Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
i think they (members of the Steve Hoffman forum) are a much better informed group than the public at large. No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget there. OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there. Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an excuse. No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there. I guess you didn't want to answer the question. Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work? No, never felt the urge to. Too bad. You are missing out on some great sounding records and CDs. Have you listened to some great CD/SACD/DVD-A lately? Yes I have thank you. Let us know if you need some recommendations. I have in the past. They were pretty good some of them but not the best I have ever heard. Again, I don't think you would favor the opinion of the public at large if the topic were astology. You call upon the masses when you think they agree with you. i make no presumption about the forum members at Steve Hoffman's website. The *majority* of them are CD enthusiasts. If you like, go ahead and do your survey. I think the results are biased, but you are welcome to it, and yeaj, it could be fun. There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I think the results would not be a s easy to predict there as they would here or in the Vinyl Asylum on Audio Asylum. Perhaps you think your like minded friends here on RAHE are the ones who are truly unbiased? The RAHE is a very small sampling of audio enthusiasts. I do not think that the results here are really reflective of the mass of enthuisasts in the world. Therefore, a survey done on this newsgroup also has limited appeal to me. Now back to the issue of a $300 beating a $3000 vinyl rig convincingly. Simply listen to solo piano recordings. I have done so quite extensively. For instance, Lang Lang's Rach3 on which he also played the Scriabin Etudes. Listen to the stability of the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl. I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is up to snuff. Of course, one of the problems of LP as a delivery format is that there are so many LP's that are not up to snuff, due to the difficulty of manufacturing perfectly centered discs, etc. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. CD's that are not manufactured up to snuff? Please give examples. And compare against vinyl. I didn't say anything about CDs not being manufactured up to snuff. I simply said many of them are not up to snuff. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I am sure the vast array of bad sounding CDs were probably manufactured just fine. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard. If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already . I keep my own score yes. The results were in for me quite a while ago. I do however look for better mastered CDs as well as LPs. But this is really deja au all over again. Almost exactly one year ago, you were an active participant in this thread comparing LP vs CD: Not much has changed since then. Here is a practical suggestion. Get that $100 Panasonic DVD-A player that Mr. Lavo raved about. That Remastering/Upsampling may be exactly what you need to appreciate the digital formats! If not, you are out at most $100, and it's a nice DVD player. I am not jumping into new formats just yet. I thought you thought CD was as good as it gets anyways. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51 On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/16/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: KiH5c.22949$_w.490086@attbi_s53 I have no problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches, but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better timekeeper than a $5 Casio. Now that is a strawman. Timekeeping is not an aesthetic experience. It is not a relevant analogy. Clearly, you have never met an horologist! :-) Don't know. never even heard of one before. I've never heard anyone say "if you've never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to comment". Probably because it isn't relevant. Certainly it is. CD is *vastly* more competent than LP by any technical measure, so any expressed preference for vinyl is amatter of subjective aeshetic preference. This is identical to the preference of many people for the fine precision engineering required to make a top-quality mechanical watch, as opposed to the more accurate but less satisfying quartz watch. Now do you see the analogy? No. people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter. BTW, a Breguet Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders' would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a very complex solution to a non-existant problem............ There in lies the problem with your analogy. The aesthetics of music are not comparable to accurate time keeping. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference. He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much different. Hence I would not participate in such a forum. Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a component unless it is already raised. In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we speak at the Steve Hoffman forum. Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect? Whatever your biases tell you. No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from one who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases. It's not that I am biased. O.K. you are one the rare people on this earth that is unbiased. I personally have trouble with this but I am biased. It's the fact that those who participate in such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of subjects, and therefore your results are biased. Believe what you want to believe. Believe your assumptions without taking a look. That would be the objective thing to do I guess. I don't know, I don't practice that brand of objectivity. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 6a06c.31237$Cb.514394@attbi_s51 On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:14:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Chung wrote: Listen to the stability of the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl. I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is up to snuff. Quite so - but very few records can even approach the perfect stability of CD. doesn't really matter of you can't hear it. I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard. In your experience, perhaps. I have numerous solo piano CDs where the decay into silence is deeper and more detailed than on *any* of my LPs - including the Sheffield direct-cuts. Those are good but the complexity of the decay is much more apparent and vivid on the LPs IME. If you are having trouble with wow and flutter I would suggest you get a better turntable/arm/cartridge combination and a record that isn't defective or damaged for a real demonstration of what the medium is truly capable of. I have done so - the medium has *very* limited capabilities. Are you having trouble with audible wow and flutter from your table? Or listen to how quiet the background is. Too quite. Lack of room ambience is another common problem amoung CDs. LP 2 CD 0. Nope, CD still ahead by many lengths. Note that heavy compression is commonly used so that the 'ambience' you hear on LP is lifted many dBs over the natural sound, in order that it can be heard above surface noise. You don't need to do this with CD, which has an extra 20-30dB of dynamic range to allow low-level ambience to be heard clearly *and naturally*. I hear what I hear. Your $3K vinyl simply is incapable of reproducing high signal-to-noise ratios or the steady tone of pianos, like a $300 could. And yet I would bet most people would highly favor it in blind comparisons with the vast majority of popular recordings that exist in both formats. There is more to this picture than you are examining. We're not talking about your personal preference for the distortions and artifacts of vinyl, we're talking about the realistic reproduction of music.................. I am also talking about the realistic reproduction of music. I gues what you are trying to say is that your preferences are better than mine. I say that is nonsense. You are not an objective reference for subjective preferences. Your preferences are no better than mine. These are subjective tests, and the measurements back those up. They are hypathetical subjective tests. As I said before, in most of the actual tests of this nature that I have witnessed or read about the results favored the LP. Not in my case, nor of many of my audiophile friends. The vinylphiles are definitely in the minority - although of course a very *vocal* minority, as usual! Your personal anecdotal evidence is noted. It is quite different than mine. However those comparisons that have been widely reported are neither yours nor mine. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
i think they (members of the Steve Hoffman forum) are a much better informed group than the public at large. No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget there. OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there. Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an excuse. No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there. I guess you didn't want to answer the question. I thought I answered that question already. I said that this forum is not a good sampling of audio enthusiasts. I have no excuse to look for, since you're the one who asked to do the survey; I never said it made sense. Compared to other forums, rahe has a higher proportion of engineering professionals, so I certainly hope that those who are judging the quality of the information provided here would keep that in mind. Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work? No, never felt the urge to. Too bad. You are missing out on some great sounding records and CDs. Your opinion is noted. snip I am not jumping into new formats just yet. I thought you thought CD was as good as it gets anyways. Whether I think CD is as good as it gets is immaterial to you. What could be significant is that since Mr. Lavo is also a vinyl lover, he and you should have similar standards as to what constitutes life-like sound. So if he loves that player, you may like it too, and who knows, it may change your overall position on that format. That player is a CD player as well. While I highly suspect that it will sound significantly different to me, perhaps the fact that it has remastering/upsampling may make you prefer it over what you have. At worst, Circuit City or Best Buy has good return policies. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference. Well, if you really want to know, ask Mr. Hoffman why it would work, since it sure is an extraordinary claim that it does. Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it that you should read: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s3.newsguy.com He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much different. No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective comparison here. Hence I would not participate in such a forum. Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a component unless it is already raised. See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where people with his analytical ability are missing! In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we speak at the Steve Hoffman forum. There are probably a lot more on AA, too. There are even people hanging out on RAO! So what's the point here? Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect? Whatever your biases tell you. Of course, my biases are right! No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from one who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases. It's not that I am biased. O.K. you are one the rare people on this earth that is unbiased. I personally have trouble with this but I am biased. Let me rephrase to make it clear. It's not whether I am biased or not. It's the fact that those who participate in such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of subjects, and therefore your results are biased. Believe what you want to believe. Believe your assumptions without taking a look. That would be the objective thing to do I guess. I don't know, I don't practice that brand of objectivity. How do you know I have not taken a look? You're right, though, you would believe what you want to believe. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
chung wrote:
That player is a CD player as well. While I highly suspect that it will sound significantly different to me, perhaps the fact that it has remastering/upsampling may make you prefer it over what you have. At worst, Circuit City or Best Buy has good return policies. Sorry, meant to say "I highly doubt that it will..." |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:20:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51 On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter. Not really - why do you think 'high end' vinyl rigs *look* so fancy? Doesn't affect the sonic performance one whit, but they are exactly the same 'big boys toys' as expensive mechanical watches - less performance, more pride of ownership. You can't possibly be trying to tell me that the particular 'aesthetics' of vinyl are somehow better on a Rockport Sirius III than on a SME 10............... And yes, a $5,000 Zenith *does* tell time better than a $2,000 Omega. BTW, a Breguet Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders' would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a very complex solution to a non-existant problem............ There in lies the problem with your analogy. The aesthetics of music are not comparable to accurate time keeping. Ah, you don't care about wow on piano solos? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference. He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much different. Despite what you claim the rules here are NOT the same and they are NOT enforced in the same manner. The *only* 'objectivist' posts that SHtv allows are those discussing measurments/tests that actaully have been done byt he poster, or by someone else. And as you note, failure to adhere to that rule results in more than just a deleted post. Most of my posts that get returned here, are returned because the *language* might offend someone..not the content. (I have yet to figure out the algorithm by which this decision is made, btw.) The remainder are usually responses to threads the moderators closed while I wasn't looking. ; Hence I would not participate in such a forum. Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a component unless it is already raised. Which subjectivists manage to do with happy regularity. Which, if DBT is such anathema, makes me wonder why *subjectvists* like yourself participate here. In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we speak at the Steve Hoffman forum. Most of whom appear to believe in things like 'cable sound'....and go completely unchallenged. It's good to have your beliefs validated. SHtv isn't RAHE. I think we've established that. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 8:58 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 60a6c.34149$po.308850@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/17/2004 2:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: m646c.31763$Cb.517413@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? hey I don't know if this particular room treatment works or not. i have never tried it. If you think it doesn't make a difference without actually using it you can always explain why it wouldn't make a difference. Well, if you really want to know, ask Mr. Hoffman why it would work, since it sure is an extraordinary claim that it does. I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Mr. Hoffman had a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work. If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a room treatment? Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it that you should read: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established priniclples of room acoustics. Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you don't need to hear it in practice. He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Then you must have a lot of posts returned on RAHE sinse they are not much different. No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective comparison here. As it is there. One cannot make an objective comparison though without an audition or at least some explination as to why something cannot possibly work. The moderators do not participate in the discussions here as they do there. As a note. I have never seen the moderators endorse anything here so you obviously have never had anything to question. Hence I would not participate in such a forum. Yet you participate here. The rules are pretty clear on RAHE that one cannot inject the issue of DBTs on a thread that discusses the sound quality of a component unless it is already raised. See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where people with his analytical ability are missing! He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke. That is not an unreasonable request and many others manage to succeed in doing so over there. I find it troubling that you would see this as a problem. Steven can post over there any time he promises to follow the same rules everyone else is expected to follow. In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Perhaps you couldn't.I don't really know how difficult it is for you to follow thier rules. Just remember most people believe they are right about most of their beliefs. It shouldn't be so hard for a perfectly reasonable gentleman to follow the rules of any given forum. There are several hundred doing so as we speak at the Steve Hoffman forum. There are probably a lot more on AA, too. There are even people hanging out on RAO! So what's the point here? The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so difficult to deal with. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. He made the choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than anyone else. Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect? Whatever your biases tell you. Of course, my biases are right! Of course No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from one who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases. It's not that I am biased. O.K. you are one the rare people on this earth that is unbiased. I personally have trouble with this but I am biased. Let me rephrase to make it clear. It's not whether I am biased or not. It's the fact that those who participate in such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of subjects, and therefore your results are biased. Believe what you want to believe. Believe your assumptions without taking a look. That would be the objective thing to do I guess. I don't know, I don't practice that brand of objectivity. How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? You're right, though, you would believe what you want to believe. Not always. I wanted to believe CDs would sound better to me than LPs. Actually I can make a pretty long list of things I want to be true that I don't believe are true. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Hence I would not participate in such a forum. Mr. Wheeler also cannot be aware of the many email back and forth betweem myself and the moderators, where I made the case for the wrongheadedness of their rules, before my suspension. It sin't like I didn't try to change the system. I have offered several times to be moderator myself, to give them more balance. In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. Believe me, my posting style there was mostly the same. As opposed to, say, Mr. Hoffman, who sometimes simply flies off the handle, and is of course allowed to get away with it. It's his playground, after all. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Few real objectivists last there...how could they? The barrage of ridiculous claims of difference is punishing. You do get the 'well I'm mostly objectivist but I think emotions factor in/there's stuff we don't know' sort of wishy-washy 'objectivist', and that's about all they can tolerate. Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect? There's good information there but it takes a bit of effort to find it. Lots of interseting inside info on mastering and such. Hit-or-miss discussion of remastered releases (good info on what's out there, bad info on how it sounds). OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there. Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an excuse. No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there. Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work? No, never felt the urge to. Have you listened to some great CD/SACD/DVD-A lately? Let us know if you need some recommendations. Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424 -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51 On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/16/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: KiH5c.22949$_w.490086@attbi_s53 I have no problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches, but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better timekeeper than a $5 Casio. Now that is a strawman. Timekeeping is not an aesthetic experience. It is not a relevant analogy. Clearly, you have never met an horologist! :-) Don't know. never even heard of one before. I've never heard anyone say "if you've never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to comment". Probably because it isn't relevant. Certainly it is. CD is *vastly* more competent than LP by any technical measure, so any expressed preference for vinyl is amatter of subjective aeshetic preference. This is identical to the preference of many people for the fine precision engineering required to make a top-quality mechanical watch, as opposed to the more accurate but less satisfying quartz watch. Now do you see the analogy? No. people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter. Wrong. Horological hobbysists can well be interested in the 'aesthetic' charm of an analog watch telling time slightly inaccurately, and in the rituals of setting and re-setting the watch. They might even proffer the opinion that the perfect accuracy of digital timekeeping -- not just the design of the watches, the actual functioning of them -- is somehow 'cold' and 'charmless' and 'uninvolving'. The connection to vinylphilia should be apparent. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... S888Wheel wrote: There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures from accuracy, than CD. After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R machines and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective comparison here. As it is there. One cannot make an objective comparison though without an audition or at least some explination as to why something cannot possibly work. I doubt you'd get by the moderators with the second option, and for the first, you'd need to have *done* an objective comparison, or report about someone who did. "Cannot possibly' btw is a ridiculous standard, because die-hards will always hold out the 'possibility' of things that are scientifically extremeley unlikely (including, if you visit the proper forums, things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) OF course, any old 'explanation' for why somethign *does* supposedly work, is allowed on SHtv...and here. Except here, it can be challenged. See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where people with his analytical ability are missing! He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke. LOL. 'Frequently', Scott? Were you counting? In fact it only takes a few episodes of rule-breaking to get suspended. The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so difficult to deal with. AFAIR, the rules about 'objectivist' posts were not in force when I joined. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. There is no 'problem' on my end, Scott. It's not like I'm battering down the walls to get back in there. The 'problem' is the same as with msot other audiophile outlets: rampant pseudoscience, if not outright hostility to even the *suggestiong* of reality-testing of claims. He made the choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than anyone else. Well, except for Mr. Hoffman himself, who gets special dispensation to be bitchy. How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? I too would urge Chung to take a look , especially at the Audio Hardware forum. Priceless stuff. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424 Thanks for the interesting thread. It is actually somewhat surprising that some of those posts passed moderation, since they directly refuted what Hoffman claimed. As another anecdote, I listed to Perahia's Goldberg Variations fairly carefully on both the SACD and the CD versions. I thought that they might have made some subtle mastering changes in the two versions, but I couldn't tell them apart, once I equalize volume. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424 Thanks for the interesting thread. It is actually somewhat surprising that some of those posts passed moderation, since they directly refuted what Hoffman claimed. LOL. Well, there's a reason for that...that link isn't to the Hoffman forum, it's to a forum (lukpac.org) started by *another* guy who got suspended from the Hoffman forum. Please feel free to post there with no fear of draconian 'rules' against objective comparison. While posting of .wav comparison data is allowed on SHtv, most of the posts on that lukpac thread would almost certainly never make it onto SHtv, for obvious reasons. Thomh, btw, *is* one of the few objectivists who'se still a participant on SHtv and who still *tries* to inject some sense into its ravings. His posts are worth looking up an SHtv, and I would certainly do so had I the capability. As another anecdote, I listed to Perahia's Goldberg Variations fairly carefully on both the SACD and the CD versions. I thought that they might have made some subtle mastering changes in the two versions, but I couldn't tell them apart, once I equalize volume. I've measured level differences on msot if not all of the few SACD/CD pairs I've analyzed. Either they're being mastered differently or the hardware that decodes the two formats in consumer gear tends to output at different levels. Do we know for a fact taht decoding in consumer gear isn't 'fudged' the way it was for HDCD vs CD? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. Mr. Hoffman had a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work. So he took a casual listen and claims that it really works? And he is willing to put his name behind that product so as to give it more credibility? Isn't he at all curious as to why it may work? Does he endorse the Shakti stones also? Is that how he endorses cables, too? If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. Did you try the magic green CD pen? So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a room treatment? Did you read Mr. Pierce's post? Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it that you should read: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established priniclples of room acoustics. Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale. It seems like if someone assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work, for you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and applications, but you have to judge the scale. Example: someone claims that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the application shown, the effects cannot be real. Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you don't need to hear it in practice. By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine, they almost fell off the chair laughing. If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every time, boy, someone would be really busy . He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke. Those are the same rules I would also break! The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so difficult to deal with. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. He made the choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than anyone else. I have already listed my problems with those rules. Why would I want to be in a forum whose owner's views and methodologies I do not agree with? Do I need to spend more time online? On the other hand, you don't have to defend why you are in that forum! snip How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am being 100% honest. You're right, though, you would believe what you want to believe. Not always. I wanted to believe CDs would sound better to me than LPs. Actually I can make a pretty long list of things I want to be true that I don't believe are true. Don't we all! |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
chung wrote:
S888Wheel wrote: I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. Mr. Hoffman had a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work. So he took a casual listen and claims that it really works? And he is willing to put his name behind that product so as to give it more credibility? Isn't he at all curious as to why it may work? Does he endorse the Shakti stones also? Is that how he endorses cables, too? As regards cables, yes. He's been pushing cables by his friend 'Grover' for months now, as being the ones he can *finally* endorse. Zilch in the way of objective listening data, of course... or even measurements, AFAICT. They just sound SO GOOD. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... S888Wheel wrote: There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures from accuracy, than CD. After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R machines and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to. Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with either a low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less than gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record can be played and played and played with no noticeable audible deterioration. You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for the vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not days. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 3/18/2004 10:28 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung No, I never had to question a product that our moderators endorse on this forum. As far as I can see, it is still OK to mention objective comparison here. As it is there. One cannot make an objective comparison though without an audition or at least some explination as to why something cannot possibly work. I doubt you'd get by the moderators with the second option Maybe maybe not. I suspect that if you brought some good explinations to the table without being overly confrontational it would pass. of course there is nothing preventing anyone from doing it here. hint hint. and for the first, you'd need to have *done* an objective comparison, or report about someone who did. No. I have never seen a post stating that someone listened to the thing in question and asserted that they didn't hear a difference ever get rejected. "Cannot possibly' btw is a ridiculous standard, because die-hards will always hold out the 'possibility' of things that are scientifically extremeley unlikely (including, if you visit the proper forums, things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics) It is only if you take it out of context as you have done here. If you insert it back into my assertion it is far from ridiculous. OF course, any old 'explanation' for why somethign *does* supposedly work, is allowed on SHtv...and here. Except here, it can be challenged. It can be challenged there as well. You just have to do it the right way. See above. The fact that someone like Mr. Sullivan could be asked to stop posting would bother me. I wouldn't want to be in a forum where people with his analytical ability are missing! He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke. LOL. 'Frequently', Scott? Yep Were you counting? Nope In fact it only takes a few episodes of rule-breaking to get suspended. Now yes. They cut you a lot of slack in the early days. The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so difficult to deal with. AFAIR, the rules about 'objectivist' posts were not in force when I joined. They were created in reaction to your many confrontational posts. No one ever told you not to talk about your beliefs there. They simply asked you not to inject it into other people's threads. The rules are very much the same over here. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. There is no 'problem' on my end, Scott. I think the suspensions would be evidence to the contrary. It's not like I'm battering down the walls to get back in there. The 'problem' is the same as with msot other audiophile outlets: rampant pseudoscience, if not outright hostility to even the *suggestiong* of reality-testing of claims. Did you ever try just starting such a thread rather than breaking te rules and jumping on others who started their own threads? It really isn't hard to express opinions there or here if one follows the rules. He made the choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than anyone else. Well, except for Mr. Hoffman himself, who gets special dispensation to be bitchy. Yes. He does have special privilidges. It is his forum and it is his business literally and figuratively. How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? I too would urge Chung to take a look , especially at the Audio Hardware forum. Priceless stuff. Of course if you want to learn about the different masterings of some of the most loved recordings one will find far more valuable information in the music section, the favored section of that forum. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/18/2004 9:44 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hel6c.34808$_w.569157@attbi_s53 On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:20:34 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/17/2004 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: P906c.31236$Cb.514156@attbi_s51 On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: people who prefer vinyl prefer the aesthetics of it's performance. I don't believe that watch enthusiasts of this day are concerned with the aesthteics of telling time. They may very well be interested in the aesthetics of the design and build of the watch itself though. That is however a different matter. Not really - why do you think 'high end' vinyl rigs *look* so fancy? Which ones would you be refering to? my old SOTA Star looked like a cutting board. It did have a nice wood venere but that was it. My Forsell has a nice gold name plate. That's about it for fancy styling. Do you find your table unneccesarily fancy looking? Doesn't affect the sonic performance one whit, I agree. The wood venere on my old table nor the gold name plate on my current one affects the sound one whit. but they are exactly the same 'big boys toys' as expensive mechanical watches - less performance, more pride of ownership. Which highend tables are you refering to that offer "less performance?" You can't possibly be trying to tell me that the particular 'aesthetics' of vinyl are somehow better on a Rockport Sirius III than on a SME 10............... I have never compared the two. I can tell you however I like them better on my Forsell than the Rockport. And yes, a $5,000 Zenith *does* tell time better than a $2,000 Omega. I don't really pay much attention to watches. BTW, a Breguet Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders' would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a very complex solution to a non-existant problem............ There in lies the problem with your analogy. The aesthetics of music are not comparable to accurate time keeping. Ah, you don't care about wow on piano solos? -- Sorry I wasn't clearer in my point. We were discussing your *analogy* to watches. Remember the context? Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 3/18/2004 10:06 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: chung wrote: S888Wheel wrote: Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Hence I would not participate in such a forum. Mr. Wheeler also cannot be aware of the many email back and forth betweem myself and the moderators, where I made the case for the wrongheadedness of their rules, before my suspension. It sin't like I didn't try to change the system. I have offered several times to be moderator myself, to give them more balance. Of course I cannot. Those emails were private, as they should be. Mr. Sullivan cannot be aware of my emails with a moderator also in regards to my disagreement with some of their rules. I managed to disagree with them in private without a suspension. It is possible to disagree with some rules on a forum and still follow those rules. In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. Believe me, my posting style there was mostly the same. As opposed to, say, Mr. Hoffman, who sometimes simply flies off the handle, and is of course allowed to get away with it. It's his playground, after all. Yes it is his forum. It is also his business (literatly) being discussed much of the time. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Few real objectivists last there...how could they? The barrage of ridiculous claims of difference is punishing. You do get the 'well I'm mostly objectivist but I think emotions factor in/there's stuff we don't know' sort of wishy-washy 'objectivist', and that's about all they can tolerate. You always had the option of starting your own threads on the subject rather than breaking the rules and intrusively injecting them into other threads. Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect? There's good information there but it takes a bit of effort to find it. Lots of interseting inside info on mastering and such. Hit-or-miss discussion of remastered releases (good info on what's out there, bad info on how it sounds). OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there. Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an excuse. No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there. Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work? No, never felt the urge to. Have you listened to some great CD/SACD/DVD-A lately? Let us know if you need some recommendations. Hoffman is doing SACD now (after being kinda ambivalent at best about it before he got the gig). Touting the superioity of the SACD layer over the CD layer of his releases, he claims they are NO different going into the converters. Yet comparison of them as .wavs indicates they could have been mastered at different levels. See the posts surrounding this one http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.p...fortunate#4424 -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... S888Wheel wrote: There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures from accuracy, than CD. After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R machines and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to. Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with either a low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less than gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record can be played and played and played with no noticeable audible deterioration. You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for the vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not days. And how about those microscopic dust etc. particles attracted to, and ground into the vinyl during a play even *after* the LP has been both vacuum cleaned (VIP, Nitty Gritty, etc.), Lasted and the stylus Stylasted? It is also impossible to keep Rice paper, etc. jackets absolutely free from lint. It gets into there even from the clothes you happened to be wearing. Even if you play and listen wearing your birthday suit, superficial layers of your sloughed off body skin will get in there and on the records. One would have to play LPs in one of those dust free rooms attired in special apparel from head to toe. Who needs it? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02 S888Wheel wrote: I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is there a formula you can cite? Mr. Hoffman had a casual listen to it. It is no more his burden to explain why it works than it is anyone elses burden to explain why their amps or speakers work. So he took a casual listen and claims that it really works? Looks that way. And he is willing to put his name behind that product so as to give it more credibility? When asked he says this product is for people with lots of money and suggests that people audition it before drawing any conclusions about it. It doesn't seem to me that he is actively trying to have people believe in it without trying it first. Isn't he at all curious as to why it may work? Ask him. Does he endorse the Shakti stones also? I don't know. Is that how he endorses cables, too? Yes. If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Did you try the magic green CD pen? No. What would this have to do with room treatments anyways? So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a room treatment? Did you read Mr. Pierce's post? I guess not. Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it that you should read: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established priniclples of room acoustics. Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale. Please feel free to discuss the issue. It seems like if someone assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work, No. That is a total misrepresentation of my position. With a room treatment I would say that for someone to claim it is bogus one would have to either audition it or provide an explination as to why it wont work. for you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and applications, but you have to judge the scale. Don't presume to speak for me please. You generally get completely wrong when you do so and it is simply offensive. Example: someone claims that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the application shown, the effects cannot be real. Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? How about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I would not hesitate to say so. Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you don't need to hear it in practice. By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine, they almost fell off the chair laughing. So? If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every time, boy, someone would be really busy . Why do you insist on beeing so demeaning? Why do you try to draw wierd universal conclusions about me based on this particular issue and then turn it into a personal attack? We are not running for office against each other. You could do a lot more just to address what it is that makes this product ineffective. Your friends' laughter isn't very convincing. He was only asked to follow the rules which he frequently broke. Those are the same rules I would also break! Well if you are incapable of following rules then you would also be treated in kind over there. I am at a loss to understand how objective gentlement would be incapable of following the rules of that forum though. The point is that a moderated forum that has a few simple rules shouldn't be so difficult to deal with. You say the problem is with the forum. I say the problem is with Steve's reluctance to follow the rules there. He made the choice every time he broke their rules. he wasn't treated any differently than anyone else. I have already listed my problems with those rules. Why would I want to be in a forum whose owner's views and methodologies I do not agree with? Do I need to spend more time online? Probably not On the other hand, you don't have to defend why you are in that forum! I haven't. Perhaps you didn't notice that. I do find it to be a very useful resource in the search for the best mastered issues of my favorite recordings though. If that is something that intersts you, you might also find it useful. snip How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am being 100% honest. Still sounds to me like you are just looking where Steven has suggested you look. You're right, though, you would believe what you want to believe. Not always. I wanted to believe CDs would sound better to me than LPs. Actually I can make a pretty long list of things I want to be true that I don't believe are true. Don't we all! I try not to speak for others. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
snip If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not clear. Did you try the magic green CD pen? No. What would this have to do with room treatments anyways? Because it is the same issue. It is up to them to explain why those things work. Do you believe they work? If not, are you going to explain here why they don't work? So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a room treatment? Did you read Mr. Pierce's post? I guess not. Why do you want me to give you an explanantion, when you wouldn't even read one that is already there? Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it that you should read: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established priniclples of room acoustics. Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale. Please feel free to discuss the issue. Size of the diffuser is imporrtant. The effective area of that gadget cannot possible make the kind of difference that is claimed. It seems like if someone assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work, No. That is a total misrepresentation of my position. With a room treatment I would say that for someone to claim it is bogus one would have to either audition it or provide an explination as to why it wont work. Someone already gave you an explanation, and then you did not read it, and asked for another one. Like I said, I don't know what kind of explanation makes sense to you. for you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and applications, but you have to judge the scale. Don't presume to speak for me please. You generally get completely wrong when you do so and it is simply offensive. Example: someone claims that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the application shown, the effects cannot be real. Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? Because it is the same kind of issue. Have you tried it? Does it work? Does someone have to explain to you why before claiming that it is bogus? How about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I would not hesitate to say so. Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you don't need to hear it in practice. By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine, they almost fell off the chair laughing. So? They don't seem to need any explanation from me to tell that it is bogus. If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every time, boy, someone would be really busy . Why do you insist on beeing so demeaning? Why do you try to draw wierd universal conclusions about me based on this particular issue and then turn it into a personal attack? We are not running for office against each other. You could do a lot more just to address what it is that makes this product ineffective. Your friends' laughter isn't very convincing. Not to you. But not one of them has to ask for an explanation why it would not work. snip How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am being 100% honest. Still sounds to me like you are just looking where Steven has suggested you look. Now that's funny, coming from someone who thinks I was being demeaning... |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
news:FoG6c.39310$JL2.455279@attbi_s03... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... S888Wheel wrote: There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures from accuracy, than CD. After the tenth play of an LP it will never, ever, again sound like the first play. That's why vinyl enthusiasts of long ago purchased O/R machines and tapes. Of course, now there are optical discs to record to. Beg pardon, but if Stylasted as soon as purchased and played with either a low mass arm and cartridge (such as the ADC XLM or Shure V15) at less than gram, or alternately, played with a properly set-up medium mass, medium compliance MC shibata-type stylus cartridge at under 2 grams, the record can be played and played and played with no noticeable audible deterioration. You just can't play it over and over right away. It takes some time for the vinyl to restore itself between plays. We're talking hours here, not days. And how about those microscopic dust etc. particles attracted to, and ground into the vinyl during a play even *after* the LP has been both vacuum cleaned (VIP, Nitty Gritty, etc.), Lasted and the stylus Stylasted? It is also impossible to keep Rice paper, etc. jackets absolutely free from lint. It gets into there even from the clothes you happened to be wearing. Even if you play and listen wearing your birthday suit, superficial layers of your sloughed off body skin will get in there and on the records. One would have to play LPs in one of those dust free rooms attired in special apparel from head to toe. Who needs it? You are simply overstating reality. All I can say is that I have records from the mid-sixties that have been cared for as above and played several times a year and they still sound virtually brand new. For one thing, I do not leave records just sitting around, not even for five minutes. They come out of their covers, go on the turntable, come off the turntable and go back into their covers. I also try to keep my turntable mats free of free dust before playing records. But other than that they get ordinary care. I do not even own a record cleaning machine (although I do clean them once with distilled water and a brush before Stylasting.) I get a bit tired of hearing people dissing vinyl here who obviously did not or do not care for their records. Most of the problems mentioned here can be avoided or mitigated with care. If you cannot be bothered, and prefer CD for its convenience, that's fine..its your choice. But people who love the sound of vinyl are also willing to invest the energy into keeping it as pristine as possible. So please quit attacking vinyl for its "avoidable" flaws...its like saying older cars are inferior because you have to wax them. They are not inferior to the collectors who own and enjoy them and get more pleasure from them than they do from newer machines. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02 S888Wheel wrote: I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is there a formula you can cite? Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims to reflect energy.) The dimensions of each of the strips of the "Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you seen any room treatment this small? Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"? Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room by overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass, overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage". This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a "musically complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much larger reflections from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it can only "generate" as much as it could possibly receive, and you can see how small the receiving surface is. Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place this gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the power is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4' in radius is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or take, at most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore reflect at most that. How could this possible achieve the stated claims. For most (non dipolar) speakers, this % would be even smaller, since much more power is radiated to the front. Now, can you come up with any reason why this gadget could be effective? OTOH, I know some people who honestly would hear the differences, if it were suggested to them (especially by people whose opinion they respect) that there is a difference. So maybe these things do work, for those who believe that they work. snip Example: someone claims that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the application shown, the effects cannot be real. Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? How about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I would not hesitate to say so. The point of bringing the green point is simply the analogy between the two in the manner scientifically meaningful words are assembled to create the illusion of credibility, which obviously some people fall for. In green pen claims, they mention "scattering", "laser", "random", etc. In the Hallograph claims, they mention "frequency", "time", "amplitude", "state-of-the-art", "room distortions", "time coefficients of first reflections" (???), etc. In both cases, they are trying to snow people with impressive-looking terminolgy. Now, I assume you don't believe in the green pens, right? Do you feel like you have to audition it first, or provide an explanation to someone as to why it won't work? Should the manufacturer of those gadgets provide proof that these things work first? Is there anything at all that you would consider "snake-oil" in audio? Do you feel like you have to explain it to someone why it is snake oil, to that someone's satisfaction? Shouldn't that burden of proof be on the manufacturers' shoulders? |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:3oq6c.37874$SR1.43873@attbi_s04... Thomh, btw, *is* one of the few objectivists who'se still a participant on SHtv and who still *tries* to inject some sense into its ravings. His posts are worth looking up an SHtv, and I would certainly do so had I the capability. Not a participant anymore, Steven. I'm banned. Not from breaking the rules on *their* forum, but from breaking their rules on *other* forums. So you must be on your best behaviour 24/7. It seems that I was the person referred to in this post from The SH Forum Team: http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?t=592 I did not get any warnings beforehand so I did not know it was me until I tried to log on one morning and found that my IP address was blocked from even entering the site. Seems they did not like it when I questioned Hoffman's foolish statement that higher sampling rates give better resolution in the lower octaves, i.e. more points = more accuracy. I also questioned the evidence that he presented to support this claim which was a 30+ year old recording of the song Fortunate Son off the CCR album Willie & The Poor Boys. He claimed that his SACD layer provided a deeper echo trail on the opening snare drum hits than the CD layer did because of the higher sampling rates provided by the DSD. I still find this to be incredible considering that there is very little energy above 15 Khz and not anywhere near 90dB of dynamic range on that master tape. However, now that Hoffman is heavily into SACD production, the Redbook format just does not cut it anymore. This, I might add, is contrary to his statements about his CDs (when he was mastering those) sounding just like the master tape. I've measured level differences on msot if not all of the few SACD/CD pairs I've analyzed. Either they're being mastered differently or the hardware that decodes the two formats in consumer gear tends to output at different levels. Do we know for a fact taht decoding in consumer gear isn't 'fudged' the way it was for HDCD vs CD? I have done a fairly large number of a/b listening tests where I record, at 16/44. kHz, the output of various SACD players to my DAW via a LynxTwo soundcard. Can I or the other participants in these tests *reliably* tell the difference in level matched a/b testing when we do not know which source is playing? NO! The property, which Arny Krueger on RAP referred to as "SACD-ness", seems to manifest itself quite nicely on the Redbook format as does the added euphonics and flaws that vinyl offers. This has at least been my experience. -------------- Thom |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
thomh wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:3oq6c.37874$SR1.43873@attbi_s04... Thomh, btw, *is* one of the few objectivists who'se still a participant on SHtv and who still *tries* to inject some sense into its ravings. His posts are worth looking up an SHtv, and I would certainly do so had I the capability. Not a participant anymore, Steven. I'm banned. Not from breaking the rules on *their* forum, but from breaking their rules on *other* forums. So you must be on your best behaviour 24/7. It seems that I was the person referred to in this post from The SH Forum Team: http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?t=592 I did not get any warnings beforehand so I did not know it was me until I tried to log on one morning and found that my IP address was blocked from even entering the site. Oh dear...another voice of reason cast out from Eden. You're welcome to post more here, AFAIC. ; Seems they did not like it when I questioned Hoffman's foolish statement that higher sampling rates give better resolution in the lower octaves, i.e. more points = more accuracy. I also questioned the evidence that he presented to support this claim which was a 30+ year old recording of the song Fortunate Son off the CCR album Willie & The Poor Boys. He claimed that his SACD layer provided a deeper echo trail on the opening snare drum hits than the CD layer did because of the higher sampling rates provided by the DSD. I still find this to be incredible considering that there is very little energy above 15 Khz and not anywhere near 90dB of dynamic range on that master tape. One expects to read at least six incredible things before breakfast, when reading SHtv (in the morning). However, now that Hoffman is heavily into SACD production, the Redbook format just does not cut it anymore. This, I might add, is contrary to his statements about his CDs (when he was mastering those) sounding just like the master tape. No, he gets the *timbre* to sound like the master tape (or something). I've measured level differences on msot if not all of the few SACD/CD pairs I've analyzed. Either they're being mastered differently or the hardware that decodes the two formats in consumer gear tends to output at different levels. Do we know for a fact taht decoding in consumer gear isn't 'fudged' the way it was for HDCD vs CD? I have done a fairly large number of a/b listening tests where I record, at 16/44. kHz, the output of various SACD players to my DAW via a LynxTwo soundcard. Can I or the other participants in these tests *reliably* tell the difference in level matched a/b testing when we do not know which source is playing? NO! The property, which Arny Krueger on RAP referred to as "SACD-ness", seems to manifest itself quite nicely on the Redbook format as does the added euphonics and flaws that vinyl offers. This has at least been my experience. I will be interesting to see what's what when we can burn SACD tracks directly to .wav, as we can with CD tracks. This would at least circumvent any D/A/D issues in wav comparison. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: snip If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not clear. Cite it and I'll read it. Did you try the magic green CD pen? No. What would this have to do with room treatments anyways? Because it is the same issue. It is up to them to explain why those things work. No it's not. Do you believe they work? i don't have an opinion one way or another yet. If not, are you going to explain here why they don't work? If not, I would. So can you explain how and why it can't possibly work as a room treatment? Did you read Mr. Pierce's post? I guess not. Why do you want me to give you an explanantion, when you wouldn't even read one that is already there? Can't read it till I see it. I wanted you to explain it because you dismissed it without an audition or an explination. If you can take the time to show it to your friends for a laugh why can't you take the time to offer an explination for it being so laughable? Oh, in case you did not get it the first time, here's something about it that you should read: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Sounds like they are saying that the product does something about the ill effects of early reflections. Sorry but that is a part of well established priniclples of room acoustics. Hmmm, of course there is the issue of scale. Please feel free to discuss the issue. Size of the diffuser is imporrtant. The effective area of that gadget cannot possible make the kind of difference that is claimed. I understood your assertion from the begining. I was just hoping you had some specific supported explination to support it. It seems like if someone assembles a list of buzz-words together behind any product, you would believe that someone needs to prove that the product does not work, No. That is a total misrepresentation of my position. With a room treatment I would say that for someone to claim it is bogus one would have to either audition it or provide an explination as to why it wont work. Someone already gave you an explanation, and then you did not read it, and asked for another one. Like I said, I don't know what kind of explanation makes sense to you. Like I said, I don't recall any such explination. You could always cite it if it is really there. Instead of trying to attack my intelect by saying you don't know what kind of explination makes sense to me why don't you just offer the one that made sense to you? for you. The buzz-words themselves, of course, have some valid meanings and applications, but you have to judge the scale. Don't presume to speak for me please. You generally get completely wrong when you do so and it is simply offensive. Example: someone claims that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the application shown, the effects cannot be real. Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? Because it is the same kind of issue. No it is not. We are talking specifically about room treatements and some room treatments are known to work. You are trying to use guilt by association. That is the nonsense politicians use to make their cases. It is not a proper tool for objective scientists. The more objectivists argue their positions on this forum the less scientific they look to me. Have you tried it? Does it work? Does someone have to explain to you why before claiming that it is bogus? Yes. How about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I would not hesitate to say so. Early reflections can cause problems. Diffusion is a means of dealing with early reflections by the way. Nothing they say is in conflict with the idea that their product works as a diffusor.But please feel free to explain how it cannot have any effect on the sound if you feel you don't need to hear it in practice. By the way, I showed the gadget to several engineering friends of mine, they almost fell off the chair laughing. So? They don't seem to need any explanation from me to tell that it is bogus. So? Seems to me like a rush to judgement if they are not knowledgable in acoustics. That sort of thing doesn't impress me one bit. If you need someone to explain to you why something does not work every time, boy, someone would be really busy . Why do you insist on beeing so demeaning? Why do you try to draw wierd universal conclusions about me based on this particular issue and then turn it into a personal attack? We are not running for office against each other. You could do a lot more just to address what it is that makes this product ineffective. Your friends' laughter isn't very convincing. Not to you. But not one of them has to ask for an explanation why it would not work. That is their problem. snip How do you know I have not taken a look? Deductive reasoning. Even a subjectivist can read the writing on the wall. Be honest, have you given it a good look or have you just checked the links Steven cited? Uhhh, your deductive reasoning is quite poor then. I have visited that forum many times, since Mr. Sullivan (krabapple) first brought attention to some of the posts there, many months ago. I also saw the derisions the majority of the members shown for Mr. Sullivan's attempts to be objective. That's how I form my opinion that the % of vinylists and subjectivists there is much higher than in the real world. And I am being 100% honest. Still sounds to me like you are just looking where Steven has suggested you look. Now that's funny, coming from someone who thinks I was being demeaning... It wouldn't look that way if you had something to say about threads that were not cited by Steven. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/19/2004 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02 S888Wheel wrote: I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is there a formula you can cite? Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims to reflect energy.) Yes which means it is probably working as a diffusor if it is working at all. So whay even bother talking about absorbtion since it obviously isn't doing that or even claiming to do that? The dimensions of each of the strips of the "Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you seen any room treatment this small? I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a substantial amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden variety diffusor. Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"? I don't know but it seems you don't know either. But when one considers the effect a rather small bass trap can have when put in the right place one should realize that room treatemtn that may appear to be too small to be effective may have a profound effect. Just turn a tube trap in the opposite direction and listen to the effect. Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room by overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass, overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage". This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a "musically complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much larger reflections from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it can only "generate" as much as it could possibly receive, and you can see how small the receiving surface is. You seem stuck on the advertising hyperbole. Maybe you should dismiss the CD format since it really isn't perfect sound forever as advertised. Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place this gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the power is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4' in radius is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or take, at most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore reflect at most that. How could this possible achieve the stated claims. For most (non dipolar) speakers, this % would be even smaller, since much more power is radiated to the front. Is this your explination for why it doesn't work? Now, can you come up with any reason why this gadget could be effective? OTOH, I know some people who honestly would hear the differences, if it were suggested to them (especially by people whose opinion they respect) that there is a difference. So maybe these things do work, for those who believe that they work. snip Example: someone claims that magic green pens can reduce the random scattering of laser signals inside the CD player. Now "scattering", "laser", "random" are all meaningful, real words. But assembled in that context, in the application shown, the effects cannot be real. Why do you keep bringing up green pens? Have I ever endorsed their use? How about talking about why you are so sure this particular room treatment won't work. You seem quite convinced it won't. Please keep in mind that I have made no claims one way or another. If I were to audition it and found it lacking, I would not hesitate to say so. The point of bringing the green point is simply the analogy between the two in the manner scientifically meaningful words are assembled to create the illusion of credibility, which obviously some people fall for. In green pen claims, they mention "scattering", "laser", "random", etc. In the Hallograph claims, they mention "frequency", "time", "amplitude", "state-of-the-art", "room distortions", "time coefficients of first reflections" (???), etc. In both cases, they are trying to snow people with impressive-looking terminolgy. Now, I assume you don't believe in the green pens, right? Right Do you feel like you have to audition it first, or provide an explanation to someone as to why it won't work? Yes. Someone did a demo and I didn't hear a difference. Good enough for me. Should the manufacturer of those gadgets provide proof that these things work first? What do you mean? Is this a legal question? Is there anything at all that you would consider "snake-oil" in audio? Yes. Do you feel like you have to explain it to someone why it is snake oil, to that someone's satisfaction? I feel it has to be tested, auditioned or explained before it can be declared snake oil. if someone asks my opinion on something I offer it in the context of what i know and what I have experienced. Shouldn't that burden of proof be on the manufacturers' shoulders? If I can get a free audition that is good enough for me. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio over DVD video? From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: snip If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not clear. Cite it and I'll read it. I gave the link to you several posts ago. Here it is, again: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s3.newsguy.com |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02 I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is there a formula you can cite? Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims to reflect energy.) Yes which means it is probably working as a diffusor if it is working at all. So whay even bother talking about absorbtion since it obviously isn't doing that or even claiming to do that? You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment. That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work). You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never claimed that it is a diffusor. The dimensions of each of the strips of the "Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you seen any room treatment this small? I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a substantial amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden variety diffusor. Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface area of those things? Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"? I don't know but it seems you don't know either. See, that is the problem. You want me to give you an explanation, but I have no idea what level of explanation is acceptable to you. It is obvious to me that something that reflects at most 1% of the speaker's output cannot possible "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections to achieve stunning realism". But for you, that simply means that I "don't know either". If you have made up your mind that I don't know either, you can save my time by not asking me for an explanation. But when one considers the effect a rather small bass trap can have when put in the right place one should realize that room treatemtn that may appear to be too small to be effective may have a profound effect. Just turn a tube trap in the opposite direction and listen to the effect. Compare the size and the construciton of a bass trap, which is typically positioned at a corner, with the size and volume of the reflectors in this gadget. This thing never mentioned that it only works on bass frequencies. Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room by overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass, overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage". This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a "musically complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much larger reflections from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it can only "generate" as much as it could possibly receive, and you can see how small the receiving surface is. You seem stuck on the advertising hyperbole. Maybe you should dismiss the CD format since it really isn't perfect sound forever as advertised. Attempt to divert, when you cannot address the technical issues raised, is duly noted. Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place this gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the power is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4' in radius is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or take, at most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore reflect at most that. How could this possible achieve the stated claims. For most (non dipolar) speakers, this % would be even smaller, since much more power is radiated to the front. Is this your explination for why it doesn't work? This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why this thing should work, and let's go from there? |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/20/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Subject: Audio over DVD video? From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: snip If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not clear. Cite it and I'll read it. I gave the link to you several posts ago. Here it is, again: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Oh, I thought this was supposed to be an explination as to why they cannot work as an acoustic room treatment. It looks to me like Dick is only taking issue with the advertising hyperbole. I don't care about that sort of thing. A lot of good products are overstated and even misrepresented in their promotional copy. Thanks for posting the link again though. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/20/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Subject: Audio over DVD video? From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: snip If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not clear. Cite it and I'll read it. I gave the link to you several posts ago. Here it is, again: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Oh, I thought this was supposed to be an explination as to why they cannot work as an acoustic room treatment. It looks to me like Dick is only taking issue with the advertising hyperbole. I don't care about that sort of thing. A lot of good products are overstated and even misrepresented in their promotional copy. Thanks for posting the link again though. So you are agreeing that Shatki is making bogus claims regarding this product? Did you notice that there is not one single thing they say about the product's virtues that stands up to close scrutiny? If the manufacturer can't even explain what this thing does, how could you possibly believe that such a product has any merit? It seems like you trust Hoffman's endorsement more than any explanation that anyone gave you, and you said he only gave a casual listen to the thing. What's wrong with this picture? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/21/2004 11:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: oFl7c.52925$J05.418163@attbi_s01 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/20/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Subject: Audio over DVD video? From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: snip If you don't have a good explination for why this product cannot make a difference as a room treatment then you are hardly being scientific or objective in dismissing it without a trial. A good explanation to you means something very different than a good explanation to me. Mr. Pierce tried to help you out in that post, and apparently that was not a good enough explanation. i must have missed that. Did he offer an explanation as to why thsi particular room treatement won't work? Maybe you can cite his explanation for me so I can read it. Go ahead, read that post first. Then ask questions if you still are not clear. Cite it and I'll read it. I gave the link to you several posts ago. Here it is, again: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...&selm=bmuda102 80t%40enews3.newsguy.com Oh, I thought this was supposed to be an explination as to why they cannot work as an acoustic room treatment. It looks to me like Dick is only taking issue with the advertising hyperbole. I don't care about that sort of thing. A lot of good products are overstated and even misrepresented in their promotional copy. Thanks for posting the link again though. So you are agreeing that Shatki is making bogus claims regarding this product? I would say that they are engaging in hyperbole with a lot of window dressing if the thing works as a diffusor. If the thing does not do anything at all then the claims are clearly bogus. Did you notice that there is not one single thing they say about the product's virtues that stands up to close scrutiny? I didn't look that closely. I habbitually tune out advertising copy. Products are either good bad or somewhere in between regardless of what the folks in marketing are writing. I for one would not want to be turned off to a worthwhile product because I didn't like their copy. I don't dismiss a mouthwash as a mouth wash because the folks in advertising made bogus claims that it would prevent colds. Remember that? It still works as mouthwash. If the manufacturer can't even explain what this thing does, how could you possibly believe that such a product has any merit? First off, just becuase a manufacturer doesn't offer a technical explination for what a product does, does not mean the manufacturer *cannot* offer an explination. second, as I said before, I don't confuse the merits of a product with the merits of it's advertising. It seems like you trust Hoffman's endorsement more than any explanation that anyone gave you, I do not trust his endorsement anymore than I trust or don't trust any other anecdotal recomendations. No one has yet to give me a complete and reliable explination as to why this product cannot work yet so there is no such explination to contrast to Hoffman's anecdotal endorsement. Perhaps you have forgotten the point I have made about not having drawn *any* conclusions about this product's effectiveness so far. and you said he only gave a casual listen to the thing. What's wrong with this picture? Your misrepresentation of my position on Steve Hoffman's endorsement. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
Subject: Audio over DVD video?
From: chung Date: 3/20/2004 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/19/2004 8:51 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/18/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hsq6c.37359$KO3.93225@attbi_s02 I want to know why you arte dismissing it without a trial. It's probably the same reason I don't try Shatki stones, or the green magic CD pen... It is hardly an extraordinary claim to claim room treatment makes a difference. Perhaps it is not an extraordinary claim to you. To me, and to others, it is an extraordinary claim that something with the dimensions of that gadget could diffuse sound effectively. What are the minimal dimensions for any acoustic room treatment to work? Is there a formula you can cite? Most room treatment work by absorption of sound waves so that standing-wave patterns are reduced in the room. (This gadget claims to reflect energy.) Yes which means it is probably working as a diffusor if it is working at all. So whay even bother talking about absorbtion since it obviously isn't doing that or even claiming to do that? You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment. That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work). Diffusion is a common and conventional room treatment. If this thing is doing anything it is most likely some form of diffusion. Claims of diffusors working are not extraordinary claims. You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never claimed that it is a diffusor. Yes I can explain how a diffusor works. They scatter the sound reflected off of them. This thing looks like a diffusor of sorts to me because it is a reflective material with a surface that varies in direction. That is why I suspect that if it is effective at all it is effective by diffusion. The dimensions of each of the strips of the "Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you seen any room treatment this small? I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a substantial amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden variety diffusor. Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface area of those things? Because I don't know but you are ignoring the fact that they are 3D objects so you are missing by a substantial amount on your estimation of their surface area. I think you are giving them credit for about one third the surface area they actually have. Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"? I don't know but it seems you don't know either. See, that is the problem. I see the potential problem but I don't know what ratio of reflective area to strategically placed diffused area is needed to be effective. That is the important part of the explination that is missing. Do you see that problem? You want me to give you an explanation, Yes I do. A complete one that doesn't rely on assumptions. but I have no idea what level of explanation is acceptable to you. I told you already but I guess it didn't matter. It is obvious to me that something that reflects at most 1% of the speaker's output cannot possible "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections to achieve stunning realism". I don't think that one wants a large percentage of the speakers *output* to be diffused. The point of room treatments isn't to change the speaker but to fix the room the speaker is in. I don't think diffusion at it's best would be reflecting a very high percentage of a speaker's output. One wants a high percentage of a speakers output going directly to the listeners ears. But for you, that simply means that I "don't know either". So far yes. I would hope that if you knew what percentage of diffusion to reflective area was needed to be effective you would speak up. i would also suspect that the distances of the reflective surfaces would matter as well. If you have made up your mind that I don't know either, you can save my time by not asking me for an explanation. I had not made up my mind at all when I first asked but I am forming an opinion the more you spend time dodging an explination by claiming I won't understand it instead of simply offering an explination. But when one considers the effect a rather small bass trap can have when put in the right place one should realize that room treatemtn that may appear to be too small to be effective may have a profound effect. Just turn a tube trap in the opposite direction and listen to the effect. Compare the size and the construciton of a bass trap, which is typically positioned at a corner, with the size and volume of the reflectors in this gadget. This thing never mentioned that it only works on bass frequencies. Bass traps are bigger. Bass waves are also longer. I grant that it seems quite smallish but it does not have that much less surface area to say an RPG diffusor panel and it has the advantage of being placed anywhere in the room where as diffusor panels are mostly up against the wall.I would not have high expectations for this product but it does not seem impossible to me that in some circumstances it may have some noticable effect on the sound in the right application. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it simply is too small. But your numbers seem as biased ( I am confident that you have missed on your estimation on the reflective surface area of this product as per my explination) and the thresholds of neccessary surface area for effective diffusion is something you simply haven't cited.I bet there are formulas of some sort or another that can tell you the ratios between diffused surfaces and room dimensions needed for any sort of effective diffusion. I don't know what they are so i cannot say this product cannot be effective off hand. If you know what they are then simply say so. Here's another claim: "Activated panels generate a musically complimentary reflective energy that transforms your listening room by overshadowing typical room distortions which muddy the bass, overbrighten the presentation and blur the soundstage". This is a passive device, so how possibly can it generate a "musically complimentary reflective energy" compared to the much larger reflections from the surfaces behind the speakers? Remember it can only "generate" as much as it could possibly receive, and you can see how small the receiving surface is. You seem stuck on the advertising hyperbole. Maybe you should dismiss the CD format since it really isn't perfect sound forever as advertised. Attempt to divert, when you cannot address the technical issues raised, is duly noted. I'm sorry but your objection to this product is lacking some critical information. I think the only diversions in this thread have been your attempts to bring green pens into the conversation. Let's do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Assume that you place this gadget 4' from the speaker. Assume that the speaker is a perfect radiator (which it's most likely not, since a large portion of the power is radiatied from the front). The surface area of a sphere 4' in radius is 4*pi*16=210 sq ft. So this gadget can intercept, give or take, at most 0.5% of the speakers output power, and therefore reflect at most that. How could this possible achieve the stated claims. For most (non dipolar) speakers, this % would be even smaller, since much more power is radiated to the front. Is this your explination for why it doesn't work? This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why this thing should work, and let's go from there? I'm not the one making any claims that they work or don't work. You are. Your assertion, your burden of explination for your assertion in the absense of any test data or anecdotal testimonial from an audition. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
You were the one who said that it was some kind of room treatment. That's why I mentioned how most room treatments work. I was trying to tell you that it is not a conventional room treatment (since you said it was not an extraordinary claim that room treatments work). Diffusion is a common and conventional room treatment. If this thing is doing anything it is most likely some form of diffusion. Claims of diffusors working are not extraordinary claims. You were the one who said it is a diffusor. Can you explain how diffusors work and why this one is a diffusor? For sure, Shatki never claimed that it is a diffusor. Yes I can explain how a diffusor works. They scatter the sound reflected off of them. This thing looks like a diffusor of sorts to me because it is a reflective material with a surface that varies in direction. That is why I suspect that if it is effective at all it is effective by diffusion. By your definition, just about anything that receives sound waves can be a diffusor. Since just about anything will absorb part and reflect part of the sound energy. No, this definition is way too general to be of of sny use. I would say that you don't know what makes a diffsor an effective diffusor. The dimensions of each of the strips of the "Hallograph" appears to be about 2 inches by 2 feet or so, so each of the strips has about an area of about a third of a square foot. Have you seen any room treatment this small? I think you are underestimating the surface of these things by a substantial amount. But they do seem to have a lot less area than your garden variety diffusor. Instead of just thinking, why don't you tell us what is the surface area of those things? Because I don't know That didn't stop you from thinking that I was wrong... but you are ignoring the fact that they are 3D objects so you are missing by a substantial amount on your estimation of their surface area. I think you are giving them credit for about one third the surface area they actually have. You have to consider the area that the incident sound waves see. The area to the back of the waves does not matter as far as reflection is concerned. I guesstimated that the area is 1 sq. ft. You are now saying this it is 3 sq. ft. Visualize a 1 ft by 3 ft piece of particle board. Compare that against the gadget. See any difference? Compared to the refective surface area behind the speakers, this is an extraordinarily small area (much less than 1%). How possibly could this "contour the frequency, amplitude and time coefficients of the first reflections" to achieve "stunning realism"? I don't know but it seems you don't know either. See, that is the problem. I see the potential problem but I don't know what ratio of reflective area to strategically placed diffused area is needed to be effective. That is the important part of the explination that is missing. Do you see that problem? No, the problem is you missed the scale of the thing. I was being generous in my previous calculations. If you believe that randoming placing three sticks with an effective area of about a square foot behind or to the side of a speaker can make an improvement, I am sure I cannot help you anymore. Of course, you can read up on how engineers implement room treatments. Funny they never could come up anything this creative! snip This simple look at the relative scales involved should serve. But obviously you have a very very high standard when it comes to refuting snake-oil claims. Do us all a favor, cite some technical reasons why this thing should work, and let's go from there? I'm not the one making any claims that they work or don't work. You are. Your assertion, your burden of explination for your assertion in the absense of any test data or anecdotal testimonial from an audition. I'm the one who said that the claims are totally bogus. Whether it works or not, depends on what you mean by work. I'm sure some people believe they work, and if they believe it, that may be good enough for them. Based on the dimensions on the gadget, there is no way the thing can work as claimed. Now if your question is whether it can make any measureable difference or not, then yeah, I believe that there may be some placement of the gadget that will make a measureable difference in the sound waves arriving at the listening position. But I won't say that it works. It's much more likely to screw things up than helping. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Looking for an "expert" in car video and audio... | Audio Opinions | |||
I am looking for an "expert" in car video and audio to hire.... | General | |||
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V | Car Audio | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |