advertisement


Microphony III

I've provided a list of high quality cd players that are effected by what they are sat on, so that argument is a nonsense. I've a,ready stated that do t real,y care about the science. I just listen.
 
Seems people are perfectly happy to trust the science, the measurement, the testing when they board a plane, get in a car, take medicine but when it comes to hifi they think any new age audio bollocks should have parity with it.
 
cooky1257 said:
Seems people are perfectly happy to trust the science, the measurement, the testing when they board a plane, get in a car, take medicine but when it comes to hifi they think any new age audio bollocks should have parity with it.
Click to expand...


Erm, it's not quite the same is it?
 
BE718 said:
Sorry, I think the unfamiliar environment is just a convenient excuse. The differences are either large enough to hear or they are not. If you need to be in some kind of zen like state to be able to perceive the differences then what does that say?
Click to expand...

Convenient excuse for what exactly? While we're at it where in my post did I refer to the need for a zen like state?

To not consider that there may be familiarisation/normalisation issues with unfamiliar systems/environments, which is what my post was pointing out, seems a very strange scientific outlook.
 
When science clashes with belief systems; Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the view that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he was opposed by astronomers, philosophers and clerics. One of the latter, Niccolò Lorini, eventually lodged an informal complaint against Galileo with the prefect of the Congregation of the Index, and another, Tommaso Caccini, formally denounced him to the Roman Inquisition, early in 1615. The subsequent investigation led to the Catholic Church's condemning heliocentrism as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture" in a decree by the Congregation of the Index in February 1616.[9] Although Galileo was not then judged to have committed any offence, he was nevertheless warned by Cardinal Bellarmine to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to abjure, and spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest
 
F1eng said:
Well, whilst it is debatable about the medicine IMHO, the car and plane analogies are spot on.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I have no interest in how planes or cars, or any other type of machine works and never had.

But I'm not sure how putting a bit of plastic under my CD player is the same as trusting governments to regulate safety in travelling miles in the air.
 
cooky1257 said:
When science clashes with belief systems; Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the view that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he was opposed by astronomers, philosophers and clerics. One of the latter, Niccolò Lorini, eventually lodged an informal complaint against Galileo with the prefect of the Congregation of the Index, and another, Tommaso Caccini, formally denounced him to the Roman Inquisition, early in 1615. The subsequent investigation led to the Catholic Church's condemning heliocentrism as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture" in a decree by the Congregation of the Index in February 1616.[9] Although Galileo was not then judged to have committed any offence, he was nevertheless warned by Cardinal Bellarmine to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to abjure, and spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest
Click to expand...

And Antonio Gramsci died in one of Mussolini's prisons. So what?
 
Paul McGarry said:
Quite frankly I have no interest in how planes or cars, or any other type of machine works and never had.

But I'm not sure how putting a bit of plastic under my CD player is the same as trusting governments to regulate safety in travelling miles in the air.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned safety?
Aeronautics, mechanical, chemical, electrical, electronic engineering/science.
 
cooky1257 said:
When science clashes with belief systems; Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the view that the Earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he was opposed by astronomers, philosophers and clerics. One of the latter, Niccolò Lorini, eventually lodged an informal complaint against Galileo with the prefect of the Congregation of the Index, and another, Tommaso Caccini, formally denounced him to the Roman Inquisition, early in 1615. The subsequent investigation led to the Catholic Church's condemning heliocentrism as "false" and "altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture" in a decree by the Congregation of the Index in February 1616.[9] Although Galileo was not then judged to have committed any offence, he was nevertheless warned by Cardinal Bellarmine to abandon his support for heliocentrism—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to abjure, and spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest
Click to expand...

Be fair, they [/I]did[/I] eventualy apologise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Many, many years later...
 
cooky1257 said:
Seems people are perfectly happy to trust the science, the measurement, the testing when they board a plane, get in a car, take medicine but when it comes to hifi they think any new age audio bollocks should have parity with it.
Click to expand...

Boarding an aeroplane is potentially a life-and-death situation.

Audio nirvana or lack thereof isn't.
 
Paul McGarry said:
Quite frankly I have no interest in how planes or cars, or any other type of machine works and never had.

But I'm not sure how putting a bit of plastic under my CD player is the same as trusting governments to regulate safety in travelling miles in the air.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with safety at all, just the technological knowledge to make them such that they work.

If you are not interested in how things work you are unlikely to understand how things work so how/why on earth did you get this far into such a thread :)
 
Well Ive had a number of papers published, have an MA and a Research Fellowship at s top university, but I'm not interested in how machines work. Now people,mmthey are interesting.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
This thread has been interesting, and thanks to BE for all the food for thought. I have a few, probably not particularly helpful, comments.

Firstly, with regard to Keith’s perennial remarks about something not being properly designed. I realise this is normally trotted out without a moment’s thought mainly to get a rise out of somebody, but it does seem to me that he may be making assumptions about the design criteria which he might not be entitled to make.

Not being an electronics designer (no, really), I’m not qualified to comment, but ISTR John W and others, who are, have said that, for example, power supplies can be susceptible to electrical noise, and/or that if you apply too much regulation to a power supply, sound quality suffers.

What this tells me is that ‘proper design’ takes into account measures to reduce susceptibility to external influences but also notices if those measures themselves adversely affect the overall performance of the unit in terms of the overall design aims (eg best SQ for the cost), and adjusts the compromises accordingly. Keith’s rather blunt assertions make no allowances for such things.

So, if the designer observes that his unit works better with decent mains, or sounds different on different surfaces, he might be able to design-out that susceptibility but if doing so results in a unit that sounds like it is playing underwater, then it’s perhaps preferable to accept the quirks. Depending on your budget, you may have more or less scope to work on solutions. That's different to 'correctly' and 'incorrectly' designed, which does sound a bit Soviet in its unequivocality. Are we to expect 'an amp designer's response to just criticism' at any point, perhaps?

Just saying.

And my second point is that while BE has been careful to argue that ‘you imagined it’ is simply a possibility which shouldn’t be ignored (on which he is undoubtedly correct), others have taken the ‘it’s not shown up in the vibration measurements’ to be tantamount to saying ‘it’s not been measured, therefore you imagined it’.

Let’s just say that that conclusion does not follow from the evidence. Unless and until you can dismiss every other possibility, AND can show that the conclusion is one you have evidence to support, it's just a different sort of unsubstantiated supposition. Like, oh I don't know, like the ones about microphony are now slated as being. It is, I think, quite rare for anybody on here to be sufficiently educated and experienced in both electronics AND human perception, so that they would be qualified to make these definitive statements.

In short, if you want to rely on a claim that those reporting changes to the sound have imagined those changes, then under the usual rules we’re entitled to ask for your evidence and supporting arguments. Otherwise, it is only your opinion, just as ‘I heard it, and can’t explain it, but don’t think it is all psychoacoustic trickery’ is only my opinion. So please stop using 'you must have imagined it' as an argument unless you have the knowledge and facts to be sure of your ground. It’s only what you ask of others, after all.

Bear in mind also that, certainly the way it is expressed by some, ‘…therefore you imagined it’ can be a highly pejorative comment. Basically, the way some posters deploy it, they are accusing somebody of hearing things, and we all know that hearing things that aren’t there is what mad people do. They are, in effect, accusing somebody of being crazy. They never come out and actually accuse people of being mad, but you’d have to be pretty dumb not to be able to read between the lines to what they are implying.

That’s the bit that generates the heat in these threads, because the targets of the argument are quite reasonably annoyed at being told they are mental –the poster might try to deny that that was what they meant, but it’s a bit lame. So even if it is the accused who raises the temperature of the debate in retort, the provocation has come from elsewhere (hint: and not from the intellectual or moral high ground).

To return to the OP, I’d still like to know what is going on. If it isn’t microphony (at least in the terms investigated here, and I did suggest some enquiries which haven’t taken place and no doubt there are others) then what is it? Psychoacoustic suggestibility is, of course, one possibility, but you won’t prove it by a process of elimination. Nor will you eliminate it by making people doubt the evidence of their ears.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing (again) a voice of reason.

Designs are not necessarily poor, just about compromise.
 
BE718 said:
John, with respect you need to do some research on the subject of vibration before you offer opinions.

I will try for a third, or is it fourth time to get a concept across to you regarding frequency and its effect on velocity and displacement.

When converting between acceleration, velocity and displcement the integration and double integration dramatically reduces the amplitude levels with increasing frequency.

I will let you think about that and the reason why I tested at 300Hz.

As an aside, have you ever wondered why your woofer moves so far and your tweeter doesnt? Its not just because you cant see it because its moving faster.


BTW that wasnt the largest measurement, it was at a considerably lower acoustic pressure of 70 dB(A). Take yet another look at the data.
Click to expand...

BE718, could you tell us please, in layman's terms, what sort of distance a 10Hz, or 30Hz (in other words low or very low) frequency would oscillate? A rumble from a lorry for example if it drove close to a house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top