This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
Thanks for jumping in. What setup do you have? We have several drum kits at the shop. Maybe some time you can hook up with one of the musicians here and talk tuning vs tension in real time.
One thing cool about my stereo stores is that we had studios setup at the locations so local musicians and recording artist could hang out with us. nothing like having discussions while actually doing what you are talking about.
One thing though just as a point of reference. When I was on tour I never had a musician or road tech tell me to "tension" up the drum kit. They told me to "tune" up the kit. Also the same was true when working with orchestras and drum lines. So, I know your trying to make a point but maybe you should take that up with drummers! My instrument is African drums btw so the tuning on them is a stretching and curing process.
thanks for you view point, I'll actually be meeting with some folks this weekend and will ask them about the terms they use and get back to you if you would like
"Michael, The “fundamental forces” and the interaction of the Earth’s forces sound like interesting topics. Can you expound on what you mean? What are we talking about here?"
Yep, I think this deserves it's own thread. I also think this is an area of audio in which you shine.
here's the wiki
"Fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces, are the interactions in physical systems that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is understood as the dynamics of a field."
+1 Drum set are tuned in a different way to every other instrument. It is extremely complex. Being able to get the right sound for the room or venue is an art.
The only way to learn to “tune” a drum set is to tune a drum set so many times that you train your ears to know what to adjust.
I have a Pearl reference kit and it is amazing for large venues but too resonant for a practice room. I have found Evans controlled resonance heads along with Evans ringed batters to work best for this kit in a small room. I find Evans dry heads with perforations work for the snare is a small room.
I have a drum drum tuner also but frankly by ear is the best and fastest.
Trick is
1) Choice of heads (the sound of the stick hitting the head is very important as well as longevity of the skin) Drum heads have an incredible range of sounds. 2) tuning to the drum shell 3) relative tension between the heads - create down pitch or up pitch and decay rate ( tuning both heads to each other and to the shell results in longest sustain) 4) Generally Major thirds or descending fourths works as a starting point.
Snare tuning is a dark magic art that requires a decade or more of training.
Finally - what the drummer hears from the throne is very different from what is projected to a listener.
Drum set tuning is the most difficult instrument to “tune”.
Cymbals are just as complex - choosing those is also an art.
The complex harmonics of drums mean that drums are the most important instrument to get right in order for a band to sound good.
It gets much worse for the drummer....how you hit the heads and how much rebound you allow the stick can change the tonal character of the sound too - not only loudness.
"MG Yes tbh I am just about in heaven with my system for sure I can and do sit and listen for 5, 5 or more hours at a time with no fatigue or desire to stop the music flowing. Twas not always that way of course, I have had the same room for 11 years and when I think back to what I started with in their and where I am now. The biggest mover was the Lyngdorf 2170 that basically did all the room tuning I need for me. Not much more I need to achieve and changes I make now are just because I feel like it or the desire to "upgrade" like new cartridges. So yes ring that bell!"
_________________________________
This for sure is one of the options for the now and for the future as innovations keep moving forward. I have been talking with designers who are working on the audio hologram. One of them is using my Tunable Room as the physical adjustment space. It’s pretty fascinating to see into the future of the hobby. It’s going to be so cool when the AV holograms come out and as I have been pushing for, I would like to see the licensing able to be marketed.
I don’t want to get ahead of myself or the industry, but someday you will be able (hopefully) to download the original master yourself and plug it into your hologram device. At that time you will see and hear the recorded code. Unfortunately the visual will not be going back to recordings that haven’t had the AV codes applied, but I bet even those will be somehow simulated with new visual formats remade for that particular piece of music to new visuals. But recordings being done now in the hologram version are crazy cool.
This is one of the reasons I tell folks, don’t down play the stereo soundstage, because the future of audio and visual is all about the soundstage. Now that we have files the innovative part of this industry is moving at lightening speed. Those debates on real soundstages probably won’t even be around a few short years from now.
I’ll let you know if I get time to pickup a Lyngdorf 2170. I've had my eye on a potential prototype unit but maybe I should play with the Lyngdorf too. I'm more into the physical tuning but, playing is the name of the game.
"Drum set are tuned in a different way to every other instrument. It is extremely complex. Being able to get the right sound for the room or venue is an art.
The only way to learn to “tune” a drum set is to tune a drum set so many times that you train your ears to know what to adjust."
When it comes to listening I have learned to let the individual artist do the magic while I watch and learn. Going back to drummers for a second, as a kid I have had my hands slapped so many times when I went to tune in their room and set for him. If I knew I was doing some drums I made sure the rug closet was ready to be gone through. Many times they brought their own towels and wouldn’t let you get near the set. Love those guys! Anyway, we did a setup at a guitar shop some years ago where we brought in our PZC’s to surround the players while we handed them different guitars that they asked for (actually took two days). I wish HEA audiophiles could go through this. It was a lesson too be learned for the ages. I wish I would have kept those series of recordings.
I’m so glad that musicians have joined this thread!! Having experience in the studio "live room" and playback both is totally different from being in the audience or going to an audio trade show. There’s a completely different set of values. For one, you learn to throw out the $$$$$ myths and are able to focus on what is actually taking place musically. There are so many variables!!! Some engineers still went by the book, but it was the experienced guys who would come in and just know everything the minute they came in the space and their ears made contact with the room. Absolute geniuses. A couple of guys trained me early on with guitars, two were my cousins Doc & Merle Watson, the other was Mick Ronson. Lots of other guys added to my learning but they were the ones (oh and Phil Keaggy) who got me into those instruments. And while I’m handing out credits, the guys at Guitar Works down in Atlanta, they were great and talented.
guys
This is also why I build Tunable products. A listener might be sitting there content, and that’s cool, but think of how many people want (need) to hear the actual event in order to be satisfied? The chances of a one sound HEA system reproducing the actual sound (sounds) of a recording is far fetched at best. When I have an artist sitting in my room with my system I tune in the music to his original recollection.
This is just me personally, but I can’t even imagine how HEA has survived with only a volume control and no tunable system. My clients always tell me how they can’t see how tuning has been overlooked in this hobby. And honestly I believe the future for HEA has to include tuning, if it plans on being around much longer, but that’s me.
please read this again from Mr. Smith "Another test I found interesting was a $2,000 Mesa amp against a tiny $170 amp voiced specifically to mimic the Mesa. They sounded slightly different, but the $170 amp sounded BETTER!"
The chances of a one sound HEA system reproducing the actual sound (sounds) of a recording is far fetched at best.
Semantics perhaps but its not far fetched at all if the goal us to produce the sound of a recording. Some of course will do it better than others. Some others still might better please particular individuals. That's kinda what makes the home audio world go round.
If you mean reproducing the original performed sounds that were captured in say a mixed studio recording recording, that would be a neat trick in many cases akin to seeing the real life detail of water lilies when viewing a Monet abstraction. Some good quality simple miked, mixed, and mastered live recordings (very rare), not so seemingly impossible.
"The biggest choice in HEA of course is whether to select a guru or be your own."
My experience has been all the above. Attitudes and egos aside, there's that musical uniqueness to everyone. Some you have to look harder (that's a drag) but most have their values because of what they have either experienced or what they have read. Both have a value and there are all levels of knowledge.
for example, reading a reviewer from a magazine
For some this gives a certain level of info, measurements and comfort. For myself it's a door opener only, an infomercial. First thing I do, since I have learned about mass is look at the chassis, next I look inside to see how cramped the parts are. Next thing I do is look at the different sizes of parts and wire. Next are the parts bolted down. Then I look for dampeners and things like how the power wires go from the outlet to the board and transformer. Once I get the lay of the land I begin to set the component free so I can hear what is going on.
Now not thinking of price and marketing, if I get two components in and one is built to allow the signal flow without blockage and the other is a tank, I can make a fairly reasonable guess that the simple unit (tuned) is going to beatup on the over built one. This has proven to be the case I would wager 98% of the time.
I say this because for me personally a guru looks deeper than the cover. That being the case empirically exploring units using this paradigm it puts a certain shortcut into play. Gurus know the shortcuts and gurus also don't waste time exploring the same thing over and over trying to get to the sound. I see this again and again with expensive products. Having heavy chassis and over built parts and crossovers takes points away from the status of guru-ism. For me, speakers that need complicated crossovers are speakers (cabinet and drivers) that needed to be fixed. The perfect speaker is one that can work in many rooms and with many components. That to me means a speaker that is tunable, built like a musical instrument, and one that has one or two parts to the crossover. For components, light weight, parts that are relatively similar in size (also low mass), an easy to tune chassis and a nice layout of space on the board. Also a resonant board so the parts can gel. Hardly ever with a top cover. And limited to no shielding. Shielding is a choice to be made by the listener after the unit is setup and has a chance to interact with the environment. Pretty much good products are ones that can be made to produce the sound desired after they have been acclimated to a listeners space.
I’d have to leave that one up to the listeners themselves. Of course most of the folks who come to me are looking for that next step or even their ultimate setup including the room built variable.
This is just me as an onlooker, but most of the threads I see there are folks looking for change. Or at least the guys who have emailed me from here are looking to take a step. Not even necessarily a purchase, but a further step in their method.
Also guys keep in mind I'm not here to dictate, but instead to share the options when tuning in a system. Some of you have no desire to change anything and that's way cool, but there are many more looking toward the variables.
I'll probably get chased off this tread but I listen to music, I'm not an engineer, nor am I someone tring to sell anything (as so many seem to be). I listen to music and want to get as close as I can afford, without being overly obtrusive to my living space, to the sound I hear sitting anywhere in the acustically perfect (thank you Louis Sullivan) Auditorium Theartre in Chicago. If I put Muddy Waters on I want to be taken back to the Fathers and Sons concert, if it's Layla, i want to be transported to hearing Eric and Dwayne's interplay. I want "Tommy" to have impact. Same goes for MIles or Trane or Solti, or Callas, Yo Yo Ma etc. Do certain elements make a technical difference, I can't tell from these forums because they argue from all sides with no closure. But when I listento my system I feel some do some don't. But if I like the sound and it transports me, I'll figure out a way to incorporate it.
Excellent post shadorne. Yup, I neglected to cover the matter of pitch bend---the phenomenon where the tone of the drum (generally) drops as it’s sustain subsides, a sound I love. I too use Evans, their kick heads exclusively. I for years taped feminine minipads on my drumheads to damp the high ring, but that’s no longer necessary---self damped heads are now plentiful.
I play vintage---Ludwig’s brass-shell snare drums from the 1920’s (I have four), and the Black Beauty from the 70’s (in both 5" and 6-1/2" depths) being my favorites. I have just about all American-made sets from the 40’s through the early 70’s---Camco, Gretsch, Leedy, Ludwig, Radio King, Rogers, and Slingerland.. Did I leave any out? ;-). They all have 24" kicks, and I collect the Black Diamond Pearl finish, hence my AudiogoN moniker.
My use of the term tensioned in place of tuned was done, yes, to make a point. Tuned is of course the term commonly used, but it is used loosely, not literally. My point was, that to say a drum can go out-of-tune when moved from one room to another in nonsense, for the reasons I stated. Unless, that is, one is speaking of something other than pitch. It’s timbre (the relative strengths of it’s fundamentals, overtones/harmonics, and partials) can change, as can it’s sustain, but not it’s pitch. And that is not a matter of semantics.
Drum "tuning" is a talent not all drummers possess. The studio guys are the best---Hal Blaine, Jim Gordon, Keltner, Roger Hawkins (he’s on all the Jerry Wexler-produced Muscle Shoals recordings), Kenny Buttrey (Neil Young’s Harvest album), all masters. And then there is Levon Helm; listen to the sound of his drums on The Band’s "The Weight". As good as it gets!
Thanks for visiting the thread! Your comments are right on target with the OP. I started this thread so people can talk about "doing" audio and music. On Agon there are all of us who love music and look at it from unique points of view based on our experiences, and that's where I wanted to see this thread go. For myself it kind of drifted over into the thread I'm doing on the method of tuning, but I'm glad to see it staying somewhat on point. When listeners see other listeners' experiences it builds the community (family).
I for one enjoy hearing the experiences of others, from Geoff's low mass Walkman to Tj's all out tunable room. Also we should enjoy input from the musicians. It's all good, if we keep it all good.
Update on my low mass Sony Walkman CD player. I’m now using “modded” Grado SR-60 headphones, which are stripped of their god awful sounding foam pads. The Walkman itself is isolated on a one off version of my Woody the Woodpecker isolation stand, which simulates the physical characteristics of a woodpecker’s head and tissue surrounding the brain, all of which is carefully constructed to prevent injury to the woodpecker’s brain when subjected to high frequency high negative g forces whilst pecking wood. The isolation stand incorporates springs, a glass bowl filled with glass micro beads, a large number of glass crystal weights that provide high mass for the springs and such niceties as Moingo disc and a bunch of the NASA grade ceramic cones from Golden Sound that act as node dampers, exit points. There are some other things I can’t really discuss as they draw too much heat. Maybe later.
Michael, I know that your intent is virtuous. But some recordings simply ARE better-sounding than others. It's true that a well-tuned system will present MORE recordings well, but never ALL of them. And tuning a system to optimize a poor recording will very likely compromise its presentation of better ones... and that's simply crazy. OTOH, if you tune your system to optimize the very best recordings, many of the poorer ones will sound better. Yes, a more revealing presentation may reveal flaws as well. But do you want to tune to mask those flaws. What else may you be masking?
BTW, a poor recording is one that doesn't sound as well as others on my system, your system, and most every system we play it on.
"My point was, that to say a drum can go out-of-tune when moved from one room to another in nonsense"
Next time I talk to the school or personally give one of these demos I will give them your comments. It will be interesting to hear their take. I already have mine after giving this demo scores of times.
here's another one you might find interesting
If you check out Positive Feedback's article on me "Recording the Michael Green way" you will see one of my studios that we did the demo in. Also while doing the recording the article talks about an interesting thing happened. The pianist was playing while I made an adjustment to one of my mechanical/acoustical devices. He shouted out "wait what did you just do" I told him that I changed the tension (there I used your word) on the PZC. He asked me to go back to the setting I had before and I did of course. He then asked another player to sit down and play while I did it again (Robert Barstow). They were amazed that when I adjusted the tension on the PZC that it changed the tension on the keys.
Again it's a matter of doing. It's not really a point for debate but actually experiencing it. On this thread I would be wasting my time and yours if I were to pitch you on something that isn't the case. But, I understand that unless a person actually does something it can seem ify.
Since Tj is on this thread I'll ask him if he would like to comment.
Thanks for the update. I know you were working with several different players, even cassettes. Are those still in use? I thought it very interesting when you went from the HEA setup to the low mass Walkmans.
You know it's weird I think that so many folks pick on the portable units being sold, and when talking to them I discover they have never really listened to the modern portables. This whole low mass thing really throws HEA audiophiles off for some reason. Around show time CES here I try to make it to some portable demos.
I have to echo what someone else wrote: your OP left me wondering what you are actually talking about, and most subsequent posts weren’t too enlightening (aside from going into some detail about the nature of recordings...).
If I may: I think your intent was good, but your OP falls into the trap of setting off some ill will, even if inadvertently.
I get if you find you have a problem with some posters on the site. But imagine this scenario:
You walk into a big party thrown by Stereophile, audiophiles left and right, and you get on the microphone and announce
"Now, I don’t want to name names or anything, but I just want everyone to know: I think some of the people here really don’t know what they are talking about on the subject of audio. That said: Enjoy your drinks!"
Well, is that being diplomatic? Or being a bit of a jerk? Because instead of actually giving examples of who, or what you are referring to, it’s just a sort of insult sprayed into the room, leaving people wondering "is he talking about me? And if so....WHAT is it that he claims I am so wrong about?"
It sounds more like someone who has an issue with some people, will sort of mildly slander them in public, but in being general it means you get the benefit of "looking like you are right" and some nebulous tainted target is "wrong" but since we don’t know who...they don’t get to defend themselves and you don’t have to back up your disparaging remarks.
Again...I’m not saying you are a jerk for making the OP or that you had any ill will. What I’m saying is that posts in the style you made, even though intending to be diplomatic, can have the opposite effect for the reasons I just outlined.
So, on to whatever I can infer from your OP:
why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
What I’m asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
Notice the disparaging "why fake it?"
I’m left wondering who is faking it? And about what. And on whose standards are they "faking it?"
Isn’t anyone here who has set up and carefully put together his own high end audio system "doing it?" If not...what do you mean? Examples, please?
The best I can infer from your OP - and again I have to infer from it’s vague character - is that you are making a "if you haven’t tried X for yourself, then you aren’t in a position to talk about, or cast doubts on X."
Would that be what you are getting at?
If so, surely you realize one can voice reasonable doubts about something one hasn’t tried? I don’t need to try astrology, or homeopathy, because there is every reason to conclude they are nonsense; cosmologists/physicists etc, the ones actually producing reliable knowledge of the universe, will point out there is no way the arrangements of distant stars or planets can affect you in the way astrology suggests. And anyone with a decent understanding of a responsible empirical method can see the methods used by people who claim astrology "works" is a fundamentally poor one - that it works on cherry picking hits, ignoring misses, and an endlessly malleable "theory." Same goes for homeopathy.
So it’s entirely reasonable for someone who understand THOSE facts to voice reasonable doubt about those endeavors, even without "trying" them. Adherents will tell you to "try it for yourself and see" but if you understand faulty methods of inference, then it’s no surprise that if you adopt those faulty methods yourself you might get the same results. But that’s not what you do if you care about truth; about epistemic responsibility.
So the same goes for many of the "tweaks" in high end audio. Many of them over the years have been based on very dubious technical stories for how they would work, combined with purely anecdotal "tests" which...what a surprise!...confirm their efficacy!
Just as thousands and millions of people confirm the efficacy of any number of crack-pot nostrums, supernatural entities, etc.
And this brings us to your use of the term "empirical" which traditionally means based on observation/experience vs pure theory/logic.
I’m very big on empiricism so happy to see that word used. But simple appeal to "empirical testing" doesn’t tell us whether the form of testing is a well thought out or reliable one.
Virtually every crackpot idea has "empirical testing" behind it in the form of people trying it out. But science arose as a way of discerning reliable forms of empiricism vs unreliable.
So...when you talk of empirical testing, I’m not sure what you are referring about in particular. What are people supposed to be testing and how?
For myself: I believe for instance in the benefits of blind testing in audio, and I’ve set up blind tests here and there to check out some issues in my own audio journey. And I bring some of that experience to inform my skepticism of some high end audio claims.
Another thing to remember is: someone basing skepticism on empiricism doesn’t require he himself does the testing. I have never myself sent a probe to Mars. But people with the requisite knowledge have, and so if some character wants to claim that Mars is made of cheese, then I’ll point out "No, it’s not." If they say "Well, you can’t have a say on that since you’ve never been to Mars" that would be silly. I can simply appeal to the people who HAVE done so, and how being skeptical of Mars being made of cheese IS based on careful empiricism; the data produced by people who are being the most careful in their empiricism.
So, again, I don’t know exactly what or who you would be aiming at, what practices or what specific type of skepticism that may have been voiced on the forum, and whether your targets actually deserve the disparagement you imply.
I agree with @prof's post above regarding the tone of the OP post. I also like prof's rationale. Thanks prof, I don't agree with everything in it, but I don't have to in order to appreciate it. Empirical evidence, defined as "observation/experience" is extremely important in a hobby based on one of the senses. But, if 10 people are in a room and 9 of them hear something that they independently describe in a similar way, while 1 hears no change at all, a dogmatic crowd clearly exists that discounts the 9 who report hearing the change because they insist that nothing audibly hearable actually occurred. They then roll out their resume, credentials etc to enlighten others that nothing truly happened in that room. According to them, "science says so." Frankly, I don't think the dogmatic crowd has reliable standing to weigh in on what happened in that room if they were not in that room. The scenario I just painted doesn't reach a 95% statistically significant threshold, but I want to know more about what happened in that room before I rush to judgment that the room is full of people easily deceived and imagining things. I leave open the possibility that something happened that warrants further investigation. I also leave open the possibility that the circumstances in that room aren't reproducible and are of little or no probative value.
To be honest you read so much more into the OP than what was there I don't think I could successfully explain myself to you. From the responses I saw, some people got it, others didn't, and some are sharing their "talking vs walking". Personally I think the posts spell out the OP perfectly, including yours, thanks.
Ill will? Nah. I don't think folks need to go down that path.
I at least gave the respect of taking your OP seriously enough, trying to understand what you meant, and writing a detailed reply. I tried to distill what you were saying, and give my thoughts in reply, and if I got it wrong, you can simply clarify. Surely as someone who writes so much about his ideas, you would be capable of this.
I'm very honestly interested in the point you wished to make.
But apparently you have deemed me not worthy of this? Or worse, insinuated that I couldn’t understand even if you tried.
And so you have produced another post with no clarity, laced with vague, disparaging insinuations (e.g. "why should I bother with you, who can’t understand what I would say?").
It’s not actually a good model to produce a post so you can wink at some people who "got" your sage insight and insinuate others are too dense or biased to get your point...while not replying to requests for clarification.
That’s not the method of someone seeking dialogue; it’s method of someone who is fine to keep producing "us and them" divisions going.
I would have hoped for more from someone who runs his own forum.
I'd be very glad to understand how! I like knowing how I've got something wrong. it's how we learn. I'm very much in the camp that empirical understanding is really important, so I'm curious if we are exactly on the same page, or how we may differ.
Everyone here is worthy.
Happy to hear it. For a moment there I had the impression you didn't think that I was worthy of a real response.
So, could you please clarify your point, given the questions I raised in my earlier response.
Tonight I've had people come in and out dropping off music for me to reference and also equipment. My job requires me to be at the top of the listening ladder cause my clients depend on my absolute dedication and focus. Your post simply knocked me off my focusing. I didn't mean to be rude or have any intent to marginalize your comments. I was just being direct.
Sometimes for me, getting into defending myself takes way too much time and again I can get out of focus. I literally don't have the brain power or time to get into things that cause me to drift. My world is literally jumping from one soundstage to the next with very few breaks. I ask myself if I should be on Agon at all, but when I have folks emailing and thanking me I feel good about what I'm doing here.
Maybe sometime this weekend I can read back through your message to me and get my head around it, but right now all I saw was someone saying I was being disparaging, and didn't have the time to plug that into my vibe.
In my very amateur experience, that the room is the ultimate user soundboard is a fact; I believe that designers engineer with specific rooms in mind; a "soft or quiet system (QED, Creak, even Sugden) does better in a "hard room" e.g. full plaster, lots of wood, high ceilings, (older European-style buildings), whereas a "bright or aggressive system would need gyp rock walls and perhaps some rug; this is even before any tweaking that can be done by placing absorbent or reflective structures in the room to compensate and balance the room; even a terrible asymmetrical space can be balanced by structure placement. Another major determining factor is how well the components work together: not the money you spend but the complementarity of the units among themselves and then that whole with the room.
Well first of all I can attest that the OP here is purely getting into an understanding that a bad recording heard is not as what it seems be. Others may find that its not sounding good in thier system because it was a bad or a poor recording, but instead it could also be because the system is not working hand in hand with your surroundings. I can tottaly understand others may find this awkward based on each and everyones listening experience as I was too. Only after I started toying around with what Michael was saying I began to understand deeper what was happening.
Now my previous setup was located in my living room and I was having mixed feelings with what I was listening. Some cds played sounded amazing but the rest just sounded bad and lifeless. As I have mentioned on my previous post listening in my car audio setup it was the other way round those same recordings that bad and lifeless now sounds great. This got me thinking about what is wrong with my home setup. Well going around and reading all over the net and audio forums also on acoustic books did gave me some improvments but never the kind of amazing sounding system that I wanted. It was only until I stumbled upon Michael's website which initially seemed to be confusing as I couldnt wrap my head around on what he and other tunes were saying. Well this got me more and more interested as some of the topics discussed was actually what i felt that was lacking in my system.
Long story short I registered in his forum and started posting up my questions to Michael who then began to lead me step by step on what to do first and the next step after. It was about voicing my listening area and mapping out on what he calls as pressure zones. Now based on his directions I followed with an open mind towards his methodes. As I started doing it, I was then only able to get a better picture on what he meant by pressure zones and laminar flows. To me it was one of those "aha" moments lol! Now there are no short cuts as this requires you to get up and start talking around the room while listening to how the tone of your voice changes and vibrations that resonates within you.
The next step was to understand why those sounds change and how to use them to your advantage. Its hard for me to explain untill you start doing it and experience it yourself. But when I started doing it based on Michael's suggestions he started introducing me some basic tools that was readily available like cardbord and wooden planks. Initially I was skeptical as it was something that I never read nor heard off. So I did as what he asked for and started placing them around my listening space. What I experienced next was shocking, my soundstage grew bigger, holographic
and presence was amazing. It was literally like I was having a new life in my system. My next immediate responce was to try out those cds that sounded bad previously. Needless to say they sounded amazing, at last my faith in my system and this hobby was fully restored.
I know many of you guys here have amazing systems and have invested your hard earn money to push those boundries for a perfect sounding system. Im also sure many of you have also done a great deal of effort to maximize your acoustics too of course based on WAF if your system is based in a common room. But there's more that can be done before thinking of upgrading to gain a better sounding system or even resorting to other methods that may require bigger expenses. Im one for sure who will work on every inch of my room regardless how long or hard it takes as I have expereinced something that no equipments nor speakers could weigh in especially when it comes to price to performance ratio.
🐑 mapman Prof very useful and well thought out post as usual.
Wow! Whaddaya know? The Euronator has the back of the pseudo skeptic. I hate to speak too quickly but it appears moopman is following the wrong sheep again. Bad, Moops! Bad!
Hope you folks got in some fun listening last night. The last couple of days I’ve been in Phil Keaggy land and love it. It’s exciting to hear an artist grow from their early message on through the years as they mature musically and their views. Phil is a rock and knows how to rock both. Visiting one of his guitar makers years ago was a joy for me, and being with Phil in person is a treat.
After I got some work done today I came back to Prof’s posts and read through my OP again. I must admit I got no further along in answering Prof than I did before. The OP to me and others is crystal clear. Picking it apart and trying to read my attitude or hidden message to be decoded, simply would have to be in the hands of the individual interpreter. I don’t want to start trying to bend the post, or any of my posts, into meaning beyond what they are.
I’m glad that TJ visited us again because he is a great example of what it is like beginning in the tune and working his way through becoming the master of his own system through using the tune. Following that up with Elizabeth’s post is perfect for this thread.
Fact is, if you are sitting there with a stock system in a living room and nothing else, there is another level to your hobby if you wish to take a hold of it. Talking your way around why your not going to take a step is the opposite from ultimate listening practices. It’s not meant to be a slam on anyone, but an invitation into a more profound hobby. People are going to say "I'm happy where I am" and we say "good". We're not unhappy for you that you have found a great place in your hobby, that would silly. At the same time that's a choice. Can you go further if you choose" absolutely.
There is a division in this hobby and it’s not one that is meant to be dividing with malice, condensation, discrediting or marginalizing of anyone. The division is made by all of us as individuals, it’s a choice. Do I take that next step in componentry or do I look for a method that pulls my whole hobby together? It’s not about WAF or any other reasons why not to, it’s about taking a look at what listening is beyond the articles, ads and peer pressure. The method of tuning is about first setting your system free and second tuning it back in to your level of listening. What I’m preaching about is a simple message, the entire recording is there available for us to discover. Our choice to go after it or not is that division and if you look at these pages you will see folks living out that division in real time. It’s not a division between one person and the next unless we make it one. Nope the division is within us, do I stay where I am at or do I go beyond flaceplates, money and my personal reasons why not to.
The OP is no slam, it’s a door. Some have opened this door, some are standing at the door, and others refuse to believe there is even a door there. So it’s not about (and never was) one person claiming themselves better than anyone else. The Tune is about exploring what signal really is by doing and not talking about why we are not doing, or only doing in part. It’s not judging you as a person or your intelligence. It’s a step that you either want to explore or you don’t.
Michael - First, you are correct that TJ is vastly more articulate than you are. He also doesn’t make insulting assumptions about anyone who disagrees with him. I have many years of experience in acoustics and ’room tuning’, using many techniques... including some similar to yours.
I have to agree with Prof that you have been purposely vague here, and mostly off-topic.
I’m no troll & not interested in a debate; Just going to state a few things I believe, and then I’ll go away...
1. In general, all recordings sound better on a better system than they do on a lesser one.
2. All recording also sound better in a better acoustic environment.
3. There is no system or room that will make a poor recording sound as good as a better one.
4. While measurements are instructive, what you hear is always more important than what you measure. There are excellent sounding products that do not measure well (Maggies for example), and I have yet to hear a speaker which measures ’flat’ and still sounds decent.
Lastly, I’m sorry to have to say it, but... you’re really here to sell, aren’t you? Telling people that you can make even the shittiest recordings sound as wonderful as the best (because everyone, even those with great systems & great rooms, has recordings they love and WISH sounded better) is simply dishonest.
You’re probably a good guy, and what you do probably has great benefits, especially for those who have not addressed room acoustics. But you insult us by claiming the ridiculous and pooh-poohing anyone who questions you. Maybe it’s just a communication problem...
Thanks for the update. I know you were working with several different players, even cassettes. Are those still in use? I thought it very interesting when you went from the HEA setup to the low mass Walkmans.
You know it’s weird I think that so many folks pick on the portable units being sold, and when talking to them I discover they have never really listened to the modern portables. This whole low mass thing really throws HEA audiophiles off for some reason. Around show time CES here I try to make it to some portable demos.
Technology is something else.
>>>>I still use Sony Cassette Players, too. I reckon my portables have gotta be ten or fifteen years old, at least. Sony’s just sound good. The other portables, Panasonic, Philips, Aiwa, and the multitude of secondary brands sound a little off. I have listed before all the technical reasons why I think portables sound so good, you know, like no house AC, no AC ground, no transformers, no interconnects, no power cords, no room acoustic anomalies, no big honking capacitors, no fuses. No more teacher’s dirty looks. Secondary benefits of low mass portable systems include freeing up of a lot of real estate and cost savings, obviously. Plus they’re easier to isolate. You could call it a low-mass system (10 ounces) on a high-mass iso stand (60 pounds).
Tj is a super guy, and so are many of the Tunees. Watching them go through the steps of tuning and then take the time to share with others makes me very excited for the hobby.
"Telling people that you can make even the shittiest recordings sound as wonderful as the best (because everyone, even those with great systems & great rooms, has recordings they love and WISH sounded better) is simply dishonest."
No doubt people including myself feel that way until we've tuned. I don't recall anyone saying that the sh***est sounds better than the best or vice versa. What we are saying is until we tune we wouldn't know.
As far as selling goes, I quite frankly haven't seen anyone on this forum not selling something. aalenik, if I don't talk to you about tuning, someone else will. Nobodies coming up here to make some of you upset, your doing that all on your own. We're coming up here to share our experiences just like you are sharing your doubts about our experiences. What you think about me or anyone doing that is completely extra. People two or 3 years from now are going to visit this thread and give their thoughts about the intent of myself or any of us. What some of us would hope is that the ones who now doubt, in those couple of years will have explored on their own and find that what we were saying is in fact true. I can only say I'm sorry your upset so many times and so many ways, and again I'm sorry this thread or myself has upset anyone, but this doesn't change the facts, this doesn't even budge the needle.
aalenik, if you really think I'm being dishonest, your the only one that can change that. I can do nothing but encourage you again to try some of the things that can help you get to another place in your thinking about me or about tuning.
Now, if some of you are up for some tuning, so are we.
You produced a vague original post, disparaging some unnamed group of people for talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
You disparaged people who "talk" but don’t "walk" and I was asking what exactly you are referring to, and trying to get details on what exactly constitutes "walking" or appeal to empirical experience in your view, and what type of empirical experience you find necessary or adequate.
You’d think that questions inspired by your own post would have interested you in exploring them. But...apparently not.
I must admit I got no further along in answering Prof than I did before.
Then, honestly, since my questions and suggestions were quite clearly stated, this suggest to me that maybe you haven’t thought as clearly about your ideas as you should? I mean, I’m sure you have a lot to say about them...but if my reply actually tripped you up, that’s a bit baffling. Especially if you want to emphasize words like "empirical" to you audience, you should recognize the relevance of the questions and issues brought up in my reply.
It was really too much to even give an example demonstrating your point? I thought maybe your OP was broadly aiming at skeptics of various
tweaks, cables, fuses, etc which comprise many debates here. But you
continually bring the subject back to room tuning, so now I am left to
infer your OP had to do with critiques of your own ideas. (?)
Picking it apart and trying to read my attitude or hidden message to be decoded, simply would have to be in the hands of the individual interpreter. I don’t want to start trying to bend the post, or any of my posts, into meaning beyond what they are.
Michael, that is frankly disingenuous, or at least evasive.
It doesn’t take any special "interpretation" or bending of your post for anyone can see that your post was disparaging of some group of people, who you label only "talking" but not "walking" and not doing empirical testing.
And then you appealed to the old "Oh, if that’s what YOU read in to it, that’s on you" move. You should know that’s not being diplomatic, it’s actually the method used by trolls who keep the stink in the air instead of merely saying what someone honest would say, like "Oh, I see you’ve misunderstood me, so I’ll try to help you. Here’s what I meant..."
I asked for clarifications, details, about what you meant; give us an example, and what to you actually counts as "empirical testing" so we can see who would actually fit your description or not, and why. You are criticizing people. Do they deserve it? Who knows, until you actually clarify what you are talking about.
As far as selling goes, I quite frankly haven’t seen anyone on this forum not selling something.
Oh good, more vague insinuations - "everyone is doing it!"
No. I’m not selling anything. As far as I know, the majority on this thread aren’t selling anything either.
I have no problem with salesmen posting in Audiogon or manufacturers. I think with the right attitude we can get really great input and information that way.
And I come to your posts with no preconception either way as to the worth of your products or ideas. For all I know they may be brilliant.
All I’ve seen though, are lots of vague writing, aspersions tossed without backing them up followed by evasiveness, and a desire to always turn the conversation back to your room tuning ideas (a service that you happen to sell).
Many manufacturers manage to give input on various audio forums without the somewhat "off-taste" you are inadvertently leaving here.
I have no knowledge or skill about tuning, tensioning, or playing drums and I am not sure if I completely grasped every detail in bdp24's post, but I just stumbled upon a video on youtube where a drummer with probably more experience than most of the people on the forum talks about tuning his drums. I guess they can be tuned. Again, I am posting this just for anyone who may be interested how someone who apparently knows what he is doing is doing it and not for arguments about semantics.
Although I am keeping my mind open that some of these tunings may make a difference as I did get fooled into thinking things could not matter just to find out that they did, I think your posts eloquently address a problem with this particular thread. Much earlier, I also asked for examples of things insinuated in OP and I did get the answer. However, I decided not to pursue the discussion and gave that answer benefit of the doubt that it was me who could not understand rather than that the answer was a bit too vague and complicated. That does not mean that tuning techniques mentioned do not work, but simply that they seem way too vague to me to give them a shot. If they do, indeed, work, I am honestly glad that someone is benefiting from them. Aurally or financially.
Nowhere in this thread have I disparaged MG’s products or his room tuning ideas. I did not even take those to be the subject of the thread. Because his OP did not even refer to room tuning, but rather to a much broader complaint about some people critiquing based only on theory but not on what Michael would take to be "empirical" testing.
That could certainly be a fascinating discussion. I’ve long had an interest in the philosophy of empiricism and the philosophy of science, so I was, as I originally mentioned, happy to see someone bring this up.
But my attempt to draw out Michael on his point and ideas only met with...for some bizarre reason...evasions and vagueness. I’m still baffled as to why.
Moreover, Michael’s subsequent posts have been focused on turning the conversation to room tuning and, in fact he has just tipped his hand that his OP, though ostensibly looking for conversation about theoretical vs empirical attitudes, was actually his "door" to offer more about The Tune. He apparently wasn't looking for dialogue so much as saying "I'm here to give wisdom about my room tuning methods, you are either ready to receive or not."
So, it frankly makes his OP look all the more like a disingenuous, self-serving marketing move - an excuse for him to tell us more about his room/recording tuning, vs a real call to dialogue about the subject he actually implied in the OP.
it is really silly to claim that everyone on this forum is selling something. That statement alone waters down any seriousness in that whole post and casts some doubt about remainder of the posts.
I am not here to sell anything. I have a completely different career. I doubt I will be selling anything any time soon, either. I hand my things down.
How many people on this forum are actually selling something? In this particular thread, I found one.
When it comes to no bad recordings (or bad sound carriers of whatever sort), but just about them not being in synch with the room, why do some of my CDs sound worse? It is easily replicated through headphones, too, which I would assume takes away the room factor?
I did notice that turn towards tuning and came to similar conclusion as you did, but was curious about the things implied in OP so I asked. I have no interest and time to accumulate all the experience in the world when it comes to listening to music so I could become someone considered "walking, not only talking". If a friend tells me "that is great, you should hear it for yourself, I was surprised", I would do it. However, abstaining from any discussion just because I have not done something myself seems fairly unreasonable.
"it is really silly to claim that everyone on this forum is selling something"
Of course it is, I was being metaphorical. As in everyone's selling something.
"I guess they can be tuned. Again, I am posting this just for anyone who may be interested how someone who apparently knows what he is doing is doing it and not for arguments about semantics."
I have to say I was floored when someone on this thread said that drums aren’t tuned. I’ve been tuning drums since I was 10 years old and never heard it called anything but tuning. Why would someone come up on an audio thread and say instruments aren’t tuned? Mind blowing!
Amazing some of the things I’ve been called out on, on this thread. I don’t know whether laugh or cry. I went out for some live music tonight and had my friend look up this thread and read it. He started laughing saying "your putting me on". I say no, read it. His next comment to me was (I’m not kidding) "are these retired old men with nothing better to do". STG that’s what he said. He followed it with while he patted me on the back "you have the patience of Job MG".
Maybe my friends and me are just a bunch of snobs. When we met up with the 3rd guy tonight the conversation continued for a few minutes and then we moved on, but it was the same basic response only even more surprise. Anyway it made for some good jokes through the night. But one thing that did get said that I thought was interesting was "I bet these guys have never read TuneLand". That actually made a lot of sense.
Also one last point, both of these guys have tunable systems, and maybe that shapes their view of some of the comments here.
Juror #3: Don’t give me that. I’m sick and tired of facts! You can twist ’em anyway you like, you know what I mean?
———————
Juror #3: Six to six... I’m telling you, some of you people in here must be out of your minds.
——————— Juror #3: [interrupting] You didn’t prove it at all. What’re you talking about?
———————
Juror #3: What’s the matter with you?
———————
Juror #3: That doesn’t prove anything. I’m a pretty excitable person. I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything? Anyone in his right mind would blow his stack. He was just trying to bait me.
Juror #4: He did an excellent job.
———————-
Juror #3: Well... say something! You lousy bunch of bleedin’ hearts. You’re not goin’ to intimidate me - I’m entitled to my opinion!
———————-
Juror #3: Brother, I’ve seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. Y’all come in here with your hearts bleedin’ all over the floor.....you listen to some fairy tales... Suddenly, you start gettin’ through to some of these old ladies. Well, you’re not getting through to me, I’ve had enough.
————————-
Juror #3: What’s the *matter* with you guys? You all *know* he’s guilty! He’s *got* to burn! You’re letting him slip through our fingers!
Juror #8: “Slip through our fingers"? Are you his executioner?
"Everyone IS selling something".. either an attitude, or an idea, or a notion. Every post with any effort is selling it’s ideas. So yeah, we ARE all selling something. And it is sold cheap! All you have to do is read the post!"
I’m in absolute shock over some of these responses others have made. As I said above I even showed some friends of mine tonight. They couldn’t believe it. I asked them, if they thought I have been what folks here are saying and their response to me was that I’m the opposite from what I am being accused of.
As poetic as "everyone IS selling something here" may appear to be, it is far from correct. Especially in early posts (mine included), there were some views and some thoughts, but there were also plain questions with not much else added to them. I am not sure if they were simple as people who posted them seem not to be satisfied with clarity of answers. Maybe those asking are out of tune with those answering. Putting attitude in explanation how everybody is selling anything definitely opens the door for not allowing further questioning by those who question, but has nothing to do with reality. I repeat, there were at least a few posts with questions without any opinion and those people were clearly not selling anything, not even attitude, if that can even be sold. Elizabeth's post reminded me of the way many of my friends in their early twenties were trying to charm girls with deep intellectual thoughts that, in the end, had no meaning. Parallel worlds on two different energetic levels and such.
It just happens that I showed this thread to a friend whose comment was "what is this, some paid advertising forum, the guy is trying to push his thing without answering any question when asked directly". Just like to your friends, who may be a bit biased because they are your friends, other friends with no bias (I just showed the thread and made no comment about anything) may have a different view.
It comes across as your friends mocking retired people, but they are not completely correct. For my part, I am not retired. In some way, I do have to agree with your friends as, many posts ago, I did mention that having Planck, Einstein, and Kim Jong Un in a thread about nothing existentially important (at least to those who had no interest in selling anything) shows we all have too much free time and should go back to doing something. It would be interesting to find out how many of your customers are retirees. I do not have even a wild guess.
Is reading Tuneland supposed to make people converts to whatever is there? OP was not even about Tuneland. Nor was it about Planck, Einstein, or Kim Jong Un, for that matter. It seems that things take turns to unexpected directions originally unrelated to the post.
In this particular thread, I am not taking any side and give a benefit of the doubt that some things may work (tuning) while having some doubts about the extent and usability/practicability of such approaches. I may never know. However, I do notice that thread started seeming more of a sales pitch and, for a lack of better word, ridiculing those posters who are not full believers.
On a completely different note, is there any use in demoing tuning system in a room in Las Vegas and believing that different equipment thousands of miles away will get the same benefit?
Even myself, a self-described audiot who doesn’t know a mosfet from a misfit recognizes the validity of tuning a room, as well as many of the other tweaks and suggestions that I’ve read about over the last five years since I’ve joined.
Why do musicians express appreciation for the acoustics of certain studios? That answer is obvious. Does toe-ing speakers qualify as tuning? Unscientifically speaking I’d have to offer, yes.
If I fail to preface my opinions with the ubiquitous “ IMHO “ it should be taken for granted that everything I offer in the various threads I follow is tendered as such. And yes, Virginia, I’ve known that drums are tuned since I was...younger.
Real world “in my house” applications of improving stuff may not always be practical given time, financial constraints, etc., but I read virtually everything with an open mind toward doing so.
Some of the attempts at bettering my system were immediately tangible, others not so much. Most of these, cables, conditioning, moving speakers to and fro were employed after reading posts throughout the site. I’ve kept everything modest in comparison to some of the enviable systems I’ve read about here, but I’ll be damned if I begin ignoring informative posts intended to share knowledge.
When I joined here five years ago I was still using speaker wire from Radio Shack for pete’s sake!
I am about the same as what you describe yourself in level of non-sophistication except that I still use my Monster Cable ($30 for a long long spool) bought in 1994. I doubt anyone would argue that the room makes a huge difference and it can be improved to some extent. What caught my eye earlier in this thread is suggestion that there are no bad recordings and they can all be made good by tuning of something. OP was neither about room tuning nor about quality of recordings, but it morphed into it.
I did go to MG website and got puzzled by one of the statements. "Sound shutters organize the laminar flow that travels along the wall and ceilings" Isn't laminar flow organized one and turbulent flow more disorganized one? Wouldn't something placed in the path of the laminar flow make it less organized (turbulent)? At least that is how it goes in my line of business. I am not trying to question validity of any or all such treatments for the purpose of making the room sound different (better or not, your choice), but just wonder if that was an unfortunate choice of words.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
