Listening Fatigue

It is both recording and system related. Really good systems have you turning up the volume with reduced fatigue, so it's not directly related to volume. Sean
>

Driver: The Sunfire line of amps is voiced with a similar dip to what you tend to prefer.

Mint604: Your comments are not only ridiculous in they slam a whole genre of speakers by saying that they are not capable of producing at least reasonably listenable performance, but your facts and figures are just as whacked.

First of all, Villchur and Kloss came up with the Acoustic Suspension design in the 1950's, not Kloss and Allison in the 60's. On top of that, changing a speaker from an acoustic suspension design to ANY type of vented design will only produce 3 dB's of output difference over a relatively narrow range of frequencies. To say that there is a 10 dB difference demonstrates the lack of understanding behind your comments.

Other than that, i think that Driver hit a large portion of it with his response. Upper midrange and treble response non-linearities are the prime contributors of fatigue. This is why systems that tend to sound "warm" and / or "dark" are more listenable for a longer period of time. That is, the aforementioned frequency range that produces "grain" & "glare" are less pronounced.

As a side note, "cleaning up" the AC tends to limit the bandwidth of the AC signal. By limiting the bandwidth, you remove the upper harmonics or "spikes" that are generated in the AC process, not to mention all the other grunge that comes in on the line. Just as the "rolled off" response of the audio components reduces fatigue, "rolling off" the higher frequency grunge on the AC line can accomplish much the same task. Sean
>

Stehno: Please describe what a proper line conditioner attempts to do and how it achieves those goals. Sean
>

Stehno: Thanks for the schooling. I do have a few more questions for you though : )

1) How can "out of band" noise that is supposedly hundreds of KHz / MHz above the audible passband affect the clarity of the signal that we hear from our speakers?

2) How does one remove the aforementioned offending noises?

I don't want to take up all the time that you have for class, but i can't wait to get to the technical stuff. I'm sure that with a little help from you, this thread will clear up all the pre-conceived notions and lack of understanding that i had about power line conditioners and how they work : ) Sean
>

Stehno: I could easily answer all of your questions, but i'll refrain from doing so at this time. I'll be glad to do so once we've resolved what is already on our plates. After all, first things first : )

You challenged the statements that i made, now i'm asking for an explanation of your statements and how you arrived at the beliefs that you did. If i'm wrong, i'd like to understand where i went wrong and how i can correct the flaws in my thought process.

Not only did you challenge my statements, but you also challenged my level of education and experience on the subject. As such, i really can't understand why you would defer the questions that i asked you back to me? It is obvious that you already have all of the answers and understanding required to solve this puzzle, so how could i hope to compete with that???

With that in mind and for the future edification of myself and all of Audiogon, please clarify your comments for us. You can do so by answering the questions that i've previously provided for you. Since you proclaim to be well educated and experienced in the subject at hand, the floor is yours. After all, who am i to challenge such a proclamation? Your answers will obviously demonstrate the authoritative level of understanding that you have on the subject. I'll only ask questions as it pertains to the subject at hand and the previous comments that were made. I just hope that i'll be able to keep up with your teachings and fully comprehend the technical explanations that you'll offer in support of your statements. Sean
>

Stehno: We could play games here forever. I made statements that i'll be glad to explain. You made specific statements that you can't and / or won't explain. Who's the person making comments about something that they don't understand, can't explain and repeating what they've been told by some third party?

THAT'S why i asked what i did i.e. i was trying to get you to "prove" your point, just as you have asked me to support my points in the past. If you actually knew something about what you were talking about, you could support your statements. The fact that you chose not to and tried to put it back to me pretty much explains itself. Your "half-answer" was meant to deflect how obviously cornered you were. That is, you ran your mouth but can't support the how's & why's of your critical comments.

You see, that's the whole problem with "open forums". While they are great in the fact that ANYBODY can ask questions and ANYBODY can share their thoughts, people that know nothing are soon treated as "experts" with little to no background on the subject. This is how "audio myths" get started and are perpetuated far longer than they should be allowed to. Those that try to dispell those myths, aren't afraid to "tell it like it is" and have the technical background to do so get castrated by those in control. That's because the audio industry pretty much survives on snake-oil and corruption. The more that the customers are kept in the dark, the easier it is to pick their pockets. The old motto of "an educated customer is the best customer" RARELY applies to anything in "hi-end" audio.

Like i said, i've never run away from explaining my statements or supporting my point of view, nor have i ever run away from discussions with those that have opposing points of view. If you look through my "4000+ posts" that you claim i've made, you'll also see more than a few instances where i've specifically asked others to correct any "mis-information" that i've posted. I'm not above being wrong, making mistakes or correction. As such, i don't take kindly to piss-ants crawling out of the woodwork to annoy / antagonize / play games with me when they can't even have a decent conversation about the subject. On top of that, I really don't like when they approach me with smart-ass comments that are completely insincere, wishing me well and then insulting me and the effort that i've put into helping to educate those that are willing to learn while breaking down audio myths.

As far as the situation that you mention between myself and a specific "reviewer", I'll just say that you probably aren't aware of all of the information that i'm privy to. If you were, you would understand why i made the statements that i did. Then again, maybe i'm giving you too much credit for being "reasonable" and / or a logical individual.

As far as "we" are concerned, i sometimes take the liberty of speaking for the mouse in my pocket and other audiophiles when responding to comments made as a blanket statement. The only time that i did this in this thread is when i asked how "we" could hear some of the things through our speakers that you are describing. The only ones that seem to mind me speaking for them are the ones' that talk trash on a regular basis, can't support their statements and / or try to manipulate the information available in these threads for their own financial gain. Which one of the three different categories do you fall into? Sean
>

PS... This thread is nothing less than fatiguing to say the least.

Stehno: By the way, i never "a broad sweep looping all line-conditioners into the same category with pretty much the same deficiencies or design flaws". It was you that commented that line conditioners that shared a specific design concept were "flawed" and / or poor performers. That's why i asked you to explain what you thought the goals of a good line conditioner should be and how they could go about achieving those goals without resorting to the design concept that i mentioned and you criticized. Once again, you try to paint me as something that i'm not and turn the table on me when it was YOU that were guilty of the charges that you're levying against me. This in itself demonstrates your insincerity and level of integrity. I hope that i wasn't the only one that caught this. Sean
>

Stehno: I've said my piece. The ball is in your court. Support your statements and demonstrate where i lied / fabricated in my rebuttal. If one of us is telling the truth / being honest here, the other obviously has to be lying and lacking in integrity. I'll let the masses judge for themselves as to who is doing what. Sean
>

Mejames: There's no point in Stehno answering the questions now. Bombay has already shown that ALL forms of line conditioning that achieve both audible and measurable results alter bandwidth in some way, shape or form. That's why i wanted to ask Stehno a series of questions. With his own responses, he would have realized that the goals that he mentioned could only be met with the ideas / designs that he was critical of.

Bombay: Your explanation basically sums up the situation. I just wanted Stehno to do his own homework. Not only would he have seen how contradictory his own statements were, he would have helped educate others in the process.

Nighthawk: It's quite possible to limit bandwidth without limiting transient response. The key to doing this would be to pick the proper hinge frequency and slope. Once these parameters were chosen, you would have to select individual components that could easily pass the desired amount of energy. For optimum performance, you would have to look at how much energy was needed in both a steady state draw and on a dynamic basis. By using "heavy duty" components that will easily pass the necessary power, series resistance is minimized and thermal losses are reduced. Sean
>