Microphony III

[Steven Toy]

Steven, if you really want to come across as a leader/innovator in this stuff rather than just a defensive punter all you need to do is to organise a proper controlled blind test and prove that perfectly ordinary folk with no dog in the race can hear a difference between your favoured bit of plastic being there or not. Once you have done that your work is over. All this jumping around blaming and name-calling those who wish to learn and understand how things work is doing you no favours. Once you have proven there is an effect, and a good blind test is proof (this is how science works!), the ball is then entirely in the measurement camp's court to explain what has occurred.

I'd like to conduct the other test.

Experience from DBO4 tells me that it would be far from over. There would be revisionism on the part of the naysayers (that's name-calling btw, is it allowed?) who would shift their position from "no audible difference" to "subtle difference that doesn't matter."

This is exactly how our good friend Rob (anongst others) revised his position after DBO4. All credit to him (them) though as nobody actually disputed the findings as I expected them to.

I'm also happy for the discussion of the effects of stands to proceed along the lines of

"A change is occurring through their use but let's find out how and why"

instead of

"it's not happening until you prove that it does."

 

[Purité Audio]

The first step though is to determine whether any difference is detected.
Keith

 

[BE718]

You don't.

What you've effectively done is erect an absolutist straw man.

At the one end (black) we have the zen-like state. At the other extreme (white) we have a full-blown panic attack with hyperventilation, blurred vision, parasthesias etc. Somewhere between these extremes (shades of grey) we have various states of mental arousal to include the usual fairly relaxed state in which we sit down and enjoy listening to music.

You are very good at crunching the numbers but your understanding of perception seems almost willfully ignorant.

When in a normal and fairly relaxed state of mind those subtle differences that make music more enjoyable to listen to are obvious.

There is an experiment I'd like to conduct with control and experimental groups. One group would be given a chance to familiarise themselves with the environment in which they are then subject to blind testing of loudspeakers that are subtly but measurably different.

The other group would face the same test from the off in the way that these tests are conducted when someone is trying to rig a null result in order to 'prove' a point instead of trying to establish whether or not there actually is a perceivable difference.

I'd then like to compare the results of each group.

Sorry Steven that's cobblers. No straw an, just pointing out that the differences must be very small.

Hang on a minute, speakers that are measurably different!!!! My god I thought that wouldn't prove a thing to you? You seemed to be dead against measurement, it can't tell us very much you were saying previously.

 

[Hipper]

Im not entirely clear what you are asking, but if its what displacement may be measured, I'm afraid its not possible to answer. Every situation might be different, the ground conditions, the frequency and amplitude of vibration from the lorry etc etc.

You mention that 'velocity and displacement decrease with increasing frequency', so presumably the reverse is that velocity and displacement increase with lower frequencies.

Perhaps I should ask my question differently.

At what point does a low frequency - 10Hz or 30Hz say - start to give significant movement to a building for example.

I realise that there are many variables but have you come across vibrations that were caused by, for example, traffic, that gave significant measurements?

 

[Steven Toy]

No I didn't say that, I said it demonstrates how vanishingly small the differences must be if you need to have special preparation to stand a chance of hearing them. Totally different to your misrepresentation.

The differences are subtle yet worthwhile when you actively listen to music for enjoyment.

It's the subtleties that add the sparkle not the gross differences.

 

[BE718]

I'd like to conduct the other test.

Experience from DBO4 tells me that it would be far from over. There would be revisionism on the part of the naysayers (that's name-calling btw, is it allowed?) who would shift their position from "no audible difference" to "subtle difference that doesn't matter."

This is exactly how our good friend Rob (anongst others) revised his position after DBO4. All credit to him (them) though as nobody actually disputed the findings as I expected them to.

I'm also happy for the discussion of the effects of stands to proceed along the lines of

"A change is occurring through their use but let's find out how and why"

instead of

"it's not happening until you prove that it does."

If they said that they are agreeing there is a difference. That's the question, not if on a personal level it is significant. You can then go on a merrily say to the world that you were correct.

So I don't see what your problem is.

Also, people are entirely entitled to hold the opinion that there is no difference. You seem to be wanting to close the debate down.

 

[Steven Toy]

Sorry Steven that's cobblers. No straw an, just pointing out that the differences must be very small.

Hang on a minute, speakers that are measurably different!!!! My god I thought that wouldn't prove a thing to you? You seemed to be dead against measurement, it can't tell us very much you were saying previously.

Small as in subtle but worthwhile.

By choosing measurably different speakers we would remove one point of contention and an unnecessary variable from the experiment.

You've erected another straw man as I'm not "dead against measurement," I'm simply sceptical of measurement determining 100% what we can reliably and consistently perceive.

 

[BE718]

The differences are subtle yet worthwhile when you actively listen to music for enjoyment.

It's the subtleties that add the sparkle not the gross differences.

I can hear subtleties just fine, I have never heard differences between stands though. If you are talking gross acoustic anomalies theN sorry no, they destroy the sound and enjoyment.

 

[Purité Audio]

You mention that 'velocity and displacement decrease with increasing frequency', so presumably the reverse is that velocity and displacement increase with lower frequencies.

Perhaps I should ask my question differently.

At what point does a low frequency - 10Hz or 30Hz say - start to give significant movement to a building for example.

I realise that there are many variables but have you come across vibrations that were caused by, for example, traffic, that gave significant measurements?

Buildings will sway at a certain frequency depending upon their height, there is a formula, but I would have to look it up.
One of the engineers from Speirs & Robertson told me that they encountered a particular problem at a research institute which was set in a secluded area, at certains times of the day, the ESMs would be affected by vibration.
Eventually they tracked the issue down to a railway line some ten miles away, the vibration coincided with the goods train passing.
Keith.

 

[BE718]

Small as in subtle but worthwhile.

By choosing measurably different speakers we would remove one point of contention and an unnecessary variable from the experiment.

You've erected another straw man as I'm not "dead against measurement," I'm simply sceptical of measurement determining 100% what we can reliably and consistently perceive.

But paraphrasing you said measurements don't mean anything.

Again I think it is you inventing straw men. No one has claimed measurement can 100% determine what we perceive.

Just another point, reliably and consistently perceive is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Your perception is reliant on the human condition. There are so many variables that effect its reliability.

 

[Steven Toy]

There has been nothing esoteric or questionable about the vibration measurements I have made. However you don't want to believe them as it doesn't tally with your beliefs.

It doesn't tally with my experience going back over 14 years!

The stands may not be working according to the suggested hypotheses presented thus far but they are more likely than not working somehow.

The question is how..?

 

[Steven Toy]

But paraphrasing you said measurements don't mean anything.

Again I think it is you inventing straw men. No one has claimed measurement can 100% determine what we perceive.

Just another point, reliably and consistently perceive is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Your perception is reliant on the human condition. Bothered are so many variables that effect its reliability.

'Reliably and consistently' narrows the parameters so as to exclude the imagination, mood etc. Familiarisation with the environment also seeks to remove this as a variable as much as is possible.

Is your position not summed up by the following statement?

"Measurements will determine 100% what we can perceive reliably and consistently."

 

[BE718]

You mention that 'velocity and displacement decrease with increasing frequency', so presumably the reverse is that velocity and displacement increase with lower frequencies.

Perhaps I should ask my question differently.

At what point does a low frequency - 10Hz or 30Hz say - start to give significant movement to a building for example.

I realise that there are many variables but have you come across vibrations that were caused by, for example, traffic, that gave significant measurements?

Again, I'm afraid you are asking impossible questions. Define significant? Significant wrt what?

low frequency at a low amplitude won't cause a building to vibrate. An earthquake however.....

There is no absolute. The relationship between a,v and d is relative, it doesn't mean that at a low enough frequency displacement suddenly becomes a problem....whatever you define problem aS

Sorry

 

[Purité Audio]

I would ask the most ardent 'stand difference' supporters around to yours, and the ask someone to conduct the unsighted test.
You can agree the conditions, beforehand.
You three expect to hear a difference, it would be interesting.
Keith

 

[BE718]

'Reliably and consistently' narrows the parameters so as to exclude the imagination, mood etc. Familiarisation with the environment also seeks to remove this as a variable as much as is possible.

Guess what, that's why we do blind tests

 

[BE718]

'

Is your position not summed up by the following statement?

"Measurements will determine 100% what we can perceive reliably and consistently."

No. Never said that. You know I haven't. Straw man anyone?

My input thus far has been to demonstrate the mechanism you think is happening (Your stand isolating vibration) almost certainly isn't.

I have also demonstrated that any effect on my ss amp due to acoustically induced vibration from a 90dB(A) pink noise and sine source-is below its noise floor of -125 dB ref 1volt, which is below the threshold of hearing. The effect, if there is one, is more akin to invisible than your terminology of subtle. Draw your own conclusions if you like.

It is of course entirely possible that you valve amp is grossly microphonic. If it is then I'll remain happy with my ss amp

 

[cooky1257]

I'm intrigued how these charlatans go about designing their stands. What piece(s) of equipment do they use to audition, what form does the initial prototype take, what informs the materials choice, how the heck do you develop it if any more than 5 listening swaps is too tiring to be reliable? And that's just the start. It reeks of BS.

 

[Steven Toy]

I'm intrigued how these charlatans go about designing their stands. What piece(s) of equipment do they use to audition, what form does the initial prototype take, what informs the materials choice, how the heck do you develop it if any more than 5 listening swaps is too tiring to be reliable? And that's just the start. It reeks of BS.

I blame the top-notch Manchester ales consumed afterwards meself!

The discoveries of which materials work better (or even worse against expectation) have been accidental on a few occasions.

PEEK was an accidental discovery as it was chosen as a tougher material to replace acrylic screws that kept splitting under stress from the stand flexing front-to-back. It was then discovered that as well as being stronger, it sounded better too.

My own experimentation with PEEK has confirmed this to my own satisfaction.

 

[westsea]

QUOTE 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.

The best I can offer is the possibility of Resonance, there is some evidence of this in the nature of the material and structure of the stand in Steven’s photograph, and the fact that he hears an improvement or change when damping is added (an assumption on my part). The load of 40kg is probably quite high for the structure (stand) and the subsequent deflections and strain energies make it a possibility. I get a sense of similar thoughts from Tony L’s comments. In Be718’s very useful work, his own stand is very rigid – both the structure and the glass shelves, so not particularly prone to resonances which would impact on solid state, or even valve kit. The impulses from the 300hz load from is amp are extremely low, so the two cases are quite different. Again noting Tony L’s comments valve equipment is a little more sensitive to its environment than solid state, although the fact that Westlakes dac ‘sound’s’ better without the case is a puzzle that requires some sort of explanation. BE could probably do some bump tests on Steven’s stands to confirm the validity of this theory, but I guess that’s not possible. or even practical

Like you I think it unkind to insinuate that people are not hearing differences, and certainly to imply madness is out of order (although to be fair I did not see this in a quick scan of the posts). Our brains try to make sense of our world, and use past experience and acquired knowledge to do so – and we all get it wrong or different, occasionally, perhaps without exception.

 

[Steven Toy]

QUOTE 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.

The best I can offer is the possibility of Resonance, there is some evidence of this in the nature of the material and structure of the stand in Steven’s photograph, and the fact that he hears an improvement or change when damping is added (an assumption on my part). The load of 40kg is probably quite high for the structure (stand) and the subsequent deflections and strain energies make it a possibility. I get a sense of similar thoughts from Tony L’s comments. In Be718’s very useful work, his own stand is very rigid – both the structure and the glass shelves, so not particularly prone to resonances which would impact on solid state, or even valve kit. The impulses from the 300hz load from is amp are extremely low, so the two cases are quite different. Again noting Tony L’s comments valve equipment is a little more sensitive to its environment than solid state, although the fact that Westlakes dac ‘sound’s’ better without the case is a puzzle that requires some sort of explanation. BE could probably do some bump tests on Steven’s stands to confirm the validity of this theory, but I guess that’s not possible. or even practical

Like you I think it unkind to insinuate that people are not hearing differences, and certainly to imply madness is out of order (although to be fair I did not see this in a quick scan of the posts). Our brains try to make sense of our world, and use past experience and acquired knowledge to do so – and we all get it wrong or different, occasionally, perhaps without exception.

I think you may have it with resonance. One experiment conducted was removing an empty Quadraspire stand from the room. This made a subtle improvement in itself.

All stands (including the human holding a piece of kit in his/her hands) resonate and the kit has to sit on something.

The ReVo probably resonates the least of all the stands I've tried.

It will support more than 40 Kg in weight, btw, although it has been suggested by AudioWorks themselves that the amp may be better placed on its own support to reduce the overall mass of the main stand and what sits upon it.

I shall experiment with this within the next few months.

Yes, damping of the rear upright section did make a subtle yet worthwhile improvement. The strips were also given FOC.