gregr@tekig1.UUCP (Greg Rogers) (03/15/84)
>>One time we knew something was wrong but could not figure >>out what. The most noticable effect was a very muddy low bass. >>We finally found the cause: my portable cassette deck, sitting >>in the bookcase 10 feet from the speakers, has a 4-inch monitor >>speaker in it. Removing the deck from the listening room >>immediately cleared up the problem. My first reaction to this nonsense was to laugh so hard I about fell off my chair. Most of us could fill pages explaining the relative absorbtion capabilities of a four inch cassette deck speaker to low frequencies compared to everything else in the room, windows, walls, furniture, etc. We could also point out the foolishness of the "energy stored in the crossover capacitors and reradiated sometime later" claim made in the original article that started this stupid discussion up again. Of course in this case that wouldn't be necessary since the 4-inch speaker is unlikely to have any crossover network ( to what? ). However, I soon had a second reaction, a very sad and disturbing one. I really am beginning to feel sorry for people in search of good sound quality but lacking enough background in physical sciences and electronics to understand the physical plausibility of some claims made for commercial purposes. I know very well the helpless feeling when an auto mechanic explains to me why my ball joints need replacing when I thought I just needed a front end alignment. In audio the pressure to accept an "experts" opinion can be unbearable to a novice or someone needing peer acceptance or justification for purchasing an expensive component when a far less expensive component might have produced the same result. How does one respond to something like " there, you see how much better it sounds now!"? If this comes from an "expert" (salesman, manufacturer) does one admit their inability to hear the difference particularly in a group of their peers? Indeed under these circumstances it's easy to genuinely believe differences exist where none do. This problem is made worse since an "expert" can only prove himself "expert" by consistently demonstrating his ability to discover "incredible sonic improvements" by making minor changes that others have previously overlooked. An "expert" that refuses to acknowledge the new discovery will quickly lose his "expert" status if the majority of "experts" endorse the new discovery. Since this is a no-win risk most new discoveries are quickly endorsed by all "experts" and another audio myth is born. How can someone not technically knowledgeable decide if a new "discovery" is fact or myth? I would suggest that if you only hear about it amongst the "golden ears" or in the underground audio press, that you should be very skeptible. Any valid significant new idea or principle will almost certainly receive coverage in the popular press if it can withstand the examination of the technically knowledgeable. New discoveries that can quickly be refuted are not likely to be advanced in the popular press for obvious reasons. Please note: I'm not saying believe everything you read in the popular press (particularly with regard specific products), just be wary of someone that won't present their ideas outside their own conditioned group if their ideas are really worthwhile. Greg Rogers
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/19/84)
>From alice!allegra!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!norskog Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > >If you actually have trouble believing that an unconnected speaker can >affect sound quality, I suggest you look up the term "passive radiator". Um, well, yeah. I suggest YOU look up the terms coupling, gradient, and "loosely coupled systems with very low coupling efficiency". See how THEY apply to a 4" speaker all the way across the room in the cabinet. See how opening and closing the doors of the cabinet makes more difference, and how the person who "found" the problem shut/opened the cabinet doors at the same time. I would like to propose a new newsgroup called, "net.audio.superstition.audiophile" for "serious" discussions. Thank you, -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-- HUG YOUR OWN TODAY ! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/20/84)
<> Gentlemen, (?) please! On the one hand we have, from nbires!winograd... >>One time we knew something was wrong but could not figure >>out what. The most noticable effect was a very muddy low bass. >>We finally found the cause: my portable cassette deck, sitting >>in the bookcase 10 feet from the speakers, has a 4-inch monitor >>speaker in it. Removing the deck from the listening room >>immediately cleared up the problem. which elicited a response, from tekig1!gregr... >My first reaction to this nonsense was to laugh so hard I about fell off >my chair. Most of us could fill pages explaining the relative absorbtion >capabilities of a four inch cassette deck speaker to low frequencies compared and another from hplabsc!labelle... > Can we ever obtain any sanity in this net? Let's ask for >new group (net.golden ears) where the wackos can throw around words >like presence, ambience, muddy, sparkling, wandering etc.. So the >serious audiophiles can get on with some meaningfull discussions >and comparisons (WITH ACTUAL DATA OR NUMBERS ATTACHED TO THE STATEMENTS) Now, even though I'm mightily skeptical of the "extra-speakers" effect, I happen to know that nbires!winograd is a musician of some ability. Therefore, I would like to proceed on the assumption that he may well have heard some difference - I don't know what or why - and find out what's going on. Just because you can refute a particular explanation of a phenomenon does not mean that the phenomenon does not exist. It only means that if it does exist, you don't yet know why. I can make a convincing technical case against the extra-speaker phenomenon as easily as either of the two respondents above - but that doesn't make the whole issue go away. The arguments that a listener wants to be influenced, needs reinforcement for self-assurance, etc., are just as unacceptable when arguing AGAINST the existence of a phenomenon as when arguing FOR it. DATA OR NUMBERS is a fine idea; sometimes you even need to shout about it to cut thru the BS. BUT there are some effects that we can hear but we can't measure. (Think back to the religious fervor around IC amplifiers, which finally led to the discovery of low-slew-rate problems, measurable as TIM today.) It's not that some effects are UNmeasurable (I'm not a mystic!); it's just that we don't yet know how to measure them. When we hit one of these, we all have to start listening carefully, discussing, doing A/B tests, etc., and we need to go about it properly. That means listen first, then discuss. It means that A/B has to be done as a carefully controlled double-blind experiment, and so on. Why don't we try to figure out, and educate one another, what we mean by things like "muddy", "wandering", etc. Try to bridge the gap between the subjective feeling that "something sounds wrong" and some useful theories and numbers - because we need the subjective results so that we get the desired end result (sound we like) but we can't fix problems unless we understand - in a technical sense - why they happen. Returning to the issue at hand, we can see that the arguments presented in the original posting 'way back when are not technically sound for a couple of reasons. (My best argument is that "telephone handsets" were mentioned but there are no reactive elements that can receive energy from the room. The transducers are strictly resistive.) OK, so what gives here? Is there really something going on? If not, fine. If so, what's the real reason? -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
muller@inmet.UUCP (03/20/84)
#R:tekig1:-157800:inmet:2600054:000:1126 inmet!muller Mar 19 10:07:00 1984 *** I seem to be responding to a lot your entries, Mr. Rogers. Once again, I wish to underline what you have said, and to add just a bit also. It is quite possible (maybe even probable) that some of the salesmen who help propagate technically invalid ideas are true believers in them, and not just out to sell equipment by knowingly fooling their customers. Most are not really technically trained and may be just as susceptible to the power of suggestion as their victims. It is quite easy to demonstrate that audio perceptions are strongly influenced by whether an effect in question has had attention called to it. An aggressive shop owner may take it all to heart and believe what he reads or is told because he wishes to be (known as) the "best" or most knowledgeble authority on high-end systems. And it is all to easy for those of us who ARE technically trained (?) to have big holes in our knowledge and be duped as well on one or another facet of this game. Now the engineers/manufacturers who propagate this kind of stuff... that is a whole 'nother game. They should know better. Thanks for the realism.
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (03/20/84)
No 4" speaker in a cassette deck on a shelf will affect the sound of two ordinary speakers in an average room; particularly the bass response. If you believe that I have a bridge for sale!
pmr@drufl.UUCP (03/21/84)
---a sacrifice to the great software god--- Yes folks, I'm still alive! (I had to say that for my fan club.) I support Steve (..!nbires!winograd) in his statements about technocracy and subjectivity. Personally, I haven't experienced the same results with multiple loudspeakers in the same room, but I won't scoff at him either. I have experienced the same differences in sound reproduction with some of the items Steve mentioned and I therefore have good reason to believe him. But people with $500-$1K systems may not perceive any of these effects and therefore may think that we've both have had at least two Pan-Galactic Gargle-Blasters and are definitely not still standing (the Answer is 42, Arthur:-). The fact still remains that some people can hear things that others cannot on whatever system. Explaining these observed differences to those who cannot or will not believe they exist without figures to back them up has always been a problem and will continue to be. But unlike some people, I respect everyone's opinions and their right to freely express them. Now, on to invent something to keep the Patent Office open... Yours for higher fidelity, Phil Rastocny AT&T-ISL ..!drufl!pmr
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (03/23/84)
(oo)
Having carefully considered the facts in this case, it's my opinion that
an extra, 4" speaker in the listening room has precisely the same effect
on sound as that awful oxide coating that develops on the few millimeters
of exposed wire that occur when beneath-contempt 16 ga. lamp cord is used
in place of Monster Cable. Furthermore, the effect is identical to what
occurs when Beethoven quartets are played when Saturn is in that composer's
birth sign, or during full moons after an early spring when an unusual number
of toads are sighted in migration. Why didn't our parents warn us about such
perils?
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fishrfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (03/24/84)
Look, lets not knock our parents. They had their hands full what with helping the garage men adjust the stanisfratz to keep the family car going, looking for the guy who had the pills that turned water into gasoline and the powders that made car batteries better than new. Also they spent a lot of time and energy fighting the war to end wars, and the one to make the world safe for democracy. Then there were the rules about what could/could not be planted only in the dark of the moon and what drinks went with what mixers and... well you see they really had a lot to take care of. Besides, in their day audio was so poor it masked with noise and distortion all the subtle things that our golden eared friends hear today. Time and technology march on. Consider that in another few years things will have improved to the point where gold is not good enough. Platinum ears will be required to hear the subtler effects. hound!rfg
norskog@fortune.UUCP (Lance Norskog) (03/25/84)
If you actually have trouble believing that an unconnected speaker can affect sound quality, I suggest you look up the term "passive radiator".