winograd@nbires.UUCP (Steve Winograd) (03/20/84)
I would like to reply to a number of statements and conclusions made by Greg Rogers in his reply to my report of a 4-inch speaker in my cassette deck degrading the sound of my hi-fi. My intention is not to convert anyone to my point of view -- I hear what I hear and you hear what you hear, and that's all that matters. If you don't hear a difference in a new piece of audio equipment then you should not buy it. I take no offense in the fact that many people will not believe what I say, but I do take offense when someone ridicules another person's point of view. I hope that some people will explore these ideas further. > 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. So can I. I fail to see, though, how you can use the existence of other factors to conclude that the effect which I reported doesn't exist. Let me give you a brief summary of several other sonic adjustments which I made to improve the performance of my hi-fi to the point where the effect of the cassette deck speaker became the most important problem remaining: 1. Place the turntable, absolutely level, on a rigid, lightweight table so that sub-audible vibrations such as those from footsteps, refrigerator motors and traffic are reduced as much as possible. 2. Place the speakers at ear level on rigid stands in such a way that they are not free to rock back and forth. 3. Always open the drapes behind the speaker when listening to the system. 4. Secure the connections between the speaker cable and the amplifier and speakers as tightly as possible. 5. Tighten the screw which secures the headshell to the tone arm as much as possible. 6. Clean the stylus and record immediately before every use. 7. Remove the dust cover from the turntable. Most dust covers act as acoustic resonators which aggravate problems with acoustic feedback. Each of these steps made a noticable improvement in the sound. You don't have to be a "golden ear" to hear the difference. Each step costs little or nothing and will improve the sound of any system of whatever cost or quality. The better the system, the more noticable the improvement will be. > 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 don't want your sympathy, Greg. What an arrogant statement! Briefly, some of my background: B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, amateur radio operator since 1966 (Advanced Class), professional performer on several early woodwind instruments. By the way, I had already bought my complete hi-fi when the people from the Audio Alternative came to my house to help adjust things. Moving extra speakers out of the room doesn't cost anything or benefit the audio dealer -- it just improves the sound. > 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. Anyone can tell if a new discovery is fact or myth by listening to the effect it has on the sound. If it sounds better to you, then the new discovery is worthwhile. If it sounds the same or worse, the discovery is not worthwhile. The underground audio press, such as "The Absolute Sound," does indeed go overboard on occasion. They have their biases just as you and I do. They think that vaccuum tubes always sound better than transistors (they don't to my ears) and are especially hostile to Linn Products and its founder/guru Ivor Tiefenbrun. In general, though, the underground audio press is interested in how music sounds and not in technolical gee-whizzery. > 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. I have found that, in general, the more "technically knowledgeable" a person is the more likely that person is to have a closed mind about hi-fi equipment. Reviewers for the popular magazines almost all belong to the Julian Hirsch "if I can't explain it and measure it, it doesn't exist" school of thought. Look at the equipment reviews in Stereo Review or High Fidelity. They typically consist of descriptions of what all the knobs do, some important looking graphs, and long discussions of the manufacturer's technical specifications and the reviewer's measurements of those specifications (made, according to IHF or EIA standards, using sine waves driving 8-ohm resistors, none of which has any relevance to reproduction of real music on real speakers). There usually follows a perfunctory paragraph saying that this particular component performs as well as the measurements would indicate. There is often no indication at all that the reviewer ever listened to music on the component or felt any need to do so. I am not so scientifically arrogant as to think that I can give an explanation for everything. Such an attitude reminds me of the 19-th century director of the U.S. patent office who stated that the office should be closed because everything which could be invented had already been invented. I actually take some delight in the fact that there are some things which science can not explain. Steve Winograd {allegra|ucbvax}!nbires!winograd
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/20/84)
Mr. Winograd... Did the place where your cassette deck was sitting have doors? Were those doors moved while the cassette deck was being removed? Was there any cavity of any significant (>1 cu ft) size behind said door? -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE-- HUG YOUR OWN TODAY ! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
muller@inmet.UUCP (03/24/84)
#R:nbires:-29400:inmet:2600058:000:696 inmet!muller Mar 22 16:38:00 1984 G. R. never said it was ridiculous that you (thought you) heard something. He only criticized the explanation of it. Of course we don't know everything about sound (we must keep straight the distinction between wave effects of the sound field and signal processing effects of the electronics) but to hold to such an explanation is comparable to holding that phlogiston is responsible for combustion. Better to find a more acceptable explanation than to hold to a ridiculous one just to prove the perceived effect was real. Some of those better explanations can be found in the well-understood behavior of a wave field without requiring the less acceptable explanation of the "extra speaker".