Vibratory or Not?
This is a discussion that for me began on the Stereophile forum which went horribly wrong in my opinion. I was wondering though if this same topic could be discussed here as it comes up a lot in one form or another. My background has been about vibratory tuning as far back as the 70's work in the recording industry and continued into home audio and beyond. The audio signal is one that can be easily tuned, I doubt there is much room there for debate, but we will see, it's Audiogon after all. This being the case I have always concluded that the audio signal is vibratory so has anyone I have ever worked with. It's a common and sometimes even daily practice for someone here to make a vibratory adjustment changing the sound which is obvious to all.
On some of these forum threads however you will see posts saying to get rid of the vibration, without any explanation as to how to remove vibration without altering the audio signal. Every vibratory move I have ever seen done changes the performance of the sound. I've also been a part of the variables of the audio signal during play in real time. If the audio signal is not vibratory how does it change?
I invite you to discuss the vibratory structure and nature of the audio signal.
thanks, lets keep trolling to a minimum please
Exactly, Tonian is actually one of my reference speakers. In fact when Tony delivered mine I asked him if he minded me making it variable. The Rev6 Signature came out so I hadn’t the chance to explore this further. First thing Tony said to me when he came to my place was "you know I'm into tuning right" a great example thanks! |
Gentleman On these threads there are many debates about the making and use of tweaks, some of them get vary heated. I myself could careless about the heated debates here and who thinks who is right or wrong. I'm here for one purpose and one only. HEA has incompletely manufactured itself. Because of this tweaks came along as correction devices. There are many examples to go through and when the egos settle down and the marketing has run dry on the over built and incomplete designing the correct designing can be made. First we are going to have to find the correct platform to present these things and after that challenge is met the products of the audiophile will take on a new shape form and function. None of this is new it has just been kept from you as buyers. The internet plus the slow down of purchasing the overbuilt has made way for the next chapter. mg |
For myself it’s a no brainer as to what HEA folks want to call things and I don’t much get involved in the debating team. The signal is highly tunable and that’s the part I care about. Saying that, I’ve always studied in the area of the four fundamental forces (interactions) and don’t see many in this part of the industry talking much about this. The basics though are that these are the four interactions that all other interactions boil down to. All of these are forces and motion and all are a part of vibratory structures. Where the audiophile world wants to weigh in on this is really a variation on the variables. Glupson said "Sound is, in the simplest term, a vibration. No vibration, no sound." and this is the basic building block. No matter what audio science theory wants there are they must be a part of the fundamentals. Everything else is fun but many times speculation. What I have found to be true is, I feel, most important to audio here’s why. If the four fundamental forces ring true this means there is no such thing as absolute isolation, no such thing as absolute inert, no such thing as absolute measuring and no such thing as being void of motion. This turns many HEA beliefs on their heads and needs to. The ultimate technology to successful playback is going to be a variable. That means that at the end of the day there is one basic method for dictating how anything sounds if we are going to be in control "The Method of Tuning". This changes our industry paradigm. It changes the way we look at audio because being variable sets in motion a whole galaxy of old rules that we have over looked. I’ve attempted to present this many times to our hobby and each time there has been a certain amount of progress but in the end the money that ruled didn’t want to take the marketing wheel this direction. It didn’t change the truth but it effected the reality of the marketplace. Now that we have started to move beyond the paperback days and have gone through the internet cycle of trolling we can get down to business and give a righteous birth to our inevitable future "variable audio". We’ve always had it but got sidetracked by Plug & Play and the money game. Once our technical heads have a meeting of the minds Tunable Audio will become the norm and the (I don’t want to say next) industry will adapt a more physics based path. Not a what if path but a basic fundamental foundation. mg |
Geoff asked "Oscillation is not vibratory. Agree? Disagree?" The term vibration is precisely used to describe mechanical oscillation. That's a wiki quote. Yes oscillation is vibratory. Oscillation is another very cool word. Vibration, oscillation, cycles, field, harmonics, force, motion we have a lot of great words to use in audio. I know what you're saying though Geoff and have said about vibrations in the negative sense as a random disrupter and don't want to marginalize that thought, because vibration is also used as the word that causes distortions. I give the word more latitude as in being in or out of tune. If a vibration is in-tune it's a great thing but out of tune not so. And tune itself is interesting because something out of tune can still have harmonics (or partial) in action. I love the whole science of variables and how it works with the audio signal. mg |
Hi Geoff When you did your research on the 4 above you did not find any variables? I have yet to find any audio placements to not be consistent with the four fundamental interactions. I don't see any differing definitions within the physics teaching here. The laws of interaction seem to have always been pretty clear to me or anyone I have ever studied with. How did you break away from the four fundamental interactions? mg |
Hi tjbhuler, good to see you and thank you! "Are they all talking the same thing as you have been for the past 3 decades when you say vibratory tuning ?" More or less, yes. Many of mine incorporate variable adjustments much like musical instruments use and not just placing around, but they would be in the same general family of products. My designing also covers a wider range of frequency response I believe. Meaning I start with lower tones and tune up. Plus I variably tune the entire audio chain. And yes this is RoomTune’s 30th Anniversary (can you believe it). I did tuning long before that but 1989 was when RoomTune hit the scene. MG |
"Michael, and how exactly does that information help your argument?" Sometimes I copy and paste things directly from the text books so I can avoid any arguments like I did in this case. If someone wants to argue it's not with me. I find physics to be pretty simple stuff, well documented and easy to demo. I see HEA many times trying to reinvent the wheel, but that just leads to heated discussions and I'd rather be listening to music. MG |
Yep, and the pair you’re listening to are from the same run as the ones I’m playing. They’re just now getting into that rich body sound. I went back in and listened to another pass of Tracy, pretty darn good! This next week or two is when the tone is going to really gel. The ones I’m playing now already take the Tonian, and that pair of Tonian are very nice, the best pair I’ve heard. I’m playing the Rev Combo though so that’s not fair. You wait a couple more weeks, going to be scary. Need to get you the SW15. MG |
Hi tjbhuler Good to see you having fun! Also good to see you on Agon. Hope it’s ok for me to share your TuneLand thread. http://tuneland.forumotion.com/t404-my-tunable-room-tjbhuler I think for a lot of listeners it helps following someone who has gone from the typical HEA system to a Tunable setup and seeing the path. As people are emailing me wanting to know more your presence on this forum will be helpful for those on the tuning journey themselves. I look forward to having some exchanges with you here! It would be great if the Tunees made this a hangout. MG |
Hi audionuttoo "Those who don't experience it will always question and debate it." First, I'm thrilled to death that you have come up! Second, helping people, especially now, in this industry is paramount in the face of the major changes taking place for listeners. We are at this great moment in the hobby of playback where listeners are moving from very high mass systems to systems that are able to produce so much more music. But listeners need people like yourself to help them make the move to a more practical place. We went through the age of big robust components and to be honest it was a good time, but now we enter a new chapter. This is the era of the listener and the tools of Tuning. The homework has been done over the past 30 years or so and the demos have been made and continue every day. As you said "Those who don't experience it will always question and debate it." and that's the bottom line. If someone doesn't have a tunable system they're stuck in the world of talking points. I hope we see more of you my friend! Michael |
Hi Geoff Where are you placing your springs? I have always found them to be very sensitive and very equipment dependent (one size or type does not fit all). I've also found them to be material dependent depending on the types of materials being used in the components themselves. Also with the air tubes you didn't mention that the component needs to be properly weight distributed. The bladder products perform very inconsistent because of the distribution of weight most heavier components have. When you do your testing do you use more than one bladder. Reason I ask is because using one bladder doesn't seem to work very well because there is less pressure being applied to one area of the skin than another. One part of the bladder may have 8 pounds sitting on it and another may only have a few ounces. MG |
Another problem with the tube is you need to keep your room climate controlled and you can't used the device with any components that produce heat if you're hoping to keep a consistent interaction. Same holds true for any device that is in contact with a surface. for example If you are using a tube component with springs and turn off and on your unit the sound will slightly can daily. Same with Class A and some warmer running A/B. MG |
Well Glupson did a good job in this case, because he was correct. Remove vibratory from audio and there is no sound. The electricity to the system wouldn't work, the parts that host the signal wouldn't work, the drivers on your speakers wouldn't work nor would the hairs in your ears work. There would be no pressure in your room for you to hear and we wouldn't be here talking about it cause there would be no Earth, the Earth vibrates :) Geoff you're trying to remove too big of a part of nature to make your point. Hey an "Audio Point" :) Folks in audio saying "kill vibrations" makes no sense because that's what audio is. If you kill vibratory interaction the whole planet goes down the drain. MG but of course that could be me vs 20,000 somethings or whatever that trolling was LOL |
Geoff in regards to isolation you don't believe in the audio signal being vibratory I take it? How do you describe the variable interaction the signal has with the fields, or as some would say field? In our stage testing we have been able to establish such control as to virtually be able to shape the soundstage by using the audio signal's variables without distortions. With isolation as you term it how are you able to make compensations to the sound. I have never heard any two "isolated" systems to produce the same sound. If a system is isolated you would have the same sound would you not with any other "isolated" system, which has never happened to the best of my knowledge. interesting conversation MG |
Hi Geoff thanks for the reference. Here's why I ask. "However, in terms of sound quality the height and internal pressure can vary." Absolute isolation does not vary. Something that varies is not isolated. "because there are a lot of variables involved" Again if we are speaking about "vibratory or not" variables relates to vibratory adjustables. The reason I wanted to be very clear on your responses is to make note that the responses you gave were completely in line with the audio signal being vibratory, tunable and not isolated from the fundamental interactions. MG |
Geoff when you were instructing with "oscillating or vibrating" memos saying that the audio signal is not either but sighting an alternating current. You do realize that AC is measured in oscillations don't you? In fact in electrical engineering you are taught that AC is vibratory current. BTW audionuttoo "Certified Professional Engineer and Class A Master Electrician" is pretty high up on the food chain of engineers. Sometimes I get a little kick out of you and kosst, as you both try to marginalize our teaching here at the tune without knowing our collective schooling. It's kind of a joke amongst us when we talk about "audiophile experts". We usually find that the audio internet EE's who boast the most actually have the fewest courses under their belts in reality, or the most dated. MG |
LOL, the star sound card. You crack me up sometimes. You should get a list of all the employees who have been let go from RoomTune after working there for only 9 months 20 some years ago to use in your spins. Better yet, I'm hoping you and us become friends so we can help audiophiles together and be able to talk through things when there are misunderstandings of communication. MG |
No where we stand is just like Glupson said in the first post here and audionuttoo reaffirmed. "Sound is, in the simplest term, a vibration. No vibration, no sound." Where we disagree with you Geoff is when you say "vibrations should be killed" or however you say that phrase. What is it "a good vibration is a dead vibration" or something like that. Vibrations are very important because it is a word that can be used in the out of tune sense as well as the in-tune sense. MG |
I would think so, it doesn't get easier than this Geoff. But, you believe that audio is not vibratory, is this correct? You believe the hairs in your ears don't move, nor does the cone of a speaker? If they aren't moving what are they doing to interact? If you're concerned over a word, then go ahead and give it a shot. If vibration is being used by these billions of people incorrectly than there must be a singular better word. Your speaker cones are_______your ear hairs are___________electricity is___________sound is the act of ___________ . You don't like the word vibrating so what word do you want, maybe "moving" maybe "forcing" maybe "interacting". Tell us what one word would you like to use in the place of vibrating and the world can entertain this. I'm not trying to be a smart "A" Geoff, just trying to use what the rest of the world uses when describing sound with a nice easy to understand set of word roots. MG |
Hi Tjbhuler Geoff said "The audio signal in wires in an AC circuit is actually alternating, not (rpt not) oscillating or vibrating." That's not putting words in anyone's mouth, that's someone not understanding the audio signal or AC. So you say "Hi geoff am curious here what is it about vibratory you don't understand ?" Which to me is the obvious question. As Geoff would say this isn't rocket science. You can't say kill all vibrations when audio is a vibration. Again that's not anyone putting words into Geoff's mouth as he has said this on many occasions on a couple of forums at least. Geoff, no one would be raising the questions of you if you never said this. It's a matter of why say kill vibrations when that's what audio is. This makes no sense. And why insult (again) someone you have no clue of his education. Sorry Geoff but both Tjbhuler and audionuttoo have educations way above your pay grade in the area of vibration. One in the electrical world and the other in the medical world. MG |
The Vibratory Foundation In HEA we sometimes get stuck in myth building and from time to time need to make our way back to the real world. If you wanted to you could spend your entire hobby life reading or being a part of audiophile theory creating and to go with this product categories that are there to take your hard earned money and leave you with something a little less than "the absolute sound". In the Tunee world our view is a little different. We take what is and build from there. We know that audio is vibration and don’t try to disguise it as any thing but what it is. We do our best to keep up on the studies of vibration scientifically and how it relates to the fundamental interactions that are at the core of Earth’s function. If there is one thing you can bank on with Tunees it would be, we use the proven technologies that have come before us as our ongoing template of truth. Creating a make believe audio world is not high on our list of things to do. HEA is a creation that in some ways was a good thing but in many ways has failed. "killing vibrations" for example was a major screw up the way it was introduced to the hobbyist and implemented in the components we bought. From the 1990’s forward a mythical audio chapter was implemented that took us off course and all kinds of "Fix It’s" were suddenly needed to be designed to help keep us from falling off the edge of the flat planet. Yep audio tweaks are a huge industry all on it’s own, but it was always going to be the case that the hobby and industry would need to get back to it’s roundness. I don’t blame the guy who is down on "tweaks" at all. From my point of view components should have been made variable to start with and this whole sidetrack of heavy over built components and speakers and the overbuilt tweaks that have been made to fix them could have never existed at all. It was a big expensive waste of time and could have been avoided if we understood one thing, audio is vibratory. Audio is part of the Earth and the Earth vibrates. Researchers now measure our moving Earth’s hum from 3 variable points of view that ranged from ocean currents to atmospheric turbulence. You have the ocean bed, the surface crust and the atmosphere. Three different types of vibratory structures all interacting and all affecting your sound. Can you isolate yourself from these with audio tweaks? Absolutely, positively, unequivocally No. Attempts at audio isolation existing within Earth’s forces is not going to happen no matter how many HEA myth makers spin theories. We learn this in 3rd grade but were bent on recreating the world regardless when we laid our eyes on our first audio boat anchor. Now that we have gone through that era we can return to where we were back in the 80’s and move forward as if that misleading chapter was never there. Sure we’re still going to feel the pain of investing so much and then trying to fix it but all will be forgotten as we listen to our variable audio systems of today and the future. MG |
I thought we were past audio being vibratory. Geoff if you are still not sure we appreciate your point of view and we can review but I don’t think any of us want to go in a continual circle. And I can’t image physics is in denial. In physics, sound is a vibration that typically propagates as an audible wave of pressure, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. As we covered previously Audio is Vibratory and Electricity is Vibratory. Now we have covered Sound is Vibratory. Geoff if you disagree we are all perfectly fine with this, but lets not troll the thread. Thank you Glupson for keeping an eye on Geoff. I hope we can have fun here. MG |
On this thread and others I talk about getting the sound you want as being more simple than you think. If you don't complicate or try to add to basic physics audio isn't all that hard to get right, here's why. The all of audio is tied together by interacting. If you study the fundamental interactions and apply them to audio and the different parts that make up audio you will find that they are all meant to work together. Vibratory! Fields Each of the known fundamental interactions can be described mathematically as a field. The gravitational force is attributed to the curvature of spacetime, described by the general theory of relativity. The other three are quantum fields, and their interactions are mediated by elementary particles described by the Standard Model of particle physics. Sounds tough? It's not, and all you really need to know how to do is make the interactions adjustable, so they work together in tune. Michael Green |
With electricity being such an important part of our systems lets define. "Electricity is the set of physical phenomena associated with the presence and motion of matter that has a property of electric charge. In early days, electricity was considered as being not related to magnetism. Later on, many experimental results and the development of Maxwell’s equations indicated that both electricity and magnetism are from a single phenomenon: electromagnetism." Electromagnetism is one of the Four Fundamental Interactions. For a quick review "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." MG |
With everything audio being Vibratory and Interactive we can get down to business with Vibrations. Vibratory structures are at the heart of how our systems sound. We get marketed into thinking of brands and models but when you break an audio system down to it's vibratory core many of the physical parts and pieces can actually be obstructions to allowing the audio signal to flow without contamination, resulting in distorting the signal. Keep in mind you can play part of the audio signal and it still be distortion free. That's why all of our systems sound different. Every system plays back part of the audio signal but rarely the whole signal. The conditions you need to play the whole signal is not difficult but it does require more than an audio playback system sitting in a living room. I'll get into the tuning of the interactions but first want to say, sometimes in this hobby folks come in and give negative spins on sound, your sound. Your sound is uniquely yours and belongs to you and no one else. This hobby can get as involved as you want it to be, skies the limit (I'm not talking about money). Learning about audio is your own personal journey and as you travel it you are going to go through periods of successful listening and other times when things don't quite sound right. I don't care how much of an expert one is every recording type can offer up bliss or disaster. My goal is to help you play as much of your collection as possible, but that never means I'm telling you what you should be hearing, what you want to hear and that any of you should be listening the way I do or any of your friends here on Agon do. The fun of this hobby is that it is yours and you are the master of your own sound. That's why I do and promote the variables. MG |
Some of your fellow members would disagree inna. According to the emails I have been getting many readers seem to think this is one of the most sensible threads on Agon of all time. Do you know how many people in HEA believe the brand and model is what makes the sound and hadn’t a clue this is all vibration? As with other threads that get into areas of how things work let this one take wings and see how it develops. Also keep in mind, as this thread develops here there is another that covers the science over on TuneLand that links to here so people can read how the Agoners respond when they read the topics of audio. An interesting little study between fact and real time Agon reactions. I've been doing this with several of the Agon threads over the past 2 years and it's amazing how different the two universes are. MG |
This thread has a long way to go (hopefully lol) and when we get into all the Vibrations you are going to be surprised (or maybe not) to find that the hobby side of this industry is made up of mostly marketing and talk without really getting to the core of audio, sound, the variables and us as listeners. For example, do you know how many people do not know what the audio signal is and how simple of a science it is, yet how much info recordings have? Many don't know that the audio signal is a variable that can be tuned. The interest in equalization and room correction devices are starting to bring the awareness back but we are just getting started to let ourselves explore a world beyond overbuilt pricey systems that only deliver one sound, unless you change out components when you play every recording. Vibratory, or as audionuttoo says use your own word that means vibratory, encompasses all of audio and that means there is a core to all this. MG |
Glupson, I’m glad you’re here on this thread and hope you can stay on point without straying to far into troll BaitLand. One thing I have learned about trollish types is that they seem a little bi-polar in their posting ranging from all out angry men to adding some valuable info adds to the conversations. When actually contributing I like when they are around, that’s why sometimes I respond to them and other times ignore. Saying this, you have been a good counterbalance to the trolling on this thread. I hope you have the energy, thick skin and wisdom. That aside, I’m also glad you have brought the brain into the thread. Do you know how many HEA audiophiles are scared to death to bring the brain and body variables into their hobby? It’s huge! HEA has pushed brands, models and price-tags for so long it has developed a big insecurity problem. In fact so big that it uses measurements over feeling, hearing, seeing and all the senses available to us. You are also correct that these topics may be a science breeze for me and the Tunees, but that's because we have In-room tunable systems playing daily and we are right in the middle of constant variable explore mode. I don't expect that most go that deep, but it's still important for those who do go to the extremes to be here. MG |
Watts are watts, really? If you take two components and they measure exactly the same (say an amplifier) you should ask why they still sound different. We did this by buying the same model of components with consecutive serial numbers and were a little more than surprised at how differently they staged. It wasn't just surprising how they staged at first but how they became different sounding animals as time went on. For example, same amp model same measurements with one broken in on panel speakers for a year and the other on dynamic speakers. At the end of the year playing both on yet a different pair of speakers the two amps sound amazingly different. Two amps starting with the same specs yet after playing different loads for a year the two amps now sounded like they were two different models altogether. Same thing happened with the same amp models being used in different parts of the world during break in. Amplifiers develop their own character of sound dependent upon how they are being used. What does this do for reviewing non-tunable components? Trying to displace physics variables from this hobby is strange at best, we are talking about sending an alternating current through mechanical conduits in different Vibratory environments. If we were talking about cars right now we would be talking about computers keeping the performance in line yet our audio systems are supposed to play perfectly and automatically every time we put on a different recording? I can see this mythical teaching being accepted for a year or two many decades ago during the age of paperback golden ears, when we were glued to our monthly copies hoping we were a part of innovation, but in the age of information we would have to be pretty isolated to discount the physical interactions taking place with our systems. Remove yourself from your wishful thinking just for a moment. An audio chain with all Vibratory parts and pieces staying in tune while passing the variable audio signal, while sitting on a vibrating planet revolving. To top this off, playing recordings with their own unique variables and your system having one volume control for the adjustments. MG |
Some HEA hobbyist spend so much time defending their practices that it’s not until they get to the end of their hobby before they see what they did as being backward. They make Tuning into something difficult conceptually instead of seeing the alternative. How many times do we hear someone say they wish they had that system they once did, or how many times do we see someone say the system they now have is the best they have ever heard and within a short amount of time we see that they are selling off and buying something new. And of course the new is better than the old until some time passes and they are back in the HEA component revolving door. It’s a weird little revolving door when you think about how this part of the hobby is so "in search of" yet rarely even lets a component work in a system. A hobby inside of another hobby. When you buy a guitar the first thing you do is put the strings on and tune the instrument. Pretty basic procedure. The guitar will go in and out of tune often until the instrument starts to settle then tuning becomes more precise as the guitar takes on it’s vibratory self. HEA component collectors buy products with a different mindset even though the same vibratory settling takes place with every component just like that guitar. "Well it’s electronics that’s different!" LOL, different? The fact is an electronic component takes a much longer journey to settle in vs any musical instrument. Fact is, like a guitar, components never stop maturing. Aging is part of the Fundamental Forces and gravity in particular assures us that this maturing process is always in change and never ending. Your components are not isolated from the fields, but a part of the fields. Here’s a simple example. Ever notice how different your system sounds as we go from night to day and back to night again. Or, how different it sounds as the weather changes, or you add (turn on or off) appliances to your house. If you started taking note of how many things change the sound of your system, and trace them back to the cause and effect you would find vibratory at the root of change. Motion, time and interaction are continuums. MG |
Hi jetter Yep, deciding how to chop this up into bite size posts is always an issue when the topic itself is so long winded. I always wish I was an editor and had the gift of writing compression. But after my editor passed away I realized it's either bore others to death by saying too much or not getting a chance to say it at all. |
Hi Glupson My studies have always been in the vibratory realm so using vibratory analogies are common place for me. Hope that explains why I tend to drift to those areas for pulling examples. I consulted for West Virginia’s engine lab, Herman Miller, Vanderbilt University Laser Dept and was a part of UMI (united musical instruments) among other vibratory ventures (SUNY Music of course) and in doing so have found the similarities that maybe someone else with a different study discipline may not want to make the same connections. Vibratory is vibratory in my studies and lab research from a pure science point of view. This is probably why I have been asked to participate in these ventures that are in and outside of the music industries. They are all connected for me. hope this helps MG |
The only LIGO I know about is the "Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory" and it is all about Vibratory studying. I'm sure Geoff over the years was joking with us about LIGO being about isolation. That's why I actually haven't had conversations with him about LIGO. Geoff over this past few years that you have mentioned LIGO I honestly thought you were kidding. If not the case, my bad. I didn't pay much attention to you because I've always known of LIGO as a research facility that explores the fundamental interaction "gravity" among other vibratory discoveries. I would never have guessed you actually using them as your, as you like to call them, argument for isolation. This is why even this last time I needed to ask the question "did you mean LIGO". So again I know you're trying to make a joke that I am in the isolation community some how, but as innovation moves forward we all see our most advanced research facilities around the world continue to say there is no such thing. It's all Vibratory just as we who have studied vibrations always knew it was. As far as the weird part. It's true I have always felt it weird that HEA has used the term "isolation" when there really is no such thing in audio. As I think someone said here, everything is touching something. Michael Green |
