And that's what a system in good shape allows you to do - the fascinating thing is that even the most claustophobic pop recordings, done on the rough and ready recording gear of the time, can be pushed, kicking and screaming 😀, into clear air, aurally speaking. It really is, an "I'll be darned!!" moment ...
I wouldn't be worried about 130dB range, it's in the 60-80dB range where the action seems to be - if a sound suddenly peaks at 110dB at your ears, and immediately thereafter the level plummets and there is some music content at around say, 40dB, that should register cleanly to your hearing.
Having listened to a barrage of close range firecrackers many years ago I know how effective the desensitising mechanism is - for a quarter of an hour after it was Twilight Zone time, people right next to me talking sounded like they were 20 yards away, 🙂.
No silver, just poloxamer. You can buy it straight or diluted in isopropyl alcohol; it's a standard BASF product (there's probably more suppliers, that just happens to be the one I know). The mechanism called out in the now-30-year-old patent is dubious, IMO- since this is a surfactant, I think it basically just cleans the surface, allowing a clean metal to metal contact.
The general idea is to exclude all contaminants that may cause the metal to metal contact, which is extremely marginal - unless one goes to some effort - to corrode, or deteriorate. Air is the villian, so you try to create a barrier to that, hence the term gas-tight. Solder does a pretty excellent job of being such a barrier - but the only other method I've found effective are the materials with silver particles; they exclude the air and add some conductivity. But, they need to be applied carefully, diligently - sloppily applying such will most likely do more harm than good ..
So who has a crummy system that adds it's own shite? Any decent system won't do that. "Suspect" recording either sound good or they don't. Please stop saying they can sound stunning. Crap is crap and fiddling with the components won't do anything.
Then you say any system can sound decent with perfect recordings.Well golly, what happened to those THD/IM systems you just mentioned? 🙄
I don't buy into Frank's and your opinion about this sorry.
It's messing with components and trying to get a sound that should be in the recordings to begin with and no amount of 30 years of fiddling will bring that about. Frank can't even point out one single thing he's done that makes it so. It's always some fantasy thing for him that he just can't describe.
Sorry, David, that's what they do do - it's like saying that one can't travel round a corner in a car above a certain speed without coming to grief. Well, if the only thing you have as a reference are vehicles made earlier than the 60's then of course that will be the conclusion one comes to ...
For many people, only experiencing it will make sense - and for some of those, they still won't get it ... why? Because it sounds very normal, it's not exaggerated sound, it doesn't call attention to itself - it tends to blend in ... unless you wind up the volume to realistic levels ... 😉
Interesting that people keep saying that I don't say what I do - I only repeat myself over and over again about the steps I take, but some are very locked into the additive way of doing sound: you must buy or build a new amplifier, or speaker, or whatever, over and over again, in the hope that the next one will somehow magically transform your system - "Do you feel lucky, audio dude ... well, do you ...!!??"
The process is multiplicative...a cheap system playing squeaky clean recordings will sound passable, and such a system fed any dirt will sound exponentially dirtier (ear bleeding).
The point is that when a system sounds good, the dirt in the recordings is not embellished, and does not draw attention.
I have some 1930's Jimmy Rodgers recordings....on a good system all the emotion, conviction and skill of the performer come through very nicely (the ear ignores the dirt), but on a lesser system, any louder than milliwatts will have one's ears protesting/shutting down, the neighbours throwing bricks, and the local dogs howling.
Perhaps you don't live with a truly capable and musical audio system, and/or have never heard one that is.
Dan.
Why! Why not and what is wrong, if its directional it will be directional at all frequencies, and some of us are interested into the low GHz for digital, what is wrong?
I presume you have a PC...Work out the harmonics on DDR3 running full pelt.
Anyway any documentation on directivity of copper, carrying signals? I would presume the same mechanisms work on all types of conductors, and any view on whether silver is directional?
Last edited:
This comment made me laugh so hard, talk is so cheap and making sweeping statements like this is easy, but lets have a reality check here, I study engineering in a well ranked university, well ranked because our research is good. We look constantly for anything that hasnt been explained to research, either for masters or doctorate programmes. We're one of hundreds of institutes in the world, all looking desperately for something worth researching, and lets face it, half the phds and masters projects are sh*** because there's a limit of ideas and new thingsbout there, and only a few people with dynamic ideas and understanding which pushes research forward.
If there was anything like what you talk about that affected audio, people would chase it like a dog with a bone. The ramifications would effect all areas of EE which effects a massive amount of industry.
The fact is it isn't, you're dumping spurious statements and you're no better than john curl. You're a BS artist.
On the other hand, prove me wrong. Describe just one effect that hasn't been researched to exhaustion. Proof would be required, of course. Of the effect, that it hasn't been researched, and of it's relevance to audio.
Go.
need I remind you that your 'golden ears' have failed tests, not only against others, including myself, but against your own. You've shown your golden ears theory to be a total failure, now you still make posts on this thread about how our systems or our ears aren't good enough to hear these effects...
Call the leg store.
Tsk, you must have had a hard day ...
The main effect that still really puzzles me, and where there is little "hard knowledge" is the influence of static - the linkage is quite obscure to me, so there may be value in chasing that as a project ... 😉
Other influences are pretty well all known and understood, it just that they are not considered, each and every one of them, when an audio system is not up to scratch. When a plane falls out of the sky for no apparent reason, no expense or effort is spared to find out the reasons why it occurred, and thus the aeronautical industry advances - and it may be because the cockpit crew became obsessed about replacing a warning light bulb on the instrument panel - the most trivial of things can undo a very expensive aircraft. And that's how I approach the audio game ...
The point is that excellent audio has been achieved for decades, but it only occurs now and again. If every time you went up in a plane the chances were that 95% of the time you wouldn't reach your destination safely, would you give it a go? That's where I'm coming from ...
As regards 'golden ears', the point was that differences were heard, by various people, on different playback equipment. That the differences were due only to the supposed condition being tested and not because of aspects of how the tests were carried out, and other factors, is very much something to be determined, if you want to take it seriously.
point is Frank, you have no evidence, aside your own claims, that you have reached the point where you can discern the differences you speak of.
Certainly, you don't have proof - or none posted here. Feel free to redirect me to it if you have it elsewhere.
This isn't to diminish your pleasure and interest. Merely to point out that you wouldn't buy services from any professional if they only supplied the paucity of evidence for effectiveness and knowledge that surround your claims.
Or perhaps you would. Hence the entire purpose of the thread.
Your last sentence has encapsulated it though - and is an indication you recognise the weakness of the position you hold.
Certainly, you don't have proof - or none posted here. Feel free to redirect me to it if you have it elsewhere.
This isn't to diminish your pleasure and interest. Merely to point out that you wouldn't buy services from any professional if they only supplied the paucity of evidence for effectiveness and knowledge that surround your claims.
Or perhaps you would. Hence the entire purpose of the thread.
Your last sentence has encapsulated it though - and is an indication you recognise the weakness of the position you hold.
This whole business is not at a stage where one can really prove it, or disprove it, whatever that means. For a long time I never came across anyone else who understood what I was talking about, but so far I can count about a half dozen that I've "found" who really "get it". Plus, it was such a struggle to be able to turn on the good sound whenever you wanted to - every aspect was critical, only total focus on system optimisation could get me there - and throwing in something like a test scenario on top of that would have been a nightmare.
However, I do have a good test methodology in mind: what happens is that the speakers completely disappear, they truly become impossible to locate by ear - so a test procedure is a combination of blindfold, disorientating the listener, and getting him to point to a speaker's location. An optimum SQ would be indicated by completely random results ...
The PC speaker setup I used for listening is the least of any system I've played with - at the moment, 😉 - and way short of the above; but it worked well enough for me to pick differences, which was the point. I was separating on how roughly the car engine ran, not whether it was due to a bad spark plug, poor timing, or fuel starvation ... 🙂
However, I do have a good test methodology in mind: what happens is that the speakers completely disappear, they truly become impossible to locate by ear - so a test procedure is a combination of blindfold, disorientating the listener, and getting him to point to a speaker's location. An optimum SQ would be indicated by completely random results ...
The PC speaker setup I used for listening is the least of any system I've played with - at the moment, 😉 - and way short of the above; but it worked well enough for me to pick differences, which was the point. I was separating on how roughly the car engine ran, not whether it was due to a bad spark plug, poor timing, or fuel starvation ... 🙂
That is exactly what you have done here from the beginning.....repeat.......repeat.........repeat.
NO you don't have to keep joining the component of the month club, did I say that? The largest gains are those obtained from knowing how to address the room/speaker interface and what is causing any sound defects.
Perhaps I do and you are the one that is hearing things that aren't really there 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.