Vibration, isolation and electronics...

[Ron Party]

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.

I just went through this same line of debate in another thread. The fact of the matter is one cannot prove a negative. One could have undertaken a DBT with 10 out of 10 incorrect and still one cannot properly draw the conclusion that there is proof of anything. Probabilities? Most assuredly. Proof? Nope. Regrettably, though, this leaves the door open for the capital A audiophiles to dismiss science outright such that we get the kind of mythology exemplified by Frank's post.

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

Orb, I enjoy reading your posts but this one just rubbed me the wrong way. This is Dubya all over again. "Some say..." without identifying who the some are, otherwise known as a strawman. I, for one, am very interested in those undertaking any efforts to learn and investigate matters audio. I can most assuredly state without reservation that Tim would be very interested in any scientifically valid studies which point to the likelihood of, e.g., an audible effect in SS componentry as has been brought up in this forum. What we're not interested in is someone claiming there is an audible effect without demonstrating any scientifically valid foundation for that claim. Patience? Heck, I rarely chime in on any of the threads here dealing with matters such as cable elevators, turning DACs upside down, etc., so please, pretty please, rest peacefully knowing that there is at least one other here who also may claim entitlement to the patience moniker.

 

[sasully]

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

Tim, FWIW, consider your last two posts upvoted by me . Audiophiles have two favorite modes of counterargument in the face of arguments based on known physical principles
1) scientists don't know everything
2) I don't care what science says; I hear it.

The fallacy of #1 is that it ignores what *is* thought to be scientifically 'true'. Audiophiles, like many 'skeptics' of science, also seem to start from the assumption that all hypotheses have an equal chance of being true, so they're all equally worthy of time and effort. Scientists certainly don't start from that assumption. There is a body of knowledge which must either be plausibly reconciled with or revised by any new proposed phenomenon or mechanism; audiophiles typically leave out those crucial steps. And the more radical the revision required, the more solid the evidence needs to be.


#2 presumes that the listener is a perfectly accurate perceiver of reality: whatever interpretation they give to their sense perception, is necessarily the correct one. Usually it's along the lines of 'the difference between A and B is objectively real, not a product of my imagination or bias or error on my part'.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think the biggest problem in this particular hobby is that everything is taken too darned seriously

FWIW, I don't take capital A Audiophiles seriously at all, though it may occasionally appear that way when one of them has really annoyed me.

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.

Nah, I don't think there's any reason to demand proof of ordinary consumers. The problem is that the bulk of the marketing in the high end, and by far the most effective share, is word of mouth. When an Audiophile goes on the internet to talk about his tweeters disappearing and his soundstage becoming the size of the mall of America when he plugged in his AudioEssence ElectronFlow USB cable, he's making that claim for the guy selling the stuff whether he means to or not. He's probably reaching more audiophiles with that claim in that post than the manufacturer did with his last 3 ads. But really, that's not why I post my position on such things, and it's not because I take it terribly seriously either. I do it because this is a discussion board and that's what we're here for. And because I've had the time. Unfortunately...well, not really...I've ended my little experiment in semi-retirement and returned to my field...ahem...marketing. I won't be able to post as much going forward. I'm sure the valve and vinyl crowd will miss me terribly.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Methinks the word "proof" is being thrown around a little too lightly ...

Some here appear to be tending to confuse the term proof with the concept of "formal proof", something that is only relevant to the field of Mathematics. What is really under discussion here is evidence, or if you wish to give it greater status, scientific evidence, which as the name implies is the mechanism under which science operates. And the reason for such "stuff": to support hypotheses. Science, or should we say proper science, itself is never so bold to proclaim that it has "proven a fact", knowing that the stench from the egg over its face from all the faux pas over the last couple of centuries would be a bit of a turn off for most people ...

Frank

 

[mep]

One cannot prove a negative.

So does that make it a strawman argument by default?

 

[Ron Party]

Apologies in advance, but I genuinely gotta pull a Clinton on you: what is "it"?

 

[mep]

Proving a negative Ron.

 

[andy_c]

So does that make it a strawman argument by default?

Apologies in advance, but I genuinely gotta pull a Clinton on you: what is "it"?

Proving a negative Ron.

A strawman argument is something different from that I think. Strawman is creating a caricature or misrepresentation of the view of one's opponent, then attacking that caricature or misrepresentation.

The part about proving a negative usually comes up in the context of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "argument to ignorance". That fallacy is described pretty well on this page, which I'll repeat below.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

Sometimes this technique of argument is used implicitly by statements such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - that is, that one cannot assume something to be non-existent simply because there is no evidence of its existence. Taking the next step of assuming the thing to exist because there is no evidence that it does not is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Ron Party]

Boy, I left my office and drove home right after posting my question to Mark. I just got home and see that not only did Mark reply but Andy pinch hit for me. And what a pinch hit it was! Thanks, not only for me, but for all of our forum; what an informative post!

 

[andy_c]

Thank you, Ron.

But I just realized I didn't talk about the "can't prove a negative" assertion. There's an interesting article about that here. Some of the arguments described in that article, about bigfoot for example, are not-so-surprisingly familiar .

 

[Ron Party]

Indeed.

 

[Orb]

I just went through this same line of debate in another thread. The fact of the matter is one cannot prove a negative. One could have undertaken a DBT with 10 out of 10 incorrect and still one cannot properly draw the conclusion that there is proof of anything. Probabilities? Most assuredly. Proof? Nope. Regrettably, though, this leaves the door open for the capital A audiophiles to dismiss science outright such that we get the kind of mythology exemplified by Frank's post.


Orb, I enjoy reading your posts but this one just rubbed me the wrong way. This is Dubya all over again. "Some say..." without identifying who the some are, otherwise known as a strawman. I, for one, am very interested in those undertaking any efforts to learn and investigate matters audio. I can most assuredly state without reservation that Tim would be very interested in any scientifically valid studies which point to the likelihood of, e.g., an audible effect in SS componentry as has been brought up in this forum. What we're not interested in is someone claiming there is an audible effect without demonstrating any scientifically valid foundation for that claim. Patience? Heck, I rarely chime in on any of the threads here dealing with matters such as cable elevators, turning DACs upside down, etc., so please, pretty please, rest peacefully knowing that there is at least one other here who also may claim entitlement to the patience moniker.

Sorry Ron, Tim's post rubbed me up the wrong way as my post did you.
The problem I see is that there are two sides in this thread, those suggesting there is an effect and those who also say there is no effect, while there are no studies to fully support either.
I agree that studies are required to further this discussion and have repeated this many times, but this applies to both sides of the discussion.
It is wrong for one side to claim science supports them due to no studies being done to prove there is an audible effect, in the same way it is wrong for others to feel it is fact (for noticable effect) or apply anecdotal as evidence for such factors.
However it feels reading this thread that the biggest walls are coming from those generally talking about science, where science in this case does not prove either side.

As sasully says some hypothesis are stronger than others, but in those cases they are backed up by maths with certain data and scientific models.
That said even that argument breaks down when looking at some fundamentals of science and proof; the hypothesis for "god particle" is strong but then so is the argument against it by some leading scientists, therefore no-one is claiming their hypothesis is actually fact and billions have been spent to investigate and improve the knowledge.
No scientist is using the argument there about it being impossible to prove a negative (also consider there is a bet on between two scientists on this subject).
Going by this thread one side would automatically have more weight than the other, specifically those scientists who say the particle does not exist as it has not been proven (the evidence for it is weak so far and while one can apply a model to a hypothesis this can also be argued against with other models or missing data as is done).

In the case relating to vibration and microphonics affecting SS components (maybe some would even include cables *shrugs*), one could put forward that it is more unlikely to have a noticable effect but there are no studies where data can be used, which would be applicable to both sides as it is or should be impartial evidence (hence I cannot see why we are talking about proving a negative).
So I see this as a perpetual thread in motion until someone does a study, and general posts criticising using science and audiophiles as a reason do not help IMO (this is not directed at you Ron but looking overall throughout the thread).
If one needs to be accurate or look to correct then posts should be pointed out as being anecdotal (not based in scientific evidence)/hypothesis-speculation/theoritical/other subject matter not truly applicable to audio.

Again sorry for getting your back up and one should not post straight away when they read something that really irritates them (talking about myself here).
Cheers
Orb

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I remember back in the days a philosophy class in Terminales (last year of High School in the French System)... There was a tale about if the flap of a butterfly could affect the orbit of Jupiter ...

Various effect and phenomenon are measurable. I am sure if one were to really but really wants to measure it one would likely find the tribo-electric effect of air vibrations on a piece of cable ... that's possible but really, really with our hearing apparatus incapable of resolving .5 dB. Is it reasonable to think we can hear such effect? Yet, Tribo-electricity (Electricity that comes from rubbing something with another thing in that case the air on the cable !!!) is invoked once in a while in this forum (or maybe others, I don't go to that many fora these days...) ... I have no doubt there is an amount of piezo-electricity in anything, heck I can see how an improperly constructed capacitor can have the distance of the plates vary with the music hence varying its capacitance. But with a well constructed capacitor is that an issue? Yes the capacity may vary 1 ppm per million ... care to calculate how many microBel (I just decided to go with tis unit) that would result into? In circuits where the capacity value is a percentage not a "billionage" .. And can we hear that kind of difference: 0.000001 Bel or 0.00001 dB .. Can we ? Yet those are the hypothesis advanced for many of these so-called differences. The largest problem being that these differences conveniently go un-perceived once knowledge is removed... They may exist but if we don't perceive them ...
And there lies the problem. We, audiophiles and I do count myself among this lot, like to use science to throw hypothesis and refute it (science) whenever it rejects or seems to reject our pet beliefs. We for some interesting reasons that could be in itself the case of an interesting psychological and sociological study, want to believe that there are differences where almost all scientific researches (not anecdotal mind you ) point to the contrary. I do have my own pet beliefs. I continue to think that electronics sound different ... I have removed myself from the cable believers and also from the SS are affected vibrations crowd... I focus more these days on speakers, the room and adequate speaker to amp matching .. meanwhile I enjoy music a little more it seems .. My passion is, again, the music, the gears to reproduce it are getting to be quite secondary .. There is so much music out there from the world over ... Oh Yes! Reproducing it well continue to be a search .. not an overriding one

 

[fas42]

We for some interesting reasons that could be in itself the case of an interesting psychological and sociological study, want to believe that there are differences where almost all scientific researches (not anecdotal mind you ) point to the contrary

Somewhat of a strange comment: I think it would be a very difficult exercise to find someone called themselves an audiophile who doesn't believe that all components and systems sound different. If you call scientific research the infamous DBT where something is repeated over and over to the point of exhaustion and boredom for those participating, until they lose all interest in giving a careful, considered response, then heaven help us from such "fact finding"!

One way of getting out of the dilemma of deciding which sound is "correct" is creating a system setup such that it becomes largely impervious to changes in the gear. This, like so many of the ways to "do" systems, again is not what many would call "right" but is certainly a way to save your sanity, and is therefore a perfectly reasonable way to go about the matter ...

Frank

 

[Ron Party]

Only strange if you deny science which your post seemingly does.

 

[fas42]

There is an analogy with the human eye: if you shine a weak light on some surface you can make out only some of the detail. But if you increase the intensity of the light more and more of the finer detail of that surface becomes apparent. It's almost as if there is no limit to the ability of the eye to resolve finer and finer elements of something that it is looking at, if you keep turning up the candlepower. To the point that no matter how carefully cleaned or polished say a flat surface is, every little speck of dust or imperfection will be obvious.

Now, I and some others would say, the ear works the same way. So irrespective of what level of mechanical measurement is made of the qualities of some sound, the ear will be able to go one better if the person that it belongs to chooses to be more discriminating. And the "better", more "resolving" the system the easier it is for that person to pick up obvious differences and deficiencies ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Well, while the ear is amazing, it is a mechanical device and like all, has its range of operation. You cant hear past a certain range, thats all there is to it. People over 50 on this forum can not hear past their systems capabilities vibrations or not...the ear can not go one better. Bandlimited. That is your ears too Frank.

Cheers
Tom

High frequencies may be an issue for older people, but that's not what I'm talking about. The range of intensity that the ear can deal with, or its ability to resolve, which is another way of putting it, is of the order of 120dB, a figure that's thrown around very easily by most.

So what does that mean? It means, given the right circumstances, the ear can pick up a difference in sound level -- loudness, not frequency -- of 1 part in a million. To make that more dramatic, imagine driving a car for exactly 1 mile and stopping it at that precise distance using the accuracy of the ear. How about accurate to less than 1/10" over a total of 1 mile? Yes, that's what 120dB means, and what the ear is potentially capable of ...

Frank

 

[Orb]

.....

Isolation has its place, but diminishing returns below audibility for most solid state electronics properly designed. As I said before, my so called mid grade Hafler pre amp does not do anything when I tapped on its electronic components with a plastic pen. If I tap on it with a sledge hammer I am sure I can create an effect allright.

Tom

If there is an affect on SS, then it is more likely to be in the form of distortion for existing signal rather than an additional output signal, meaning the tap would not really help.
Way to tell would be to use a held musical note/chord from an instrument (say C major) and then look at the harmonic-partials up to 10khz and if the distortion pattern changes for these when the component is vibrated by say a generated 20hz soundwave from a sub.
Only problem with this is that ideally would need to repeat the test for the whole frequency range, as a singe frequency test would not give a complete picture IMO.
Of course this does not answer if it can be audible but would be a 1st step.
But as you say, diminishing returns could kick in quickly and from low-moderate prices, no idea tbh.

Cheers
Orb

 

[fas42]

Ok, you can hear a jet engine close up (your ear compresses this) or a pin drop, but you can not hear a pin drop while listening to a jet engine...
Turning up music louder and we hear more details, not that they were not there, that our ear threshold could not discern them. The ear is neat but you are not going to hear 120 db or dynamic range with loud passages as they dominate, the louder sounds mask the weaker, blah blah. ultra low level anything is masked by where you are at in the frequency band. And that includes some vibration effects with tubes, etc.

Tom

And where I underlined is where the real debate is. Agreed, you won't hear the 1dB sound while a constant 120dB signal is happening but there is a point where the ear can discriminate between a very loud, and a relatively soft sound. The whole field of audio compression is full of research attempting to measure how clever the audio engineers have to be to fool the ear, and we all know that's been sorted out: MP3 and the other codecs can trick us audiophiles!

As a simple example where the ear can be cleverer than the straighforward explanation of masking you gave: a very loud bass sound immediately followed by a very low level treble transient. The initial bass rumble sets up a nice bit of vibration in the gear which hangs around, or creates a disturbance in the circuit operation which is still impacting the gear when that soft transient is handled. Lo and behold, the ear perceives distortion taking place as a result of vibration ...

In other words, the vibration effects may not only impact the sound during the loud bits, when they are not audible, they may also be doing a bit of damage during the really, really soft parts when we automatically wind up the ears' sensitivity.

Frank

 

[mep]

As a simple example where the ear can be cleverer than the straighforward explanation of masking you gave: a very loud bass sound immediately followed by a very low level treble transient. The initial bass rumble sets up a nice bit of vibration in the gear which hangs around, or creates a disturbance in the circuit operation which is still impacting the gear when that soft transient is handled. Lo and behold, the ear perceives distortion taking place as a result of vibration ...
Frank

Says who?? If that statement were true, high fidelity could never exist. I refer back to my Muhammad Ali/Howard Cosell comment I made once before in another of your posts sometime back.