[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce
significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

I think you give Ethan far too little credit for his scientific
objectivity. I've made the same types of measurements in the past
using Earthworks omni's matched to +-.2 dB and found the exact same
thing that Ethan did. The extent to which the ear/brain extrapolates,
fills and compensates is very underappreciated. It very much discerns
what it expects to discern.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Jay Kadis]

In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

The fundamental problem with Ethan Winer's "explanation" is that it assumes
not only that huge differences in tonal balance are produced by minor head
movements, but that listeners make such minor movements during audition.


I think it's more that TINY changes in tonal balance are perceived. We
are just good at ignoring these spectral changes since they occur
constantly.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[jwvm]

Ethan Winer wrote:
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Hi Ethan,

Your analysis here is consistent with your other impressive
observations in the audio realm and demonstrate your very substantial
understanding of the field. It may indeed explain some of the claims
of audiophiles and is worthy of further study.

However, it appears that many audiophiles suffer from a variety of
perceptual defects some of which fall into the realm of blacks magic,
witchcraft, alien abduction, psychoses, and various fields of
pseudoscience. It would be most unfortunate if people misread your
treatise as an endorsement of these types of quackery. You may want to
have a disclaimer that your observations only apply to audiophiles that
are capable of making rational judgments and have no absurd
preconceived and unshakable notions as to how high-quality sound
reproduction is achieved.

jwvm

[jakdedert]

jwvm wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Walt wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things.
What pickups have that output impedance?

--
ha

The latest thing in cheapie microphones, electrets with no FET
follower! Perfect for recording 16 Hz. organ notes and not much else.
:-)


Piezo guitar pickups, sans preamp?

jak

[jwvm]

hank alrich wrote:
Walt wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things.

What pickups have that output impedance?

--
ha

The latest thing in cheapie microphones, electrets with no FET
follower! Perfect for recording 16 Hz. organ notes and not much else.
:-)

[Ethan Winer]

1 inch or less would put the issue to rest, however... Ethan?

When I get a chance I'll do that. It's not trivial for me because I have to
drive to my company's factory an hour away where we have a special lab room
set up, schlep my laptop and microphone, remove all the treatment, etc.
However:

People tend to sit where they're comfortable; I'd be willing to bet that
most listeners can stand up, then sit down again multiple times, and the
total peak-to-peak variation in the positions of their ears will be 1" --
probably less

The response can switch from a peak to a null across a span of two
quarter-wavelengths. For one inch that's a big change at 7 KHz. Also, both
ears receive a wildly different response from the get-go just being six or
seven inches apart.

The new news are LP demagnetizes like the Furutech De Mag ($1,800) and
Acoustic Revive ($2,995)

D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP
demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big
difference anyway. What kills me with these reviews is the faux objectivity.
Such reviews often start like this: "I wasn't expecting this thing to really
do anything. In fact I HOPED it wouldn't work. But gosh darn it, not only
did I hear a huge improvement, so did everyone else in the room."

Can you say mass-delusion? :-)

One factor that would need to be examined in this study, is the affect of
there being two ears and thus two very different sound sources being mixed.


I did address that:

"We don't usually notice these changes when moving around because each ear
receives a different response, so what we perceive is more of an average. A
peak or deep null in one ear is likely not present in the other ear, and
vice versa. And since all rooms have this property, we're accustomed to
hearing these changes and don't even notice them. However, the change in
response over distance is very real, and it's definitely audible if you
listen carefully. If you cover one ear it's even easier to notice because
then the frequencies missing in one ear are not present in the other ear."

The amazing thing is how much time and effort is spent on very subtleties
occurring in the signal chain, when transducers and acoustical effects are
so much bigger ... Some folks will spend a zillion bucks on a sound system
and then totally cut the budget for acoustic treatment of a big venue.

I get this every day - "I just spent $12k on a bunch of high-end microphones
and preamps, so I'm about out of cash. I know $400 isn't much to treat my
control room, but that's all I have left. Can you help me?"

it appears that many audiophiles suffer from a variety of perceptual
defects some of which fall into the realm of blacks magic, witchcraft, alien
abduction, psychoses, and various fields of pseudoscience.

Agreed 100 percent. And not just audiophiles, but anyone who regularly
"invests" in lottery tickets, buys most types of alternative medicine
products, or prays for their favorite sports team to win.

Thanks for all the comments folks.

--Ethan

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Walt wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things.

What pickups have that output impedance?

Piezos are pretty close. You can tell the difference in sound between
a 10M input and a 20M input with typical piezos. I hate piezos.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bob Cain]

Ethan Winer wrote:

When I get a chance I'll do that. It's not trivial for me because I have to
drive to my company's factory an hour away where we have a special lab room
set up, schlep my laptop and microphone, remove all the treatment, etc.

It would be really instructive to take measurements from the same
positions with and without the room's normal treatment.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Chevdo]

In article om,
says...


Ethan Winer wrote:
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Hi Ethan,

Your analysis here is consistent with your other impressive
observations in the audio realm and demonstrate your very substantial
understanding of the field. It may indeed explain some of the claims
of audiophiles and is worthy of further study.

However, it appears that many audiophiles suffer from a variety of
perceptual defects some of which fall into the realm of blacks magic,
witchcraft, alien abduction, psychoses, and various fields of
pseudoscience. It would be most unfortunate if people misread your
treatise as an endorsement of these types of quackery. You may want to
have a disclaimer that your observations only apply to audiophiles that
are capable of making rational judgments and have no absurd
preconceived and unshakable notions as to how high-quality sound
reproduction is achieved.


I don't know how you would get the impression that Mr. Winer's article amounts
to an endorsement of witchcraft. First of all, although he didn't elaborate,
the delusionary mechanisms by which someone might practice witchcraft would be
employed by 'audiophiles' hearing things which aren't there, these are
shortcomings of human perception, not simply the domain of people not making
'rational enough judgements'. In fact rationalization is one of the mechanisms
by which delusion is bolstered. We're all susceptible to the errors of
judgement that are inherent in owners of human brains. While it's true that a
reading a discourse on paredolia might help someone realize that he's not
seeing jesus christ in his tortilla, when it comes to avoiding the use of
logical fallacy, even the smartest among us spend years studying logic and
still find themselves engaging in fallacy once in a while. And then we've got
the whole problem of communal reinforcement, which Mr. Winer referred to as
'mass delusion'. It doesn't matter how smart or rational you are, if you are
the type of person who really wants to 'get along' with others, or feels
anxiety when more than one person disagrees with you, you are going to join in
with the crowd proclaiming that the Emperor is infact wearing a fine suit, even
if your rational mind is screaming about the error to your minds ear...

In fact, it's the people who glean a rudimentary understanding of delusion that
are more likely to be deluded, because they think they are smart enough not to
be. It's a proven fact that people with post-secondary education are MORE
likely to believe in the supernatural than those without. That's because
well-informed, savvy people think they are immune to delusion or irrational
behavior, but they are not.

[jwvm]

I don't know how you would get the impression that Mr. Winer's article amounts
to an endorsement of witchcraft. First of all, although he didn't elaborate,
the delusionary mechanisms by which someone might practice witchcraft would be
employed by 'audiophiles' hearing things which aren't there, these are
shortcomings of human perception, not simply the domain of people not making
'rational enough judgements'. In fact rationalization is one of the mechanisms
by which delusion is bolstered. We're all susceptible to the errors of
judgement that are inherent in owners of human brains. While it's true that a
reading a discourse on paredolia might help someone realize that he's not
seeing jesus christ in his tortilla, when it comes to avoiding the use of
logical fallacy, even the smartest among us spend years studying logic and
still find themselves engaging in fallacy once in a while. And then we've got
the whole problem of communal reinforcement, which Mr. Winer referred to as
'mass delusion'. It doesn't matter how smart or rational you are, if you are
the type of person who really wants to 'get along' with others, or feels
anxiety when more than one person disagrees with you, you are going to join in
with the crowd proclaiming that the Emperor is infact wearing a fine suit, even
if your rational mind is screaming about the error to your minds ear...

In fact, it's the people who glean a rudimentary understanding of delusion that
are more likely to be deluded, because they think they are smart enough not to
be. It's a proven fact that people with post-secondary education are MORE
likely to believe in the supernatural than those without. That's because
well-informed, savvy people think they are immune to delusion or irrational
behavior, but they are not.

There is nothing in Ethan's article that suggests anything about
audiophiles at all. My concern is that Ethan might want to characterize
which audiophiles he is addressing. Clearly, his arguments would likely
hold little sway with those who would spend $500 for a wooden knob or
$1000 for a power cord. Audiophiles who maintain a reasonable degree of
objectivity would be, I suspect, the people that Ethan is addressing.

I have great respect for Ethan given that he is extremely talented both
musically and technically. My only concern is that delusional
audiophiles might somehow exploit his treatsie as justification for
their rants and illogical "theories" regarding audio reproduction.

As for one's level of education and belief in the supernatural, this is
an audio production forum and so nothing more needs to be stated. In
terms of irrational audio production and reproduction techniques,
however, there are many absurdities and these are valid areas for
discussion.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Walt wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things.

What pickups have that output impedance?

Piezos are pretty close. You can tell the difference in sound between
a 10M input and a 20M input with typical piezos.

I can definitely hear the changes for the gooder up to about ten
mgeohms, with pickups like the Baggs saddle in my mandolin. The K&K
pickups seem to work just fine, sans special preamps (though they offer
those, too), into ordinary instrument amp inputs (think Fender Blues
Jr., etc.).

I hate piezos.

You need to hear the K&K stuff.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

David Grant wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message...
Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would
produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan
"incorrect"; for example, the conscious mind could have evolved to not
notice any such spectral changes, and it's only when coupled with
psychological factors that this change leads to perceived improvement. Or
perhaps it's due to the "averaging" effect stereo hearing has which he
mentioned. Or perhaps something else.

Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

This arouses suspicion and encourages checking of results (someone should
repeat the experiment and check results). This fact alone however doesn't
necessitate that he's twisting the truth. I don't think it discredits him in
any way - unless of course the data is fabricated. I'd certainly publish any
such findings if I were in his business. Not all marketing is evil - just
the dishonest kind.

Besides which, Ethan offers FREE plans online to build absorbers as
close as possible to those he markets, justifiably short the proprietary
materials involved. Only those too inept or too lazy to run a saw and
swing a hammer need be driven by his "marketing"..

--
ha

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio
path and monitoring on headphones?

Excellent point.

It is a good point, but there is still comb filtering occuring from the
shape
of the pinna, which differs in shape and dimension in different people, as
well
as ear canal length and diameter, which also differs considerably between
different people. I simply don't hear the same as you do, and depending
on how
different our pinnas and ear canals are, that difference may be greater or
lesser. I suspect the ossciles, drum, cochlea and even configuration of
the
auditory nerve probably differs among people, as well. Technically, our
'hearing print' is as unique to each of us as our finger prints.

But that's not what he said.

That's right, it's what I said. Since the pinna and canal don't move, the comb
filtering effect will always be static. So it doesn't have anything to do with
an individual claiming to hear differences that aren't there through
headphones, but may have a lot to do with different people hearing different
things from the same source.

[Chevdo]

In article .com,
says...


There is nothing in Ethan's article that suggests anything about
audiophiles at all. My concern is that Ethan might want to characterize
which audiophiles he is addressing. Clearly, his arguments would likely
hold little sway with those who would spend $500 for a wooden knob or
$1000 for a power cord. Audiophiles who maintain a reasonable degree of
objectivity would be, I suspect, the people that Ethan is addressing.


I think he's addressing anyone who, upon reading his article, found it worth
reading. I don't really get your point on this. Perhaps he could tell us who
he was addressing and put the matter to rest?


I have great respect for Ethan given that he is extremely talented both
musically and technically. My only concern is that delusional
audiophiles might somehow exploit his treatsie as justification for
their rants and illogical "theories" regarding audio reproduction.

That seems unlikely considering the article was all about debunking those
illogical theories and it did a pretty conclusive job of it. I'd
appreciate it if you could quote any portion of it that you think delusional
audiophiles could exploit as justifications of their rants, because I'd like
to know exactly what you're referring to.



As for one's level of education and belief in the supernatural, this is
an audio production forum and so nothing more needs to be stated.

ok, but I can't make heads or tails out of what that statement is supposed to
mean, either.



In
terms of irrational audio production and reproduction techniques,
however, there are many absurdities and these are valid areas for
discussion.


Except that you're afraid that any discussion of these absurdities can be
'exploited' by those who cherish the absurdities into support for said
absurdities, which in my opinion is absurd in itself, and you have failed to
provide any reason why that might occur, especially when the example you hold
up is the very clear and concise article by Ethan Winer. Again, I challenge
you to quote any portion of Mr. Winer's article that could be used as a
justification for the delusions the article elucidates for the sole purpose of
not justifying delusion.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

David Grant wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message...
Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would
produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan
"incorrect"; for example, the conscious mind could have evolved to not
notice any such spectral changes, and it's only when coupled with
psychological factors that this change leads to perceived improvement. Or
perhaps it's due to the "averaging" effect stereo hearing has which he
mentioned. Or perhaps something else.

Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

This arouses suspicion and encourages checking of results (someone should
repeat the experiment and check results). This fact alone however doesn't
necessitate that he's twisting the truth. I don't think it discredits him in
any way - unless of course the data is fabricated. I'd certainly publish any
such findings if I were in his business. Not all marketing is evil - just
the dishonest kind.

Besides which, Ethan offers FREE plans online to build absorbers as
close as possible to those he markets, justifiably short the proprietary
materials involved. Only those too inept or too lazy to run a saw and
swing a hammer need be driven by his "marketing"..

Someone who doesn't OWN a suitable power saw, or even someone who does own a
suitable power saw but doesn't want to uncessarily risk cutting his fingers off
might decide to buy Mr. Winer's products rather than make them himself using
the blueprints Mr. Winer generously provides to anyone for free. Your main
point that Mr. Winer isn't engaging in any dishonest marketing is well taken,
but to make that point, you needn't charactarize his customers as 'lazy'
because that's simply inaccurate.

[Chevdo]

In article NNZUg.46861$bf5.35059@edtnps90, says...

In article ,
says...

David Grant wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message...
Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would
produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan
"incorrect"; for example, the conscious mind could have evolved to not
notice any such spectral changes, and it's only when coupled with
psychological factors that this change leads to perceived improvement. Or
perhaps it's due to the "averaging" effect stereo hearing has which he
mentioned. Or perhaps something else.

Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

This arouses suspicion and encourages checking of results (someone should
repeat the experiment and check results). This fact alone however doesn't
necessitate that he's twisting the truth. I don't think it discredits him
in
any way - unless of course the data is fabricated. I'd certainly publish
any
such findings if I were in his business. Not all marketing is evil - just
the dishonest kind.

Besides which, Ethan offers FREE plans online to build absorbers as
close as possible to those he markets, justifiably short the proprietary
materials involved. Only those too inept or too lazy to run a saw and
swing a hammer need be driven by his "marketing"..

Someone who doesn't OWN a suitable power saw, or even someone who does own a
suitable power saw but doesn't want to uncessarily risk cutting his fingers
off
might decide to buy Mr. Winer's products rather than make them himself using
the blueprints Mr. Winer generously provides to anyone for free. Your main
point that Mr. Winer isn't engaging in any dishonest marketing is well taken,
but to make that point, you needn't charactarize his customers as 'lazy'
because that's simply inaccurate.


And there's also the Bill Gates Dropping $100 Bill Factor. If Bill Gates
drops a hundred dollar bill, it's in his best interests to not waste the time
to pick it up because he can make more than $100 by working in the amount of
time it takes to pick up the $100. I would suspect that many if not most of
Mr. Winer's customers could make more money working during the time it would
take to DIY Mr. Winer's products themselves. That's one of the main things
that keeps capitalist economies chugging along. If rich people spent all their
time personally manufacturing their toys they wouldn't have any time to devote
to making themselves rich. Now you know why Mr. Trump doesn't roll up his
sleeves and grab his hammer and saw whenever he wants a new yacht.

[Ethan Winer]

Chevdo,

I would suspect that many if not most of Mr. Winer's customers could make
more money working during the time it would take to DIY Mr. Winer's products
themselves.

Indeed. Also, the traps I sell are quite a bit better than any of the DIY
plans on my personal site. There's nothing wrong with DIY! But in many cases
it's not as good as a well designed commercial product.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Chevdo,

Perhaps he could tell us who he was addressing and put the matter to rest?


Nothing I can write will convince anyone who PREFERS to be irrational. And
there are plenty of those! So the best I can aim for is to clearly present
the facts as I see them, and hope to sway those sitting on the fence. There
are a lot of those people too. I visit many audio forums and see people who
love audio, and get an earful from both sides, but they don't know enough
technically to determine which side makes more sense. So I guess I see my
audience as rational people who want to learn what really matters and what
doesn't about audio. The rest will never be convinced no matter how logical
an argument is presented, and there's nothing anyone can do to educate them.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Bob,

It would be really instructive to take measurements from the same
positions with and without the room's normal treatment.

I do have measurements for those same two locations (plus several others)
with bass traps in place. Unfortunately, we added ONLY bass traps, and not
first reflection treatment too. That test was intended to compare bass traps
versus EQ, and for anyone interested I wrote up the results he

www.realtraps.com/eq-traps.htm

Yes, some people really do believe that EQ is a valid substitute for bass
traps. Not so much in the pro audio world anymore, but audiophiles and home
theater folks want desperately to believe that a small electronic device can
replace visually intrusive room treatment. If only...

--Ethan

[David Grant]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
Bob,

It would be really instructive to take measurements from the same
positions with and without the room's normal treatment.

I do have measurements for those same two locations (plus several others)
with bass traps in place.

So put the graph from your comb filtering article comparing the two
locations (4-inch-spaced) without treatment, next to a graph (with the same
scales, superposition, etc) comparing the two locations with treatment. It
would be interesting to see how (and if) treatment reduces the difference
between positions.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Skler]

'mass delusion'. It doesn't matter how smart or rational you are, if you
are
the type of person who really wants to 'get along' with others, or feels
anxiety when more than one person disagrees with you, you are going to
join in
with the crowd proclaiming that the Emperor is infact wearing a fine suit,
even
if your rational mind is screaming about the error to your minds ear...

In fact, it's the people who glean a rudimentary understanding of delusion
that
are more likely to be deluded, because they think they are smart enough
not to
be. It's a proven fact that people with post-secondary education are MORE
likely to believe in the supernatural than those without. That's because
well-informed, savvy people think they are immune to delusion or
irrational
behavior, but they are not.


etc.

I think fallacious reasoning / irrational thinking is natural for most
everyone, but there exists in some people the capacity to understand in a
more logical way. However, I think logical thinking must be nurtured,
developed and reinforced. There are so many social forces working against
those who try to maintain rationality so it's a constant struggle against
both internal and external forces.

Basically, human beans have a really wonderful ability to recognize
patterns out of complex jumbles of information and noise, but sometimes,
unfortunately, will assign great significance to patterns that can emerge as
a result of projected meaning, that is, patterns that represent coincidences
or chance as opposed to any substantive natural order, and that my friends
is how superstition or irrational ideology is born. People's brains are also
very good at short term prediction, but when we try to predict long term
things we really get into trouble, which is why the rigors of science have
developed and why computers with really nifty algorithms have become such a
powerful and practical tools.

Audiophiles are really no different from anyone else in this regard, and
you have to admit that illogical thinking when it comes to audio is pretty
harmless, perhaps with the exception of gross misrepresentation or deception
in order to profit from somebody else's lack of knowledge or exposure to
logic.

Sklr

[Skler]

But the perception of improvement is not due to the
comb-filtering effect, it's the psychological processes in the
"audiophile's" head. Over in the bass-guitar group I'm usually hanging
around in, people will periodically say things like, "But, I really can
hear a difference when I use Monster Cables!" Yes, okay, maybe you do
-- but the important thing to remember is that "difference" does not
automatically mean "improvement." It's just different. But the
difference is always perceived as improvement, because they've been
pre-conditioned by marketers, salesmen, and the amount of money they
just spent to perceive it as "improvement."


When I first experimented with relatively large gauge cables years ago, I
could hear the difference between 18 gauge zip cord and the 10 gauge
"monster" cables in conjunction with my passive Tannoys. Though slight, low
end and the over-all volume was affected. When I changed power amps though,
the amount of audible effect changed a little too, so it's an amalgam of
factors, i.e. load, feed line, output circuit...

I'll tell what I never could hear though and as a result, considered to be
rather goofy, is when I met a local hot shot guitarists who said he could
hear a difference in tone depending on which way a guitar cord is oriented.
"See, if I reverse the direction of the cord... I always test my cords this
way and mark them so I know which way sounds best." Yikes! I'm not the
only one who has pointed out that among lead guitarists who play for a
living, hearing loss is common, and guitar rigs are not exactly noted for
their ability to render complex signals with a very high resolution. So it
seemed silly, but harmless, don't you think? To me it's worth being
tolerant with someone who says guitar gone is affected by with end is
pointed which way because first of all, it makes me smile and second, he was
a great guy and an incredible musician.

For me, if you're interested in the technical side of things and really
trying to quantify something then by all means explore it. Like, if you can
subjectively perceive some curious or unexpected audio phenomenon, can you
also measure it in some other way where another person can duplicate the set
up and measure the same thing you're seeing on your test gear? I believe
that there bound to be some interesting effects, psychoacoustic or process
related that have yet to be quantified or modeled in a useful way, things
are still perceivable by some people, but just haven't been sufficiently
researched. I'd get a kick out of it, really, if someone actually
quantified some ridiculous thing like cord direction and people who could
hear it, though I think it's a natural thing for the learned to remain
skeptical.

Schy

[Skler]

Or tweaking a channel on the mix board, everyone agrees they heard an
improvement, only to find it was an unused channel when marking the
recall sheets. I've had this happen a few times.


Anybody here tweaked an empty channel or an unused send knob during a studio
mix or live sound gig to satisfy a customers wishes, but to keep from
messing up the mix? Personally, I'd never do anything like that.
:-)


Or how 'bout this one: Mix by committee... You are doing a live gig and it
so happens that there are three or four really great engineers there, hob
knobbing and not trying to impose, but each has their own idea has to how
the mix levels & EQ should be, so there's a kind of compromise made and two
or three guys do a little tweaking, but only move the knob a millimeter or
even less so as to keep from upsetting the other guy.

Skler

[Skler]

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would
produce
significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.


Hey,

Try measuring it sometime... (e.g. with FFT software) I don't know about
changing the listening position a few inches, but relatively early
reflections can dramatically alter a speaker's response and if you move the
speakers a little or the reflective surfaces around them, e.g. furniture,
racks, gear, then the response will be affected. I've seen very deep mid
range dips and peaks effected by comb filtering with near field monitors,
stuff that you'd have to use pretty drastic settings on a parametric to
duplicate. I think what happens is one becomes accustomed to certain
colorations and after that it's just a relative thing; this is especially
the case when you listen to a lot of pre-recorded material on reference
monitors with a relatively fixed listening position and your brain becomes
"calibrated" more or less with regard to the anomalies of a particular set
up.

Skler

[Skler]

D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP
demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big
difference anyway.

Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP
demagnetizer.

Skler

[anahata]

Skler wrote:


Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP
demagnetizer.

pantomime chorusOh yes there is!/pc
http://www.musicdirect.com/products/...?sku=AFURDEMAG

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Ron Capik]

Skler wrote:


Or tweaking a channel on the mix board, everyone agrees they heard an
improvement, only to find it was an unused channel when marking the
recall sheets. I've had this happen a few times.

Anybody here tweaked an empty channel or an unused send knob during a studio
mix or live sound gig to satisfy a customers wishes, but to keep from
messing up the mix? Personally, I'd never do anything like that.
:-)
...snip..
Skler

I frequently get requests for more [whatever] in the monitors, with a "thanks,
that's better" before I even reach for the knob... ;-)


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Ron Capik]

Skler wrote:

....snip..

Hey,

Try measuring it sometime... (e.g. with FFT software) I don't know about
changing the listening position a few inches, but relatively early
reflections can dramatically alter a speaker's response and if you move the
speakers a little or the reflective surfaces around them, e.g. furniture,
racks, gear, then the response will be affected. I've seen very deep mid
range dips and peaks effected by comb filtering with near field monitors,
stuff that you'd have to use pretty drastic settings on a parametric to
duplicate. I think what happens is one becomes accustomed to certain
colorations and after that it's just a relative thing; this is especially
the case when you listen to a lot of pre-recorded material on reference
monitors with a relatively fixed listening position and your brain becomes
"calibrated" more or less with regard to the anomalies of a particular set
up.

Skler

Hot air!


No, seriously ! The whole acoustic size and shape of the
room will change with a degree or two of temperature change.
Heck, just talking can cause a thermal cloud that will distort the
entire sound field. ...and just think what the methane from a
good fart could do! G

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

One of the experiences that drove me out subjective testing was listening to
a variety of audiophile cables. On my initial listening, there were huge
differences among, and these differences remained constant over an extended
listening session.

When I packed them up a few days later to return, there were no audible
differences whatever.

Whether or not these differences were "real", it's obvious that what I heard
(or thought I heard) had nothing to do with comb filtering.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

jwvm wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Walt wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things.
What pickups have that output impedance?

--
ha

The latest thing in cheapie microphones, electrets with no FET
follower! Perfect for recording 16 Hz. organ notes and not much else.
:-)


Piezo guitar pickups, sans preamp?


Is this just residual piezo bashing? The impedence of piezo elements changes
over a frequency range due to resonance and anti-resonance:

http://www.efunda.com/Materials/piez..._impedance.cfm

If impedence with piezo pickups is an issue, why when I plug my contact mics
into the hi-z input on my mixer, it sounds the same as when I plug them into
the regular inputs? This does not happen with dynamic mics, I have an old JVC
mic I picked up at a thrift store that says it is rated as 10kohm, and it
sounds a lot better, with a lower noise floor through the hi-z input. Piezos
sound exactly the same. So what exactly is the point of harping over piezo
impedence?

BTW, a '16hz organ note' would be inaudible infrasound, so whoever wrote that
isn't making much sense...

[Chevdo]

In article , says...

But the perception of improvement is not due to the
comb-filtering effect, it's the psychological processes in the
"audiophile's" head. Over in the bass-guitar group I'm usually hanging
around in, people will periodically say things like, "But, I really can
hear a difference when I use Monster Cables!" Yes, okay, maybe you do
-- but the important thing to remember is that "difference" does not
automatically mean "improvement." It's just different. But the
difference is always perceived as improvement, because they've been
pre-conditioned by marketers, salesmen, and the amount of money they
just spent to perceive it as "improvement."


When I first experimented with relatively large gauge cables years ago, I
could hear the difference between 18 gauge zip cord and the 10 gauge
"monster" cables in conjunction with my passive Tannoys. Though slight, low
end and the over-all volume was affected. When I changed power amps though,
the amount of audible effect changed a little too, so it's an amalgam of
factors, i.e. load, feed line, output circuit...


So I guess you're the type of person who we were discussing, who, even after
being told that science says nobody can hear the difference between 10 and 18
gauge cable, you still cling to your cherished delusions. Why is that? Why
are you so positive that you were hearing what you think you were hearing?

[Chevdo]

In article , says...

I'll tell what I never could hear though and as a result, considered to be
rather goofy, is when I met a local hot shot guitarists who said he could
hear a difference in tone depending on which way a guitar cord is oriented.
"See, if I reverse the direction of the cord... I always test my cords this
way and mark them so I know which way sounds best." Yikes! I'm not the
only one who has pointed out that among lead guitarists who play for a
living, hearing loss is common, and guitar rigs are not exactly noted for
their ability to render complex signals with a very high resolution. So it
seemed silly, but harmless, don't you think? To me it's worth being
tolerant with someone who says guitar gone is affected by with end is
pointed which way because first of all, it makes me smile and second, he was
a great guy and an incredible musician.


What's your point? I'm not going to beat the guitarist until he admits his
superstition is just that, but I'm not going to hide facts from him to protect
his 'feelings' because his 'feelings' are 'harmless', either.

[Chevdo]

In article , says...


D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP
demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big
difference anyway.

Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP
demagnetizer.


Yes there is, but since LPs and CDs are not magnetized, it doesn't do anything.
Personally I'd like a static electricity remover for LPs, but as far as I know
only record sleeves and cleaning solutions to reduce static electricity
build-up exist. I don't know of anything that will remove static electricty
after it's already built up. Which is unfortuante because the Swiffer is
excellent for cleaning vinyl, but it induces a massive static charge on the
record in the process...

And no, freaks, I don't use vinyl because I think it sounds better than CD, I
use it because there are plenty of things I want to listen to that have never
been released on CD. Like Trax' _Watch Out!_, which I was excited to find in
perfect condition at a church thrift sale the other day.

[Bob Cain]

Ethan Winer wrote:
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really
about multisource/multipath interference. Comb filtering is a rather
trivial special case wherein there are two sources and two paths with
a single delay between them. While comb filtering is an easy to
understand and particularly simple example of this kind of
interference, what happens in a room doesn't generally produce comb
like responses but rather _much_ more complex space, frequency and
time dependant interference patterns as shown by your data.

I mention this because I'm not sure whether it is a good thing or not
to let "comb filtering" become the vernacular for the more general
interference effect that room treatment deals with. I admit to a
pedantic streak a mile wide. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[David Grant]

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:achVg.3448$H7.1563@edtnps82...
In article ,
says...


D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP
demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big
difference anyway.

Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP
demagnetizer.


Yes there is, but since LPs and CDs are not magnetized, it doesn't do
anything.


Coil wire around a CD or LP, connect in series with a voltage source and
on/off switch. Voila - you're switch is now a CD/LP magnetizer/demagnetizer.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[David Grant]

While comb filtering is an easy to
understand and particularly simple example of this kind of
interference, what happens in a room doesn't generally produce comb
like responses but rather _much_ more complex space, frequency and
time dependant interference patterns as shown by your data.

I admit to a pedantic streak a mile wide. :-)


Then you won't mind my pointing out that 'comb like' should be hyphenated
:-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

Ethan Winer wrote:
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really
about multisource/multipath interference. Comb filtering is a rather
trivial special case wherein there are two sources and two paths with
a single delay between them.

Really, well the Wikipedia article on comb filtering says:

"In signal processing, a comb filter adds a slightly delayed version of a
signal to itself, causing phase cancellations."

Nothing about two signals and two paths with a single delay between them, but
if you're so sure about that, why don't you go ahead and edit the Wikipedia
comb filtering article, mention your edit on the discussion page, and see if it
passes the test of not getting deleted by one of the dozens of over-qualified
engineers who edit the signal processing pages on Wikipedia?

By the way, I suspect your misunderstanding probably stems from a design of a
reverb unit you may have perused, which use comb filters to produce the effect.


While comb filtering is an easy to
understand and particularly simple example of this kind of
interference, what happens in a room doesn't generally produce comb
like responses but rather _much_ more complex space, frequency and
time dependant interference patterns as shown by your data.

A chair in between an ear and a speaker induces a delayed portion of the signal
to the ear. It's a comb filter. Yes, it's a complex one, as Mr. Winer's
collected data indicates. The term 'comb filter' is as accurate as your term
'multisource/multipath interference', but the term 'comb filter' actually tells
us what's happening to the signal as a result of the path interference. Not
only is it an accurate term, it's a superior term.



I mention this because I'm not sure whether it is a good thing or not
to let "comb filtering" become the vernacular for the more general
interference effect that room treatment deals with.

Too late, it's already common vernacular. Mr. Winer didn't make it up. The
sonic effects of objects impeding signals sent through air pressure has been
referred to as 'comb filtering' for as long as I can remember. Seriously, you
should've done a little Googling before posting this...

I admit to a
pedantic streak a mile wide. :-)


In this case I think your pedantic streak has reached an extreme and become an
obfuscation. The ignorance streak doesn't help much, either.

[Paul Stamler]

"Skler" wrote in message
...

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening
to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never
heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would
produce
significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Try measuring it sometime... (e.g. with FFT software) I don't know
about
changing the listening position a few inches, but relatively early
reflections can dramatically alter a speaker's response and if you move
the
speakers a little or the reflective surfaces around them, e.g. furniture,
racks, gear, then the response will be affected. I've seen very deep mid
range dips and peaks effected by comb filtering with near field monitors,
stuff that you'd have to use pretty drastic settings on a parametric to
duplicate. I think what happens is one becomes accustomed to certain
colorations and after that it's just a relative thing; this is especially
the case when you listen to a lot of pre-recorded material on reference
monitors with a relatively fixed listening position and your brain becomes
"calibrated" more or less with regard to the anomalies of a particular set
up.

Yeah, but he was saying that the huge changes in response are not
particularly audible, even though they're easily measurable. Something which
most of us have experienced; somehow our ear-brain system seems to minimize
these differences. They don't go away, but they're not nearly as drastic as
the measurements would lead one to believe. Somehow, and I don't have a clue
how, our brains seem to compensate for the differences across much of the
spectrum. Yes, when I move back a couple of feet from where I'm sitting the
bass level changes drastically, but the mid/treble response seems to change
only a little, compared to what the test equipment says it's doing. That's a
good thing, because otherwise it would be utterly impossible for sound
reproduction to work.

Of course, a well-treated room sounds better and is much preferred for
critical monitoring as well as listening for pleasure. But even within that
well-treated room, small head movements should be causing a lot more changes
in perceived frequency response than they actually do. (Want an idea of how
drastic the measured response is? A couple of months ago, in class, I was
running 700Hz tone through a guitar amp with a microphone about 6" from the
grille. A student was walking around in the room, several feet away. I
watched the VU meters jump up and down some 6dB as he did so. Reflections
from his body changed the response at that frequency that much, even though
the student-to-microphone distance was at least ten times the
microphone-to-sound-source distance. And he was behind it.)

Ears and brains, in combination, do some very clever stuff. Much of which we
don't understand yet.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
...
Hot air!


No, seriously ! The whole acoustic size and shape of the
room will change with a degree or two of temperature change.

Yeah, buddy. Last Sunday at Yom Kippur services, about an hour into the
evening the rabbi's stand-mounted microphone suddenly started ringing quite
badly. Nobody had changed any of the settings. (They couldn't; the sound
booth was locked. Bad idea.) What had happened: a couple of hundred people
sitting in the room, breathing out water vapor. The humidity in the room had
increased significantly. Whoo-hoo, feedback.

Peace,
Paul

[Ethan Winer]

David,

So put the graph from your comb filtering article comparing the two
locations (4-inch-spaced) without treatment, next to a graph (with the same
scales, superposition, etc) comparing the two locations with treatment. It
would be interesting to see how (and if) treatment reduces the difference
between positions.

Again, the treatment was not optimized to reduce comb filtering at mid and
high frequencies. We aimed to improve only the bass frequencies. But to
satisfy myself I just made an overlay comparing those same two locations
with bass traps in place. As expected, the bass response was the much more
similar at both locations, but the full-range response was almost as
different as with no traps.

However, I do have a graph already posted that adds to the discussion. This
graph shows a single location with and without first reflection treatment:

www.realtraps.com/rfz-response.gif

And here's the full article:

www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm

--Ethan