in and out of the room is due to the tiny loudspeaker in the cellphone. Cut me some slack Jack.

I would have thought the reasons a cellphone may cause changes to the sound are likely due to a combination of the cheap-as-chips SMPS charger, RFI and the loudspeaker, which operates in a critical frequency range.

 

[Geoffkait]

I would have thought the reasons a cellphone may cause changes to the sound are likely due to a combination of the cheap-as-chips SMPS charger, RFI and the loudspeaker, which operates in a critical frequency range.

Yes, I’ve heard those reasons. None of them are correct. The only way to prevent the cellphone from hurting the sound is to remove it entirely from the room. It’s the same general reason that watches and clocks hurt the sound. Turning the cellphone OFF doesn’t help, nor does getting rid of the SMPS charger, nor does removing the loudspeaker. So it must be something else, no? Sometimes in order to get to the bottom of things you have roll up your sleeves and devise experiments that consider all possibilities, not only the ones bandied about.

Sometimes Occam’s razor is not the right answer. - Audiophile axiom

 

[Geoffkait]

So anyways, here is a preview of my new theory of audio, the more things you remove from the room, the better the sound will become. Thus, this equation: Sound Quality is inversely proportional to entropy. However, at the top of the list of things to remove are the things I commented on here the past few days. Yes, it’s OK to keep some room treatments.

In a large sense I’m saying here that Everything Makes a Difference, just that there’s a definite methodology involved.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...is it OK to keep the speakers, or should one switch to headphones only?

 

[Geoffkait]

The best possible sound would be when nothing was in the room. No?

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...I guess it depends on what your definition of "nothing" is. From here, I find no faults in your system/room. I imagine it sounds great!

 

[Geoffkait]

...I guess it depends on what your definition of "nothing" is. From here, I find no faults in your system/room. I imagine it sounds great!

My definition of nothing is no objects, nothing, no equipment, no cables, no people. Nothing. The absence of anything. Air molecules are OK. In fact they’re required. Do the math. SQ = 1/S

 

[Robh3606]

The best possible sound would be when nothing was in the room. No?

Might as well go for broke! Or we could go full anechoic! Or just drag it all outside and serenade the neighbors.

Rob

 

[jeromelang]

I don’t think so, the strength of magnetic fields obey inverse square law. For electric dipoles it’s the inverse cube law. There are no magnetic fields generated anywhere by the system that would extend more than a foot from their source, maybe not more than a few inches, and the strength of the fields is rather weak to begin with. But rather than engage in technical debate, can I suggest simply removing the CDs from the room and listen? Even better, try removing only a few at a time, 10 or 20. See if you can spot the difference. Same goes for LPs in the room.

What’s next, the Earth’s magnetic field?

As I already described, the primary classical physics type explanation for the bad sound CDs create on sound is the electric static charge that accumulates on the polycarbonate layer and is very difficult to remove.

First climber: Wow, this is great! What a view, from the top of Everest!
Second climber: Relax, we’re only at base camp.

The adverse effects of eddy current do diminish with distances.

But the minimum safe distance is far greater than you think.

I have personally witnessed different degrees how sound changes by placing (the same) metallic object at varying distances from an audio component on test.

A smallish coin (of 5-cent value $SGD) pasted on the back wall at around 1.5 meter away from the audio component can still affect the component's sound.

By estimate, a minimum of 3 meters away from a source/line-amplifier component is required in order to avoid the detrimental effect of eddy current from settling in.

For power-amplifiers (with chunky linear power transformers), and loudspeakers, the minimum safe distances are at least twice as long.

The characteristics of the detrimental effect arising from being close in proximity to optical CD discs, and from vinyl records (with accompanying clear plastic sleeves) are very different. So lumping them all under the effects of electric static charge is severely erroneous.

 

[Geoffkait]

The adverse effects of eddy current do diminish with distances.

But the minimum safe distance is far greater than you think.

I have personally witnessed different degrees how sound changes by placing (the same) metallic object at varying distances from an audio component on test.

A smallish coin (of 5-cent value $SGD) pasted on the back wall at around 1.5 meter away from the audio component can still affect the component's sound.

By estimate, a minimum of 3 meters away from a source/line-amplifier component is required in order to avoid the detrimental effect of eddy current from settling in.

For power-amplifiers (with chunky linear power transformers), and loudspeakers, the minimum safe distances are at least twice as long.

The characteristics of the detrimental effect arising from being close in proximity to optical CD discs, and from vinyl records (with accompanying clear plastic sleeves) are very different. So lumping them all under the effects of electric static charge is severely erroneous.

Eddy currents are produced by moving a conductor through a stationary magnetic field. Or conversely, moving a magnetic field over a stationary conductor. So If neither one is moving there are no Eddy currents. Magnetic fields of transformers are stationary fields, for example.

Many *inert objects* and materials in the room have the potential to acquire an electric charge. Do these electric charges/fields E affect the system or the person? TBD.

So, I suspect eddy currents are largely irrelevant to this issue of static electric charges/fields E I’m describing. Magnetic fields B from transformers, cables don’t move, they’re inert. And conductive materials in the room are inert. Unless there is *relative motion* there can be no eddy currents. I propose Eddy currents are a red herring. With apologies to Eddy.

Furthermore, it’s not sufficient to simply place a demagnetizer in close vicinity to a CD or anything else to eliminate static charge. There is a special technique of “sweeping” the CD that’s required, including sweeping both sides. Many thanks to Lloyd Walker rip for figuring this out.

 

[jeromelang]

Eddy currents are produced by moving a conductor through a magnetic field. So If the CD or any metallic object is NOT moving with respect to a magnetic field there can be no eddy currents.

Many *inert objects* and materials in the room have the potential to acquire an electric charge. Do these electric charges affect the system or the person? TBD. So, I suspect eddy currents are irrelevant to this particular issue with static charges I’m describing. Magnetic fields from transformers or any other producer of them don’t move, unless there is relative motion there can be no eddy currents.

 

[Geoffkait]

That’s what I said. If a CD is not in the presence of a moving magnetic field there can be no Eddy current since it would disobey laws of physics, I.e., you’d have a “perpetual motion machine.” The magnetic fields produced by transformers are stationary. The induced magnetic fields produced by current in cables and wire in audio systems are relatively very small by comparison. So they fall off rapidly with distance.

Excerpt from Wiki page on “perpetual motion machine” -

“Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, since its existence would violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.[2][3][4][5]

 

[wil]

What has happened to this post?

Thanks for reposting— I hadn’t seen it…

 

[wil]

Yes, I’ve heard those reasons. None of them are correct. The only way to prevent the cellphone from hurting the sound is to remove it entirely from the room. It’s the same general reason that watches and clocks hurt the sound. Turning the cellphone OFF doesn’t help, nor does getting rid of the SMPS charger, nor does removing the loudspeaker. So it must be something else, no? Sometimes in order to get to the bottom of things you have roll up your sleeves and devise experiments that consider all possibilities, not only the ones bandied about.

Sometimes Occam’s razor is not the right answer. - Audiophile axiom

Why don’t you roll up your sleeves and conduct these experiments in with a scientifically valid protocol?

“Talk is cheap.” Anonymous wise person