Is there any science to back up these little feet

[Sibbers]

Thanks Sibbers, it is very interesting. I've been fascinated by fundamental physics (essentially the question, "what are we made of?") since I was a young boy. The experiment I'm working on over the Summer is one of many that are searching for dark matter. And I'm just one of several hundred researchers involved in this experiment. It's an epic endeavour with all these scientists, engineers, project managers etc. working for years on something that might, at the end of the day (around 2020), produce a null result, albeit a highly informative one. That's why I mentioned humility in my earlier post.

Anyway, if you're interested, this article is a good overview of the field:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130718-in-the-hunt-for-dark-matter-promises-to-keep/

The image at the beginning is the detector that will be used in the experiment I'm working on.

I really love these questions and am constantly amazed at the progress that is made despite the lack of funding. Such a shame that money has the be at the route of why we do everything these days rather than the pursuit itself, so hats off to those that go do something worth while and yet not riddled with money.

 

[dave]

I don't think it's arrogance to perceive something and then defend it when you're told otherwise because someone else who claims to be more intelligent than has a theory. I don't think that science is considered bad by anyone (a very few perhaps), it's just when the occasional bad theory doesn't sit right - very clever people have been wrong and models for physics are often iterated on.

Bob Carver is a clever guy and he says all amps sound the same. That's a clanger that gets repeated lots and ruined my listening experience for a few years.

Btw the stuff you're talking about sounds very interesting!

Actually Bob never said all amps sound the same. IIRC, he said he could replicate the sound of any high end amp (read "expensive") in his cheaper designs.

regards,

dave

 

[droodzilla]

Subjectivity is not arrogant. It is what we actually perceive. Nobody makes any choices about what they hear if they are honest.

Any funding body would laugh because it would be a misuse of resources for something so trivial.

I don't know why armchair 'scientists' (or any real scientists) get so het up about audio and "wild claims" because this is just a hobby enjoyed by a relatively small number of folk. I think some people just get off on pissing on our chips out of the comfortable belief that they occupy the rational high ground despite the fact that they completely lack any sense of perspective.

There are bigger fish to fry for scientists so the wannabes should just leave us audiophools alone to our trial and error.

I disagree. If some audiophile claims were true it would require a rethink of well-established scientific theories, and this would be a big deal.

It's interesting that a lot of audio marketing foo is eager to invoke quantum theory and the like to support the latest so-called innovation.

As an aside, the recent nobel prize in physics went to the scientists who developed the blue LEDs that adorn so many hi-fi components these days. I don't think that's why they did the research though

 

[Hipper]

I must be thick!

Ragaman, it's just dawned on me that your OP didn't really expect an answer did it? In fact, with 1,000 plus posts you clearly have been around enough to know that there isn't one. Hardly any product of this nature is sold with science that directly explains it. You know that of course. That's why you and everyone else ignored my attempt at a helpful post. It wasn't what you wanted.

That leads to my conclusion that your post was just trolling, and in that you had failed until Steven Toy and BE718 appeared (like flies to merde it seems) to rescue things for you. Whilst the argument they have, which is a continuation of their spat on the Microphony threads (and perhaps earlier for all I know), aren't really what you invited, I suppose they'll do for you.

What a waste of space this thread is.

 

[finkaudio]

I know why my oak stands have improved the sound of my speakers as opposed to metal due to energy storage & stability, which is much improved on the wood, but this stuff, I cannot see how it would, it obviously stores the energy in the substance, then what, turns it into heat? I have heard this one a million times yet no company has yet produced results to show this, the last excuse I heard was it was too low to show any measureable results, yeah right.

....... stands can be measured easily. Has been done before and your observation that wood is is better than metal ( in most cases ) can be backed up by measurements.

 

[whatsnext]

I must be thick!

Ragaman, it's just dawned on me that your OP didn't really expect an answer did it? In fact, with 1,000 plus posts you clearly have been around enough to know that there isn't one. Hardly any product of this nature is sold with science that directly explains it. You know that of course. That's why you and everyone else ignored my attempt at a helpful post. It wasn't what you wanted.

That leads to my conclusion that your post was just trolling, and in that you had failed until Steven Toy and BE718 appeared (like flies to merde it seems) to rescue things for you. Whilst the argument they have, which is a continuation of their spat on the Microphony threads (and perhaps earlier for all I know), aren't really what you invited, I suppose they'll do for you.

What a waste of space this thread is.

Not thick at all you will know better next time you encounter the participants. After all ostensibly Rag wanted some scientific comment but for what purpose was not made clear.

They had fun

 

[BE718]

I must be thick!

Ragaman, it's just dawned on me that your OP didn't really expect an answer did it? In fact, with 1,000 plus posts you clearly have been around enough to know that there isn't one. Hardly any product of this nature is sold with science that directly explains it. You know that of course. That's why you and everyone else ignored my attempt at a helpful post. It wasn't what you wanted.

That leads to my conclusion that your post was just trolling, and in that you had failed until Steven Toy and BE718 appeared (like flies to merde it seems) to rescue things for you. Whilst the argument they have, which is a continuation of their spat on the Microphony threads (and perhaps earlier for all I know), aren't really what you invited, I suppose they'll do for you.

What a waste of space this thread is.

Don't worry, we know what certain individuals are up to . You just allow them to make prats of themselves for a while and everything is good with the world

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

A short diversionary interlude perhaps?

Let us assume that the objective standpoint is correct beyon all reasonable doubt. Let us therefore also assume that perceived, subjective differences which do not correlate to measurement, are all entirely psychological in origin. In other words, BE is right, and Steven Toy, I, and others, are wrong.

It will follow that all digital sources beyond crappy noise-infested dross, are of equal merit. Where's the fun in that? Ah well, never mind. So, similarly, competent DACS and amps. So, equipped with the cheapest 'competent' kit we can find, we assemble our system.

(In the meantime, hifi dealers, record shops, online forums and secondhand music sellers wither and die, such is life).

Being human, we become dissatisfied, and look for something better. Clearly, the only realistic prospect for improvement, is in the loudspeakers. So, we check out some better loudspeakers. They cost £2000. In our travels, we happen upon somebody who convinces us that a set of mains leads, interconnects and speaker cables, will bring about a more significant improvement. He wants £1500 for it all.

We put them into our existing system and, sure enough, the system now sounds better than it did when we trialled the better speakers. We buy them, and spend the other £500 on more music.

We tell the few remaining people on the last remaining online forum about our experience. They nearly all reply to tell us we have been taken in by a charlatan. Shaken, we return to the system. Which still sounds just as good to us as we reported, because that psychological subjective bias is hard to shake loose.

So, we achieved greater pleasure, saved £500 and thereby acquired more music to enjoy, than we would have managed if we'd gone with the logical, scientifically valid option.

So a). Where is the harm? b). Is the peddler of the cables really a moral bankrupt, as some would claim? He has a happy customer, who achieved happiness and saved money.

It's a hypothetical scenario, I know, but it is based on observations I've come to, in my own haphazard subjective way, over the years. I still get that pleasure, the various attempts at reprogramming haven't robbed me of it. So, I repeat, even if what the objective side says is all true, where is the harm. Why are you all so upset about it?

 

[Michael J]

... saved £500 and thereby acquired more music to enjoy, ...

You could have spent two grand on music...

 

[Steven Toy]

To deny well proven physics in place of your own pet theories is, if a conscious choice embarrassing, otherwise it's just delusional.

Well proven physics my arse! It is just some potted theory based on some crude measurements.

A lot of MusicWorks customers are deluded then.

 

[whatsnext]

A zzzzzzzzzzz

Why are you all so upset about it?

I lost the will to live so jumped to the last sentence.

Who do you think is upset? The subjectivists seem to be, attacking others.

I am a subjective listener and I don't hear the magic others tell us they do (thankfully) but I am not upset.

 

[Lee T]

Not thick at all you will know better next time you encounter the participants. After all ostensibly Rag wanted some scientific comment but for what purpose was not made clear.

They had fun

My op was sincere & when someone throws out the troll word it is usually down to a lack of knowledge, as I said earlier I came across the feet on another thread where someone stated it improved the sound, I wondered if there was any scientific proof of this, if this is trolling then so are we all with any post posing a question about audio,.

My first intentions were to try some but wondered if anyone had come across any scientific write up on this substance improving audio sat on it.

All I keep reading is regarding sorbothane which this substance is not, nowhere on the write up or on the packaging does it state sorbothane.

This place is very frustrating sometimes.

 

[BE718]

A short diversionary interlude perhaps?

Let us assume that the objective standpoint is correct beyon all reasonable doubt. Let us therefore also assume that perceived, subjective differences which do not correlate to measurement, are all entirely psychological in origin. In other words, BE is right, and Steven Toy, I, and others, are wrong.

It will follow that all digital sources beyond crappy noise-infested dross, are of equal merit. Where's the fun in that? Ah well, never mind. So, similarly, competent DACS and amps. So, equipped with the cheapest 'competent' kit we can find, we assemble our system.

(In the meantime, hifi dealers, record shops, online forums and secondhand music sellers wither and die, such is life).

Being human, we become dissatisfied, and look for something better. Clearly, the only realistic prospect for improvement, is in the loudspeakers. So, we check out some better loudspeakers. They cost £2000. In our travels, we happen upon somebody who convinces us that a set of mains leads, interconnects and speaker cables, will bring about a more significant improvement. He wants £1500 for it all.

We put them into our existing system and, sure enough, the system now sounds better than it did when we trialled the better speakers. We buy them, and spend the other £500 on more music.

We tell the few remaining people on the last remaining online forum about our experience. They nearly all reply to tell us we have been taken in by a charlatan. Shaken, we return to the system. Which still sounds just as good to us as we reported, because that psychological subjective bias is hard to shake loose.

So, we achieved greater pleasure, saved £500 and thereby acquired more music to enjoy, than we would have managed if we'd gone with the logical, scientifically valid option.

So a). Where is the harm? b). Is the peddler of the cables really a moral bankrupt, as some would claim? He has a happy customer, who achieved happiness and saved money.

It's a hypothetical scenario, I know, but it is based on observations I've come to, in my own haphazard subjective way, over the years. I still get that pleasure, the various attempts at reprogramming haven't robbed me of it. So, I repeat, even if what the objective side says is all true, where is the harm. Why are you all so upset about it?

Firstly i have not said what you claim, so please don't try and misrepresent me, secondly no one is upset. In fact I am bemused by the comment.

In investigating the claims of Steven about his stand, the causal mechanism cited for the improvements he claims to hear simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Make whatever you want out of that. Please feel free to spend your money on audiophile foo it it makes you happy, but don't expect anyone to accept the rational " I hear it therefore it is" without challenge because many of us don't and the science backs that up.

 

[whatsnext]

My op was sincere & when someone throws out the troll word it is usually down to a lack of knowledge, as I said earlier I came across the feet on another thread where someone stated it improved the sound, I wondered if there was any scientific proof of this, if this is trolling then so are we all with any post posing a question about audio,.

This place is very frustrating sometimes.

Thank you for telling me that. I hope you learn to cope with your frustrations and they don't colour your posts.

 

[Lee T]

Yep, just finished moving my oppo between its mdf shelf, solid wooden floor and carpet with underlay.

Not one single difference in the sound.

Perhaps you have a problem with your player?

I think you may have a problem with your ears.

I did say you would come back & say this way back but you forgot to add the big cheesy grin


Just for clarity, was this done blind or not & how long did you listen each time, a few seconds of the same track or longer with different music.

Whenever I carried out this simple test was done blind & carried out by a friend who has no interest whatsoever in hifi or sound quality.

It's quite easy to hear this, if you can't i'm afraid I feel you are being dishonest, anything spinning at these speeds will be affected by what it is placed on, ask anyone using a record deck.

 

[BE718]

Well proven physics my arse! It is just some potted theory based on some crude measurements.

A lot of MusicWorks customers are deluded then.

Steven you are ignorant beyond belief. My reference to room acoustics and acoustics physics is an extremely well proven science and physics.

So are my measurements of vibration.

If you know otherwise please feel free to present your technical concerns.

Your unsubstantiated argument against this shows just how deluded you are.

I encourage people to view the music works website and make their own minds up about their products and claims. Personally, I'm laughing my arse off, from an informed technical PoV.

http://www.musicworks-hifi.com/products/

 

[Lee T]

Thank you for telling me that. I hope you learn to cope with your frustrations and they don't colour your posts.

I try but I am only human after all, hate the troll word being thrown around when I know why I started this thread

what I propose is, anyone thinking this way go elsewhere if it cannot be helpful to the thread otherwise what's the point.

 

[BE718]

I think you may have a problem with your ears.

Nope, recent measurement prove they are fine, but thanks for your concern.

 

[Joe Hutch]

The whole problem is down to subjectivists wanting/needing 'scientific' explanations for perceived phenomena, then throwing their toys out of the pram when someone posts anything remotely resembling a 'science-y' response that even so much as hints at the possibility that the phenomena in question might be imagined rather than real.

Science will ask, firstly, is this a real, demonstrable phenomenon? In audio terms, this means confirming that the change can be reliably identified by someone who does not know, and cannot tell from non-audio evidence, that a change has been made.

Unfortunately, this involves blind testing under controlled conditions, which subjectivists find stressful, so we never get beyond the 'are you calling me deaf/deluded/a liar?' stage when someone's experiences are questioned.

The answer is simple. Enjoy what you are hearing, and don't ask for explanations. It works for music, so why not for tweaks? But if you really are interested in 'the science', prepare to have your anecdotal evidence scrutinised. After all, anecdotal evidence would suggest that the sun revolves around the earth, and that a stick bends when you place it in water.

 

[droodzilla]

A short diversionary interlude perhaps?

It's a hypothetical scenario, I know, but it is based on observations I've come to, in my own haphazard subjective way, over the years. I still get that pleasure, the various attempts at reprogramming haven't robbed me of it. So, I repeat, even if what the objective side says is all true, where is the harm. Why are you all so upset about it?

There's not a great deal of harm in it really, and I don't get terribly wound up about this stuff either, which is why I only post on these threads infrequently. Such harm as there might be takes a couple of forms, in my view:

1. Before I "reprogrammed" myself I was stuck on the Naim upgrade escalator, trying to figure out how I could get the money together to buy a hi-line or the next CD player in the hierarchy. Looking back I spent lots of money that I could have either saved or spent on something that gave me more lasting pleasure. Thanks to Naim's resale value I didn't lose much in the end, so no great harm. Sometimes you see people on forums who are obsessed to the point of neurosis with cables, supports etc. This can have significant financial consequences when the individual concerned doesn't have the resources to support the lifestyle they aspire to. But even if they do, there is an awful lot of anxiety and neurosis around the hobby (not necessarily in you, Stephen etc.) which hardly adds to the sum total of human happiness.

2. I happen to think it's good for us to be aware of our limitations and accept that an established body of knowledge such as the science of electromagnetism, acoustics etc may be more trustworthy than our own perception where the two conflict. In a way, Stephen is right to object to an element of moral zeal in my position, since I see a clear connection between the commitment to science and the moral stance. Both science and morality, in my view, require a willingness on the part of the individual to set aside his or her own subjective take in deference to something else. In the case of the science this "something else" is the world that exists outside of our perceptions of it, and which answers when we put questions to it in the form of scientific experiments. In the case of morality, the "something else" is other people (and maybe animals) who have a claim on us and on how we behave towards them. So, to put it somewhat melodramatically, I see the insistence upon one's own subjective experience over established scientific fact as morally suspect