Vibration, isolation and electronics...

[Orb]

Micro yeah it is interesting, just to add it is also handclap although this is mentioned in the actual hardcopy magazine, and it seems more of an issue with that specific CJ preamp (the others exhibit similar behaviour but to a much lesser extent).

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think that anyone is arguing that tubes and turntables are not microphonic. And I don't think anyone is arguing that other components, if poorly designed enough, cannot be microphonic. Surely no one is arguing that speaker performance can't be affected by coupling with, or isolation from the floor.

I think what were asking here is whether or not competently engineered modern electronics can be audibly affected by normal ground and airborne vibrations. Some people think they can hear it. Yet it seems that, as in so many similar things, no company selling cures has offered up any solid evidence of audibility. Like cables and audiophile media players and so many tweaks, were shown evidence of the cause but none of the effect. This Magico magic feet example is perfect. The disease is described. The cure is presented, complete with really nice charts demonstrating the reduction of vibrations. But no evidence of an effect on the performance of the component (the very purpose of the product being sold) is presented. This is Magico. An SOTA audio company. Surely for them, measuring the audio, instead of the seismic vibrations inside an audio component, would have been easier, more intuitive, less expensive...fill in the blank. So why didn't they do it?

Tim

 

[Orb]

Because Tim this then comes back to the measurements thread and whether you feel all the information is presented or not - the main thread went to beyond 40 pages without agreement if I remember.
And as I mentioned earlier the actual real world analysis we have is not enough and we are relying on a lot of theoritical (which needs to be translated into practice and critically in the audio context).

At moment I cannot see how a full answer or conclusion can be reached beyond what we have outlined; microphonics can have an effect but more work needs to be done to understand and analysis whether it is there and by how much of an extent for SS audio.
Cheers
Orb

 

[JackD201]

Not so much straw men as off tangents I think.

 

[microstrip]

There are a lot of strawmen here. I don't think that anyone is arguing that tubes and turntables are not microphonic. And I don't think anyone is arguing that other components, if poorly designed enough, cannot be microphonic. Surely no one is arguing that speaker performance can't be affected by coupling with, or isolation from the floor.

I do not see any stawmen here. My line of argumentation is simple - let us take some devices that we all accept are microphonic, e.g. tubes, and analyze them carrying measurements, tweaks included. Unhappily for most of us, including me, this means just looking for other people results.
If for something that seems universally accepted we can not correlate measurements and sound, we can be almost sure that no one will do it for solid state electronics.

But then, IMHO, the absence of results about audible effect of vibration in SS electronics can not be taken as a proof of its inaudibility.

 

[Ron Party]

If for something that seems universally accepted we can not correlate measurements and sound, we can be almost sure that no one will do it for solid state electronics.

But then, IMHO, the absence of results about audible effect of vibration in SS electronics can not be taken as a proof of its inaudibility.

Putting aside for the moment the capital A Audiophile myth about the inability to correlate measurements and sound, once again, am I again reading about the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative?

 

[microstrip]

Putting aside for the moment the capital A Audiophile myth about the inability to correlate measurements and sound, once again, am I again reading about the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative?

Ron,

Please read again the full post, without breaking it and destroying the sense of the full paragraph.
I am just saying that we should start with an unquestionable and easy example and if we have not success in it we should have little hope that the same method can result in anything relevant.

 

[fas42]

If for something that seems universally accepted we can not correlate measurements and sound, we can be almost sure that no one will do it for solid state electronics.

This bears repeating over and over and over again. Yes, there are standard measurements can be taken, which will "prove" nothing because they are not focusing on what are clearly audible problems. Yes, there are measurements that can be taken that WILL reveal the inaccuracies in the sound but they are rarely done because they are too difficult, too time consuming to do, too expensive to do, no-one is interested in doing them, or they haven't been developed to the degree they need to be to make them truly reveal something significant and repeatable. So in the absence of such measurements being made, or available to look at, everyone relies on their ears to the job in their place. Which deeply upsets the "objectivists" ...

So this pattern of behaviour and attitude, leading absolutely nowhere, keeps on going around and around and around ...

Frank

 

[Ron Party]

This bears repeating over and over and over again. Yes, there are standard measurements can be taken, which will "prove" nothing because they are not focusing on what are clearly audible problems. Yes, there are measurements that can be taken that WILL reveal the inaccuracies in the sound but they are rarely done because they are too difficult, too time consuming to do, too expensive to do, no-one is interested in doing them, or they haven't been developed to the degree they need to be to make them truly reveal something significant and repeatable. So in the absence of such measurements being made, or available to look at, everyone relies on their ears to the job in their place. Which deeply upsets the "objectivists" ...

So this pattern of behaviour and attitude, leading absolutely nowhere, keeps on going around and around and around ...

Frank

You've pretty much summed up almost every capital A Audiophile myth to date. I do agree with you about the last thing you posted, to-wit: it keeps going around and around because those who believe in mythology seemingly don't have the time for science.

Micro, I did read your entire post.

 

[RBFC]

These effects seem like they would be readily identifiable via some fairly simple measurement techniques. Perhaps I'm being hopeful and naive, but comparing before & after measurements with a silent control environment vs. sine wave tones played at a few reference levels and at various frequencies should show any susceptibility to airborne or structure-borne vibrations.

Lee

 

[fas42]

You've pretty much summed up almost every capital A Audiophile myth to date. I do agree with you about the last thing you posted, to-wit: it keeps going around and around because those who believe in mythology seemingly don't have the time for science.

Micro, I did read your entire post.

The people who believe in mythology do so because the science is not serving them. The science proclaims over and over again that various equipment should have no defects which are audible because all measurements done show that the gear has reached a certain standard, or at least the results published say that. So they have no criteria to base a reasonable purchasing decision on, and then discover that the equipment bought does misbehave, and can be improved by taking various measures.

So these people have no faith in the science because to them, at the very least, it is decidely lazy, in not telling them the full story if it is capable of doing so ...

Frank

 

[Orb]

You've pretty much summed up almost every capital A Audiophile myth to date. I do agree with you about the last thing you posted, to-wit: it keeps going around and around because those who believe in mythology seemingly don't have the time for science.

Micro, I did read your entire post.

And yet some of those with science backgrounds such as John Atkinson and Paul Miller (both with Masters or PhDs in Chemistry and both held science research jobs) take a different view than you and Frank when it comes to such discussions on measurements (not suggesting it is quite the same as what some audiophiles would suggest) and seems similar to what Microstrip suggests.
Belief and mythology has nothing to do with the suggestion that audio test protocols-designs and measurements may still need further refining.

Also I am not sure how it can also be stated that mentioning this in the context as Microstip did can be seen as proving a negative - the fact is that new test procedures and interpreting the data collected still do appear in audio.
Case in point, the new jitter test that looks at how audio is affected due to performance degradation over time and from DC to 4hz.
This test only came to light this year from a reader of science at St Andrews who writes for Hifinews and was combined-further tweaked and studied by Paul Miller into his own software.

One would had said that Jim Lesurf was imagining audio differences with/without an asynch bridge (Halide) in use of the basic MF Dac until such test came around.
As another case in point is the more recent tonarm test and measurements that enable a better understanding and a more complete picture of vibration and resonance for the whole of the turntable and its components , again these are more recent tests that go beyond the original tests that just checked compliance and basic tonearm resonance.

Talking about proving a negative and this being audio mythology is being too harsh Ron.
Thanks
Orb

 

[Ron Party]

I don't see how any of what you posted is applicable. One cannot prove a negative.

 

[Orb]

Possibly this is semantics and difference of perspective.
Just because something is not known and asking to prove it does not make this a negative; this is what Microstrip said:

But then, IMHO, the absence of results about audible effect of vibration in SS electronics can not be taken as a proof of its inaudibility.

And this is correct, it is not proving a negative but meaning someone needs to do the research and studies in the specific context of audio and audibility with designed tests and measurements, and from this we may have enough data and experience but possibly further tests will need to be defined along with the measurement-data capturing.

So my post is very applicable and matches to what Microstrip says, with real world examples that have happened this year and last.
In science we have absence of results for the "god particle" and dark matter, yet this does not fall back on "one cannot prove a negative", in this example science then looks for test protocol and measurement-data analysis to investigate further.
Depending upon the results they may conclude further tests and even possibly a new test protocol, but I highly doubt any scientist will conclude that these exist (may be argued something else is being captured as is seen with dark matter) or do not from the current scientific tests being done.
I appreciate this analogy is going off tangent but I wanted to provide a real scientific example.

Thanks
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ron, your patience is admirable. Why haven't the audible effects of vibrations we cannot physically perceive, coming up through our floors and polluting our SS audio equipment been measured? Because airplanes aren't falling from the sky, GPS systems don't have us all driving in circles, car stereos are not popping like Orville Redenbacker and your laptop isn't inadvertently taking your from What's Best to FaceBook every time a bit of gas rumbles through your tummy. Because the effects of these tiny, unnoticed vibrations are not impacting the performance of solid state electronics in any other place or form, they're only being "heard" by, as Ron calls them, capital A Audiophiles, the same people who hear their sound stage collapse from a massive, enveloping rush of heavenly warmth larger than their neighborhood to the voice of Simon the Chipmunk trapped in a tin can when they change usb cables. The same people who hear more detail, resolution and reality as distortion and the noise floor rises.

These things are not being measured because no one with any objectivity believes in them and no one who believes in them believes in measurement. And God, I would love to believe that if somebody did measure them - thoroughly, definitively, finally - that it would have some reasonable outcome, but it wouldn't. Those who want to believe in magic feet and racks, who "hear" the extension of an effect from tubes and tables to SS would start spending that money on music, but they wouldn't. They would just question the validity of the tests.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Tim,
not sure if that comment is directed at me or others relating to patience.
TBH I feel like I am having to use patience myself as it looks to me like some here come from the perspective that there is nothing else to learn,investigate when it comes to audio and then apply this to science, which is not necessarily correct as I pointed out with examples of two audiophiles who have a science background such as PM and JA who also do measurements and understand technically audio very well (seems they disagree with the last posts from both you and Ron relating to measurements-testing for audio), and lack of proof usually means further investigating in science.
And yet I gave two very clear examples of audio tests that did not exist until recently, however going by some approach this should be ignored as everything is understood.....
Tim and Ron, I feel your both distorting the more recent posts or having them apply solely to ones own perspective, with that said going to bail from this thread because the most significant fact I can suggest is that not many can accept that for this discussion many are jumping to conclusions or speculating (that can be either side of the fence) as the real world known facts are pretty limited and should be left at that for now.
That said I do feel that IF there is an affect relating to SS (and again this may depend on what it is such as pre/amp/etc) it is going to be subtle and maybe affects long term listening preference but like I say this is just speculation.

Cheers
Orb

 

[fas42]

Why haven't the audible effects of vibrations we cannot physically perceive, coming up through our floors and polluting our SS audio equipment been measured? Because airplanes aren't falling from the sky, GPS systems don't have us all driving in circles, car stereos are not popping like Orville Redenbacker and your laptop isn't inadvertently taking your from What's Best to FaceBook every time a bit of gas rumbles through your tummy. Because the effects of these tiny, unnoticed vibrations are not impacting the performance of solid state electronics in any other place or form, they're only being "heard" by, as Ron calls them, capital A Audiophiles, the same people who hear their sound stage collapse from a massive, enveloping rush of heavenly warmth larger than their neighborhood to the voice of Simon the Chipmunk trapped in a tin can when they change usb cables. The same people who hear more detail, resolution and reality as distortion and the noise floor rises.

These things are not being measured because no one with any objectivity believes in them and no one who believes in them believes in measurement. And God, I would love to believe that if somebody did measure them - thoroughly, definitively, finally - that it would have some reasonable outcome, but it wouldn't. Those who want to believe in magic feet and racks, who "hear" the extension of an effect from tubes and tables to SS would start spending that money on music, but they wouldn't. They would just question the validity of the tests.

Tim

Might be a good idea to let the vehicle engineers who worry about NVH that they're wasting their time, as perfectly usable and efficient cars and such can be built without such time and money wasting "fiddling"; I sure that people purchasing MB, BMW and suchlike will still be perfectly happy with their transports, especially if they didn't have to pay for this extra "silliness" being indulged in ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Orb my comments regarding Ron's patience were not related to any individual, and I believe my mind is open to new scientific discovery. But future scientific discovery is unrelated, in my view, to the obsessions of what Ron has called capital A Audiophiles. They reject all the current science that fails to support their beliefs; I have no reason to expect that to change with the next testing instrument and honestly, much of it requires no further testing. Much of it is so baseless that it required no testing in the first place. It doesn't deserve to be taken that seriously.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Tim,

One of our greatest preachers of the XVII century wrote a sermon entitled " Saint Anthony's Sermon to the Fish ". I quote from it (apologies for the poor translation):

"Anyway, what we must preach today to the fish? Never worse auditorium. At least the fish have two good qualities: they listen an do not talk. One thing is of discomfort to the preacher - fish can not be converted"

Considering your great sermon, from now on I will behave like a fish in the threads you start. Long life the aquarium!

 

[JackD201]

I think the biggest problem in this particular hobby is that everything is taken too darned seriously Somehow when someone says they observe something proof is demanded. I can understand if the guy making the claim was selling the stuff but an ordinary consumer? I don't know if that's right. It doesn't seem right anyway.

So hypothetically, someone puts his solid state preamp on a glass shelf and one day for no sonic reason in particular he replaces that shelf with one that's made of MDF, stone or acrylic but he hears a difference. Not an improvement, mind you, but a difference. Let's say he decided to move in with his girlfriend and she didn't like the modern look of his Bell'O because it clashed with her colonial furniture so after 6 months of pleading to keep his rack he changes it lest he lose access to her rack. Now depending on how he looks at it, the sound either got dull (bad) or lost some graininess (good). The difference is rather obvious so he changes them around. Same difference everytime. Franks version might be someone was using the tea kettle so the equilibrium was lost. (Sorry Bro just teasing, I couldn't resist ) There's only one variable though. The shelf material. Either the shelf itself is resonating and giving something off, the resonance is affecting the signal, or both. That's the WHY of it. First he has to figure out though if he's so desperate to hang on to his rack, he's hearing things. So before he puts his rack on eBay, he calls in his buddies who blind fold him and he gets it , let's say 8 times out of 10. Statistically significant. So it is audible. Still no answer as to WHY. Has he been scientific or not?