advertisement


Microphony III

whatsnext said:
BE718 the wonder stands are made of Acrylic not perspex and a special version at that no doubt.

Exploring the potential SQ benefits of Acrylic sheet a few years back as a result of Stevens joy at Musicworks stuff I found it made no difference in my system - that was 15mm clear.

It is pretty dead to vibration though, tap test. The sheet I tried is still in place in case it burned in
Click to expand...

You tested the material not the structure.
 
Steven Toy said:
You tested the material not the structure.
Click to expand...

Of course you are making a correct statement. Makes you feel good doesn't it. So is the structures shape the factor regardless of material in your humble opinion?

Do you believe one might not get a hint from just the material?

Seems like magic to me.

Steven I in no way suggest anything about your experience and perception. It is my experience and perception.
 
Werner said:
Surely you are aware of the Nordost / Vertex AQ / Acuity measurement initiative of five years ago which in an unprecedented flash of genius proved for once and for all that cables and anti-vibe products actually do work? Validated by the MOD, the word spread eagerly by one Roy Gregory ...

http://www.nordost.com/downloads/NewApproachesToAudioMeasurement.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSAd2ntP4FM

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=75130

This story was an absolute gem, something to treasure. Even better than the Kunchur Kase.


But if you look at the perpetrators' own website on this subject you get

http://www.vertexaq.com/content/view/36/1/
Click to expand...

What exactly is the objection to all this?

A further report from Vertex:

http://vertexaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Knowledge-Alliance-Paper-Feb-2011-v-1.1.pdf
 
Thank you so much for posting this. At last some proper measuremwnts which help to explain what a lot of us are hearing.
 
The further report from Vertex is well worth a read (the earlier one didn't link to anything for me) - they are planning to release a software tool to enable us all to do these tests if we are so inclined!

Let the debate continue!

Cheers. Bill
 
I am afraid that is an extremely poorly conducted test, if you read exactly how they compare an unreconstructed WAV file ,to one which has been passed through a DAC and ADC, the whole thing simply wouldn't hold up to serious investigation.
Keith.
 
Purite Audio said:
I am afraid that is an extremely poorly conducted test, if you read exactly how they compare an unreconstructed WAV file ,to one which has been passed through a DAC and ADC, the whole thing simply wouldn't hold up to serious investigation.
Keith.
Click to expand...

Do please explain further Keith. I assume you're talking about the later Vertex report.

Cheers. Bill
 
I watched the youtube vid and felt like I needed a shower after it. very reminiscent of a UKIP meeting dripping with slime.
 
John said:
I thought it was interesting. i wonder if the software ever became available.
Click to expand...

+1.

I think two aspects were especially interesting:

The use of real music and not pink noise;
The importance given to timing and not just frequency response as it is more common.
 
Purite Audio said:
I am afraid that is an extremely poorly conducted test, if you read exactly how they compare an unreconstructed WAV file ,to one which has been passed through a DAC and ADC, the whole thing simply wouldn't hold up to serious investigation.
Keith.
Click to expand...

You ought to read it again, perhaps in a slower more relaxed manner this time.
 
radamel said:
+1.

I think two aspects were especially interesting:

The use of real music and not pink noise;
The importance given to timing and not just frequency response as it is more common.
Click to expand...
So what? What they did with "real music" in order to measure supposed improvements in timing was utterly meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top