[PhilNYC]

They also come with a jumper strap and extra terminals for bi-wiring, and I hope you won't now argue that bi-wiring is worthwhile.

I am not a fan of bi-wiring, but I do think bi-amping is quite effective when done right...and most speaker companies that come with the extra terminal does so for bi-amping.  I also feel that jumpers make a significant audible difference. (I do think bi-wiring makes a difference, but I am not convinced it makes a positive difference)

My general take on tweaks is this...if I have to really listen hard to hear the differences, then it's either not doing anything or it's just not worth it.  Spikes are something that I've found that I can't live without with just about every floorstanding speaker I've ever owned, whether it's because it couples or decouples vibration, or if it's simply because it puts space between the bottom of the speaker and the floor.  And the spikes need to really be leveled correctly, because a speaker that slightly tips even just a hair suffers from that movement.

[Ethan Winer]

Phil,

> I do think bi-amping is quite effective when done right <

No kidding. My big JBL speakers are bi-amped and even I can hear the difference. But bi-wiring irritates me because it's a useless "pretend relative" to bi-amping which is legitimate.

> whether it's because it couples or decouples vibration, or if it's simply because it puts space between the bottom of the speaker <

I agree decoupling can be useful. And changing the woofer-to-floor difference can surely change the sound. Now, changing that distance is just as likely to make the sound worse, especially if the speaker designers know what they're doing and optimized the woofer height. So in that case you might hear a change and wrongly assume the response is now flatter, even though it's really less flat. Likewise, if one of the many inevitable peaks or nulls shift frequency, and the result is at a musically pleasing frequency, then it might sound "better" even though it's technically worse.

For example, 200 Hz is a kind of "woofy" frequency, so a spacing change that decreases output at 200 Hz might seem to sound better on some material. Or maybe a reflection due to speaker-wall spacing created a slight peak around 400 Hz, which is a "boxy" sounding range, and the added height knocked that back down. Or the change increases output at 80 Hz which adds a nice fullness even if it's less accurate. (A lot of people run their subs at +6 because they simply like the way that sounds.) So changing the speaker height might be better, or it might be worse. Or it might make such a small change as to not matter.

The only way to really know is to measure both ways using something like ETF. If any of you guys have ETF and are willing to run a few tests, I'd love to see the before and after graphs. That would go a long way toward convicing me that spikes make a useful improvement. It might also give you some ammunition for the future when this comes up again. And it surely will.

And finally: I never said speaker spikes are useless! I honestly don't know. What I have said, and will continue to say, is that isolating electronic gear is useless. Especially for anyone listening in an untreated room, where room reflections damage the sound 100 times worse than any vibration possibly could.

--Ethan

[_scotty_]

Request withdrawn.

[_scotty_]

We can hear things occuring when we play recordings of  music through stereo systems that we cannot yet measure and attribute a causal factor
to. Richard C. Heyser was one of the first to recognize this and spent most
of his career trying to devise a means of correlating what we hear to what we measure.  I would at least like to see manufacturers of "vibration reducing devices" provide proof that what they are selling actually has a measurable impact on vibrations.  This would be relatively simple to do involving only
3strain guage accerometers for measurements in X,Y,and Z axes.  
These could be attached to the DUT or the piece of equipement resting on the
DUT and the amount of vibration suppression afforded by the device quantitatively measured.  This way you would at least know that what you purchased actually did something whether the effects can be heard or not.
As far as CD players are concerned they are mechanical and electrical devices and there is no reason to believe that they are unaffected by structure borne vibration.
Scotty

[Ethan Winer]

Scotty,

> Request withdrawn <

I saw your question late yesterday, but I had to leave for a meeting. I'd have been glad to describe my two systems, but it's irrelevant. So for now I'll just say I have a 2-channel setup consisting entirely of professional grade equipment, and a surround setup based mostly on very modest consumer gear. In both cases the rooms are well treated acoustically and have no early reflections at the listening position, making it easy to hear everything very clearly.

> We can hear things occuring when we play recordings of music through stereo systems that we cannot yet measure <

I disagree strongly with that. We can measure every audio parameter to several orders of magnitude below what is audible. Ears (the brain, really) vary a lot over time and thus are unreliable. Gear is not unreliable unless it's defective.

> I would at least like to see manufacturers of "vibration reducing devices" provide proof that what they are selling actually has a measurable impact on vibrations. This would be relatively simple to do <

I agree with that completely. Either their stuff does something or it doesn't. Of course, for you to be convinced by such tests you first have to accept that everything audible can be measured.

> As far as CD players are concerned they are mechanical and electrical devices and there is no reason to believe that they are unaffected by structure borne vibration. <

A CD player is not a turntable! There's no physical contact anywhere in the process and, more important, all CD players have a memory buffer from which the actual output stream flows. So if a CD player is jostled so badly that it mistracks, the music continues to play from the buffer until the transport can find its place again. This happens transparently in the background, and is exactly why CD players meant for joggers boast a large buffer.

--Ethan

[maxwalrath]

A CD player is not a turntable! There's no physical contact anywhere in the process and, more important, all CD players have a memory buffer from which the actual output stream flows. So if a CD player is jostled so badly that it mistracks, the music continues to play from the buffer until the transport can find its place again. This happens transparently in the background, and is exactly why CD players meant for joggers boast a large buffer. ..

The music in my system sounds much better when my CD player is put on herbies tenderfeet. I don't have measuring equipment, but that's what my ears tell me.

If you have doubts and have $40 to spare, I don't see any reason not to give Herbies or any other product with a money back guarantee a try.

[_scotty_]

We can measure every audio parameter to several orders of magnitude below what is audible. Ears (the brain, really) vary a lot over time and thus are unreliable. Gear is not unreliable unless it's defective.

A facinating,simplistic and circumscribed world view that is very comforting
but is ultimately unrealistic. You are assuming that all variables that affect
audio hardware performance and human perception of audio reproduction
are already known and can be measured.  You don't know what you do not know or what else might be discovered in the future.  You have failed to allow for progress or change with a static world view.  
We appear to have unreconcilable philosophical differences on this subject.
I leave you with this thought from Albert Einstein,"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."  
Scotty

[csero]

A facinating,simplistic and circumscribed world view that is very comforting
but is ultimately unrealistic. You are assuming that all variables that affect
audio hardware performance and human perception of audio reproduction
are already known and can be measured.  You don't know what you do not know or what else might be discovered in the future.  You have failed to allow for progress or change with a static world view.  
We appear to have unreconcilable philosophical differences on this subject.
I  ...

Let's just say, we have a very thorough understanding of lots of auditory mechanism, which are completely ignored in domestic sound reproduction. The (measureable and psychological) effect of them are several magnitudes higher than any audio tweaks.

[John Casler]

 (Scotty wrote)> We can hear things occuring when we play recordings of music through stereo systems that we cannot yet measure <

I disagree strongly with that. We can measure every audio parameter to several orders of magnitude below what is audible. Ears (the brain, really) vary a lot over time and thus are unreliable. Gear is not unreliable unless it's defective.

 ..

Hi Ethan,

While I think measurments are fine, could you tell me what measures "soundstage and its width/depth"?

While it is quite easy to measure "placement" of an image between the speakers, what "numbers" of what instrument would tell you if you will hear a flatter image, or a deeper image?

I know you might mention phase relationships and such, but to my knowledge there really isn't any way to measure it, but you certainly can hear it.

Not like 20Hz will surely give you a certain sonic, you can't (I don't think) give me "any" number, figure, or measurment that will tell me I'll have more or less "width/depth".

And I am talking about a "live" recording and not some engineered reverb/echo or delay, or amplitude difference to move an image forward or backward.  I mean being able to hear the size of the venue and not your room, due to hearing the reverberant cues, recorded from the room.

I would suggest there may well be hundreds of perceptions that are not measurable, or quantifiable.  Not that some time in the future we won't be able to, but at the present, I don't think the capability is there.

[csero]

Hi Ethan,

While I think measurments are fine, could you tell me what measures "soundstage and its width/depth"?

While it is quite easy to measure "placement" of an image between the speakers, what "numbers" of what instrument would tell you if you will hear a flatter image, or a deeper image?

I know you might mention phase relationships and such, but to my knowledge there really isn't any way to measure it, but you certainly can hear it...

John,

If you would have the chance to hear correct stereo recording reproduced in a transaural way, you would realize, that the actual "soundstage and its width/depth" is only dependent on the recording venue and mic arangement. A Realistic Minimus produces the same "image" as a Wilson Watt this way. Of course there are differences in distortion, freq response, transient behaviour etc., but the image is the same.

OTOH the stereo imaging is not the property of speakers or the reproduction chain, it is an atrifact.

What you get as stereo imaging is a weird comb filtering effect coming from the interaction of 2 imperfect reproduction channels and speakers, mixed with the completely different acoustics of the listening room, built on the foundation of the destroyed ambience info was available on the record.
It is not measurable, highly arbitrary and almost never transferable. What is working with one gear with a specific record in a given room, might not work somewhere else, even with the exact same gear.

[_scotty_]

csero, is anyone selling an affordable stand alone transaural processor that can be inserted between a source and a preamp?  At this time the only one I can find is the  Roland RSS10. The most recent price is 2100 pounds and it may be more with the euro being 30% stronger than the dollar right now.
Scotty

[Ethan Winer]

Scotty,

> You are assuming that all variables that affect audio hardware performance and human perception of audio reproduction are already known and can be measured. <

They are and they can be. This is not quantum physics. Audio is simple. Human auditory perception is what varies. A lot. And often. This is why people believe they hear a difference when they put their CD player on an iso pad. Nothing really changed at all. They just think it did. A proper double blind test can prove this beyond all doubt in one minute. But many audiophiles denounce proper tests because they don't like what the tests reveal.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

John,

> could you tell me what measures "soundstage and its width/depth"? <

Yes, of course, extremely simple!

Stereo imaging is a function of the volume and phase relationships between channels. Imaging is also affected by reflections, both embedded in the recording and in the room you're listening. These are easily measured assuming you have test signals as a source, as opposed to trying to determine the amount of echo and reverb in a recording after the fact. But there's no magic here, and no unknown quantities. It's all very simple, and easily repeatable, and easily measured.

> what "numbers" of what instrument would tell you if you will hear a flatter image, or a deeper image? <

You'll have to define "flatter" for me, but the effect of a sound source being "deeper" is the ratio of direct to reflected sound, and the number of reflections, and the time delay between the original and the onset of the reflections, and so forth.

> I know you might mention phase relationships and such, but to my knowledge there really isn't any way to measure it <

You can do that easily with an oscilloscope. Put one channel into the Horizonatal input and the other into the Vertical input. Match the levels and voila, you now have a phase meter that works in real-time.

> I mean being able to hear the size of the venue and not your room, due to hearing the reverberant cues, recorded from the room. <

Trivial. First year engineering. Really. Again, I'm not saying it's trivial to extract reverb from a recording and measure it as a percentage of the total. (Probably not impossible either.) But the relationship between direct and reflected sounds are exactly as I described above.

Spending five minutes with a reverb plug-in and a clean recording of dry music will show you a lot about this stuff. Access to a multitrack master, so you can apply effects separately on different instruments and move them independently forward and back, will teach you even more.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

csero,

> A Realistic Minimus produces the same "image" as a Wilson Watt this way ... What you get as stereo imaging is a weird comb filtering <

Exactly. It kills me to read loudspeaker reviews in magazines when I know for a fact the reviewer has no acoustic treatment at all, not even first reflection control. Early reflections and comb filtering define imaging. Or, more accurately, they destroy imaging.

--Ethan

[John Casler]

John,

> could you tell me what measures "soundstage and its width/depth"? <

Yes, of course, extremely simple!

Stereo imaging is a function of the volume and phase relationships between channels. Imaging is also affected by reflections, both embedded in the recording and in the room you're listening. These are easily measured assuming you have test signals as a source, as opposed to trying to determine the amount of echo and reverb in a recording after the fact. But there's no magic here, and  ...

Hi Ethan,

I know that amplitude and phase can be measured, but you cannot look at a graph/chart, showing that and tell how much depth we will be hearing in the recording.

As Frank mentioned, what you really hear will certainly depend on the room, but all you can really measure is the amplitude of the various phase relationships.  It cannot be determined in a meaningful way what you are hearing.

At best all that can be said is that there is a lot of "phase" information.  There is no "specific scale" of that phase to the tell us how much "depth" we can acheive, like we know the dynamic range, we know what volume level will produce a specific volume.

And again, I am "NOT" talking about engineered or "added" reverb/echo.  I am talking about the actual information recorded.

Since the complex properties of "venue reflected" sound cannot be "dissassembled and then measured" to produce an answer, they cannot be effectively measured, or scaled.

That, is what I am talking about.  You can (in a well treated room) "hear" large differences, but there is no "measurement/scale" that can tell us the the perceptual difference.

This is much like the measurment of a "thought".  A thought produces both a chemical and electrical moment in the brain.  Both of these "can" be measured, but the measurment only tells us the extent of each action, but not what the thought or perception was.

This is the same thing.  We can measure phase and amplitude, but it cannot tell us what we are hearing in the brain.

[Steve]

Scotty,
 A proper double blind test can prove this beyond  ...

I have read alot of postings, here, but mainly at other sites over the years discussing this subject. Interesting subject.

You mentioned the ear/mind is too fragile for individual, accurate appraisal, yet stable enough to provide proof in a test? Are you saying the "administrators" of the dbt are able to rid the ear/mind of all unwanted distractions that might invalidate the testing?

I was also wondering who decides if/when the dbt test is executed properly? Is it just peer review?

At what DB level are these tests performed? Is there any standard?

One other question. You used the word prove/proof. Can you provide a study that uses the word proves or proof in its conclusion so I can catalog it in my files?

Thanks.  

[Ethan Winer]

John,

> but you cannot look at a graph/chart, showing that and tell how much depth we will be hearing in the recording. <

But you can't even listen to the same recording twice, with nothing changed, and perceive the same depth. This is why a blind A/B test, where A and B are switched very quickly, is needed for stuff like this.

To get back to whether spikes help or not this can be measured using simple frequency response measurements. The changes from spikes, or iso pads, under loudspeakers will affect frequency response.

> At best all that can be said is that there is a lot of "phase" information.  <

And again getting back to the original discussion, if putting iso pads under a CD player did affect imaging, you could easily measure that with test signals. Whether it's easy to segregate phase components from complex music is irrelevant. If phase or whatever is affected, it can be measured. So forget music, and test the CD player with and without isolation using test signals. That will quickly answer the core question. Though I already know the answer...

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> You mentioned the ear/mind is too fragile for individual, accurate appraisal, yet stable enough to provide proof in a test? <

Yes, though of course it depends on how you test. My point is that casual listening over time is not reliable because so many other things affect what we perceive. And moving even a few inches to one side or the other can make a very large change in perceived frequency response due to comb filtering off nearby surfaces. So you play some music, then get up and put an iso pad under your CD player, then sit down again, and sure enough the music might sound a little different even though nothing at all changed.

This is why the only way to test things like this that tend to be subtle is to sit very still, loop the exact same short musical phrase repeatedly, and have someone else switch between A and B. Anything else is just guessing.

--Ethan

[maxwalrath]

you should still buy something with a money-back guarantee and see for yourself. any nay-saying on your part is also just guessing.

[John Casler]

Hi Ethan,

I won't argue anything about spikes under a CD player or electrical component, since I am not convinced they work.

My contention is that we can hear things that cannot be quantfied via measument.

I would need "many" hours of serious listening to see if there is any credibility to the claims about component suspension/isolation systems.

No doubt, much of it stems from the "very real" results from isolating a Turntable, and arm from external vibrations, along with some good marketing.