[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> we are giving the attention Ethan seems to crave. We have occasionally seen this nonsense on other chat sites over the years. He will try to run us in circles (no pun intended) till we ignore him. <

I've been polite to you, so I don't know why you feel the need to take that attitude. I'm sorry you don't agree that the burden of proof is on you to prove the benefits of spiking a CD player, but that's no reason to be rude.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Phil,

> The first time someone put my CD player on brass cones ... it was definitely noticeable <

Okay, let's definitely get together when you're available - I'd love to hear that for myself.

> Maybe you can even come to our July NY Audio Rave (in Stamford, CT) <

What's the venue? Usually audio "events" are not conducive to critical listening because of all the commotion. Though I could also come by just to say Hi and meet y'all in person. If it's easier for you to email me, there's a Contact page on my company's site.

--Ethan

[PhilNYC]

Okay, let's definitely get together when you're available - I'd love to hear that for myself.

I'll note that now that I use the TAOC rack, I don't notice as much difference with the cones.  The TAOC uses constrained-layer shelves (similar to Neuance or Symposium) that do a tremendous job.  If we do this experiment at my place, I'll have to put one of my Billy Bags racks up.

What's the venue? Usually audio "events" are not conducive to critical listening because of all the commotion. Though I could also come by just to say Hi and meet y'all in person. If it's easier for you to email me, there's a Contact page on my company's site.

--Ethan

Yeah, I just figured it would be good to meet you in person.  Check out the "BBQ by the Sea" thread in the NY Audio Rave circle for details.  We can do some of the tweak things another time...

[Robert Maicks]

Good-day Mr. Ethan Winer:
 
My name is Robert Maicks and I work for Star Sound Technologies, LLC a resonance control company. A few of our clients have brought this thread to our attention and requested that we reply.
 
In defense of our “pseudo science” as you have previously referred (Star Sound does not represent all the companies manufacturing cones and such – just ours), we definitely take offense to your verbiage and accusations here. The concept behind the workings of our technology can be found in any secondary level physics book. It is not isolation that we are providing it is resonance transfer based on the effects of Coulomb’s Friction.  

It appears to us that you are searching for graphs, charts or other documentation versus that of what we have offered on our website. We are a company consisting of degreed engineers and are willing to provide you any information, other than proprietary, that you wish.

As you are aware, the only testing information that makes publishing sense is in establishing third party research results. Paying an outside laboratory a lot of money for their time and then having to publish the results into engineering journals boils down to a huge expense for any sized company. Remember, any qualified engineer can create a graph at the touch of a mouse and work it so that it proves anything they want to, but without the third party involvement – all results remains meaningless and arguably partial.
 
I have noticed on your website that your partner is a bass guitar player. We are willing to provide him a few Sistrum Platforms for under his guitar amplifier. Our products will provide results beneath loudspeakers and electronic packages alike. With your partner’s background in engineering and guitar playing ability along with our products capacity to establish a more efficient result, his personal experiences playing his rig in combination with our products will help you establish a new respect for what our discoveries provide. Our products function in many areas of the overall sound business.
 
I have reviewed your website and understand much of what your company provides. Expanding on the results of the ‘numbers game’ and all the information provided on absorption, when or how does one know when there is too much material placed into their environment? The results of these testing parameters set forth by the Acoustics’ Industry does not inform a listener as to how your products will establish a more natural ring to the ride cymbal or how the decay time from said cymbal will be affected, or for that matter how these materials will add control to the pace, rhythm and time of the sound generated from their specific speaker and speaker locations. Are your products capable of providing an audible breath prior to hearing the voice from the microphone? Finally, how will your products affect the overall musical performance within any unique listening environment? A chart or research documentation can not answer any of these questions but we are sure that you probably could in conversation with a client.
 
What we are trying to establish here is that from an engineering standpoint, all the documentation, proof of performance, graphs or charts are looked at as more of an educational tool versus that of providing sonic proof in performance. Our company has learned overtime as to never say it’s impossible for any newfound technology to function – whatsoever. As crazy as one would think of things not being possible, there will always be someone out there who will prove you wrong.
 
The only test results that really matter to any technology or product are the results generated from the audience of people purchasing the products and appreciating the end results.
 
In defense of our technology and products, there are fifteen years of sales with over 360,000 Audio Points® sold into our various markets. Sistrum Platforms are a huge advancement of our technical understanding over that of the Audio Point as we are now celebrating our fifth year of success and industry acceptance for that product line. This history was not created without science, or the application of physics and geometry.
 
You previously wrote that it seems impossible for a vibration control device to affect the sonic outcome of an electronic component. You then dug a bit deeper by stating that listeners only believe they hear a difference and that a double blind test would further prove that nothing really changes at all. We definitely would like to provide you the means to simply change your opinion of Star Sound Technologies and our Live-Vibe Technology™. If you employ a Sistrum Platform beneath your amplifier and it does not survive a double blind test, you or we should then determine if the sound reproduction business is really where we ought to be.
 
As manufacturers, we do not wish to argue or create ill will on this public site as we can only extend a friendly hand and simply request that you investigate what your hearing tells you and not so much what your eyes and thoughts may bring to your focus. Please feel free to telephone us. If the person on the phone cannot answer your question, we will definitely provide you the individual who will.
 
If the readership here wishes to know more, we invite them also to telephone us toll free at 1-877-668-4332 as we will always pay for the call and answer all of your questions.
 
We thank you for your time in reading.
 
As always – Good Listening!
 
Robert Maicks
Star Sound Technologies, LLC

[zybar]

Ethan,

How about a quick visit to my place?  

A) I would like you to hear the new steup.

B) I have all my gear on Sistrum Platforms and I do think it makes a difference.

We can easily run A/B or blind tests with the transport and the preamp.

George

[warnerwh]

I'd love to see a double blind test on these tweaks. I've never spent any money on them assuming if they did anything it was to only make my bank account smaller.  It would be good for all of us.

[John Casler]

John,

> you said everything we can hear can be measured, and I said there are things we hear that "can't" be measured. <

I continue to believe that anything audible can be measured. Maybe not the way you describe ("measure" which orchestra instrument is responsible for the 20 Hz component), but certainly the way I describe.



--Ethan

Hi Ethan,

But as a last word (from me anyhow), if I am sitting in a symphony, my ears can hear many of the instruments individually, even when playing all together, and I can tell you what they are and when they are playing.

You have NO measurment tool that is sensitive enough to do the same.

You can not look at any chart or graph and tell me which instruments are playing when, (maybe with the exception of percusiion due to the dynamic readings)

But again this has nothing to do with "spikes"

[Steve]

Steve,

> we are giving the attention Ethan seems to crave. We have occasionally seen this nonsense on other chat sites over the years. He will try to run us in circles (no pun intended) till we ignore him. <

I've been polite to you, so I don't know why you feel the need to take that attitude. I'm sorry you don't agree that the burden of proof is on you to prove the benefits of spiking a CD player, but that's no reason to be rude.

--Ethan

 What are you talking about? We have virtually never discussed spiking a CD player. Our postings have been about testing and accuracy. I can easily prove this to the audience.  

I only made two small comments concerning testing CD players, a test Scott and I did. I even mentioned TWICE that it was an interesting experiment and included a caution. Nothing more. The second comment I mentioned was a helpful way to test. Here are the posts, Ethan.

"An interesting experiment Scott and I did the other day...
Now, one word of caution.

1) We both lied to each other, or one lied to match the other.
2) We actually heard the same differences.
3) ESP exists (which I don't believe) so we read each others mind before we responded to each other.

I thought it was a pretty interesting experiment."

The second comment: "A simple test. Use pads and then use the spikes, keeping the speakers at the same height."

So obviously, testing and accuracy was the prime topic. Are you ok Ethan? It seems you have not made any comments lately that are close to being accurate.

Electronics 101 is a simple comment. I don't see the problem. I could have mentioned several comments you made that ridiculed/tried to intimidate me, but I didn't. But if it really bothers you, I apologize.

Any objective study requires each step to be perfect, with each step proven to not cantaminate/alter the results. A simple example, finding a cause for a disease. Each step has to be perfect in order to avoid catamination and problems with the results.
 
So why do you believe that subjective testing doesn't require the same stringent standards as objective testing?

I could care less if one likes and uses DBTs.  

But what scares me is how you make dognatic statements that put us "down" and "infer" that we are ignorant/dumb (check out his previous posts), that your way is right to all else,
and then you consistently refuse to even reply to my requests for Any information, let alone actually give us Any information to back up your claims.

On an unrelated note, I see you are in business and just read your article "RealTraps - Setting Up a Listening Room - Optimizing placements". Nice job.
 
Take care.  

[Ethan Winer]

Robert,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I too am not here to argue or create ill will although, sadly, that is often the result! My intent is only to get to the truth of what matters and what does not.

> It is not isolation that we are providing it is resonance transfer based on the effects of Coulomb’s Friction. <

Okay, so how does that relate to an improvement in audio quality? What specifically is affected when someone puts a set of your cones under their CD player? And by how much? Do your cones reduce distortion? Do they improve the frequency response? What exactly?

> We are a company consisting of degreed engineers and are willing to provide you any information, other than proprietary, that you wish. <

Great. As degreed engineers you should be able to explain exactly what audio parameters are affected by putting cones under a preamp, and by how much.

> Paying an outside laboratory a lot of money <

Okay, so lets start with the results of any tests you've performed yourself. All the degreed engineers I know own, or have access to, oscilloscopes, distortion analyzers, and so forth. My company uses IBM's lab to formally test our products, but we also do a lot of testing in-house. Several of those tests are documented on our web site, showing room resonance and low frequency response before and after adding our bass traps.

> I have noticed on your website that your partner is a bass guitar player. We are willing to provide him a few Sistrum Platforms for under his guitar amplifier. <

I readily accept that putting an isolation pad under a loudspeaker can affect the sound. I think I made that clear in the first page of this thread. What I question is the value of putting cones under solid state electronic devices.

> Expanding on the results of the ‘numbers game’ and all the information provided on absorption, when or how does one know when there is too much material placed into their environment? <

The benefits of our products are very easy to demonstrate. Not just audibly, but also with measurements. This graph is a perfect example:



Besides being able to hear a blatantly obvious improvement in low end clarity after adding traps, you can also see that the response has been flattened considerably, the modal ringing is greatly reduced, and the modal peak bandwidths are also made much wider. All three of these translate into an obvious audible improvement. There is no disparity between what is measured and what is heard, and both are very apparent.

As for how much treatment is too much, that too is well understood and mostly agreed upon. At low frequencies - below about 300 Hz - I don't think it's possible to have too much absorption. At higher frequencies we use a target RT60 (reverb time) in third octave bands to know when there's enough absorption. This can be fine tuned to taste and, again, there is no disparity between what is measured and what is heard. That is, after adding a few more panels you can see the RT60 has gone down, and also hear the change.

> The results of these testing parameters set forth by the Acoustics’ Industry does not inform a listener as to how your products will establish a more natural ring to the ride cymbal or how the decay time from said cymbal will be affected <

Bass traps don't do much for cymbal ring. However, mid/high frequency absorption placed at the first reflection points definitely improves clarity. Of course, that won't affect cymbal ring either because a cymbal decays based on its own properties, not the properties of the listening room when played through loudspeakers after the fact. Discounting excess ambience in the room which is a separate issue.

Again, the improvement from acoustic treatment can be measured and heard. When treating the first reflection points, one measured improvement is avoiding comb filtering, which of course affects frequency response. The other improvement is the reduction of individual echoes, which also improves clarity. So your implication that the benefits of adding acoustic treatment cannot be assessed "scientifically" is incorrect.

> how these materials will add control to the pace, rhythm and time <

Wow, you actually said "pace." I would love to know what that means.

Like a cymbal's decay, rhythm and time are functions of the musicians and their instruments. Not the playback devices.

> Are your products capable of providing an audible breath prior to hearing the voice from the microphone? <

Say what?

> how will your products affect the overall musical performance within any unique listening environment? A chart or research documentation can not answer any of these questions <

Easy: Acoustic treatment improves clarity at low frequencies by damping room resonances, as well as the other things I mentioned above. This absolutely can be documented, and measured, and heard. See the above graphs for proof.

> If you employ a Sistrum Platform beneath your amplifier and it does not survive a double blind test <

I'll save you the shipping cost. Just tell me what is improved and by how much. But please don't use words like pace and rhythm. I'd rather hear something like "Using the standard 19/20 KHz frequencies, IM distortion is reduced from 0.01 percent to half that for our in-house test amplifier, and the improvement is due to [whatever]."

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

George,

> How about a quick visit to my place? <

You bet! Pick an upcoming weekend and let me know which.

> I would like you to hear the new steup. <

Great. Likewise, next time you're in my neighborhood let me know. I finally retired those lame old McIntosh speakers and got something decent. Not quite as wonderful as the big JBLs in my studio, but decent none the less.

> We can easily run A/B or blind tests with the transport and the preamp. <

Now you're speaking my language. And if it turns out there really is a difference, I'll be most interested in getting to the bottom of why.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

John,

> if I am sitting in a symphony, my ears can hear many of the instruments individually ... You have NO measurment tool that is sensitive enough to do the same. <

I think what you're saying is there are subtle things that, for example, let you isolate one instrument and hear it separately. And you know of no audio parameter (distortion, etc) that corresponds to hearing one musician out of many. And by extension, some of the things these "tweak" products do may be similarly subtle. So you conclude that it's possible for iso cones or expensive wire or whatever to have similar subtle effects that can't be measured yet are audible.

If my interpretation of your position is correct, here's what I see as the failure of that logic:

Placement and imaging and the like are directly affected by level and phase difference between the two ears/channels. They are also affected by comb filtering and early reflections, and all of these can be measured to very small amounts. It may not be easy, or even possible, to attach an oscilloscope to a CD player and "see" that the loudest player in the violin section is sitting next to the concert master. But it is very easy to play test tones or other signals and measure the exact same information.

So if an iso cone really does affect subtle differences between the channels that affect imaging, that can still be measured with controlled signals, if not complex music as the source.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Steve,

> Our postings have been about testing and accuracy. <

I thought you said you dispute the value of blind testing, no? Your earlier post about "distractions" was offered as proof that even double blind tests are not reliable. I then pointed out the difference between proving a positive and proving a negative, which makes all the difference. In this case, it's up to those who claim they can hear an improvement with spikes or whatever to prove it. That is, if they want to show they can hear a change, it's in their interest to remain focused.

So now where are we with this?

BTW, thanks for your other comment about my article.

--Ethan

[John Casler]

John,

> if I am sitting in a symphony, my ears can hear many of the instruments individually ... You have NO measurment tool that is sensitive enough to do the same. <

I think what you're saying is there are subtle things that, for example, let you isolate one instrument and hear it separately. And you know of no audio parameter (distortion, etc) that corresponds to hearing one musician out of many. And by extension, some of the things these "tweak" products do may be similarly subtle. So you conclude that it's possible for iso cones or expensive wire or whatever to have similar subtle effects that can't be measured yet are audible....

Hi Ethan,

I am not sure why you keep refering any of my recent comments to cones.  I have not anywhere in this thread said I subscribe to them on components other than speakers and that was entirely seperate to your "can measure all" claim that I responded to.

I make "NO" claims about cones on electronic components or wires.

My recent comments were "only" about the ability to "measure" everything we can hear, which cannot be done.

I can hear things that cannot be measured.  We all can.

That's why I tried to "back out", since the thread was moving "off topic" and you were responding to "several" issues that were getting "interwoven" and confused.

Some day we can discuss the "every thing you hear can be measured" concept, in another thread.

[Ethan Winer]

John,

> I make "NO" claims about cones on electronic components or wires. <

Fair enough - let's keep it to cones under speakers.

What do you think is affected other than frequency response due to the differing wave paths I described earlier? More to the point, what do you think is affected that can be heard but not measured?

John, I'm not trying to be combative! I just figured if we've taken it this far, maybe there's still hope one of us will convince the other of something. Anything!

--Ethan

[John Casler]

John,

> I make "NO" claims about cones on electronic components or wires. <

Fair enough - let's keep it to cones under speakers.

What do you think is affected other than frequency response due to the differing wave paths I described earlier? More to the point, what do you think is affected that can be heard but not measured?

--Ethan

Good question.

But I have to again clarify something.

I "personally" don't use spikes or cones under my speakers, I "mass load" them, so you have several different things at play.

All loudspeakers are subject to the reactive forces of their larger drivers.

Of these reactions there are 2  main types

1) Movement in reactive sympathy to the active movement of the driver

2) Movement from the internal pressure variations caused by the drivers

Both of these can potentially release vibrations that can cause sonic degradation, or reduce the efficiency of the driver to turn the action into sound.

Number one means that as a wave is formed not all of its "energy" is translated into the movement of air.  Some efficiency is lost.  While it will certainly produce the "tone" due to the cycles per second being acheived, the rise time of the tone and to a degree the dynamic would seem to be affected.  This might mean that the instantaneous sound of a dynamic bass instrument, like a drum, might be softened.

Number two is the resonance of the cabinet that can actually be "heard" through the cabinet.  That is the cabinet becomes a trasmitter of the actual sound much like you can hear sound coming through the wall of the room.

Adding mass, and spiking a speaker, can help to "reduce" the affects of both of these vibration/resonances.

To what degree, and could they be measured would depend on many factors, such as the speakers original weight, the structure and quality of cabinet materials, strength of the drives, the type of speaker (i:e ported, sealed, etc), and many other factors.

The additional factor is that if the speaker is setting flat on a hard surface, the vibration of the cabinet can also affect the surface in such a way, that can cause that interaction to also release sound energy, that is not pleasant since it is not a speaker.  Example set a "vibrating" cell phone on a glass table and call the number.

Adding mass can also help to damp a portion of those reasonances and possibly some of the resulting sonic degradation.

Many times the perception of these "tweaks or adjustement" is simply a cleaner, more detailed sound from top to bottom.  Likely it doesn't really directly affect the low mass driver information, but cleaning up the bottom clarifies the top.

How would you measure the changes?  I haven't a clue since i don't due measurements, and the remedy might affect a couple different factors.

But even though two speaker drives can measure "exactly" the same in responses, (say the ability to play a 20Hz tone) they may not sound the same when in action.

My personal perception to speaker damping through adding mass (and I add a lot) is a tighter leaner sound to the speaker, particularly to the bass.

I have an idea for an experiment.  Take a speaker and have your partner hold it to the wall.  Play it loud and walk into the other room the speaker is held against.  Whatever sound you hear, is also being released into the room the speaker is in and likely at a good level.

Just an idea.

[Steve]

Steve,

> Our postings have been about testing and accuracy. <

>>I thought you said you dispute the value of blind testing, no?>>

Whoooops. That is what I meant, but with 9 total hours sleep the past two nights, what I said came out confusing.

So why did you link the spike player test to our discussion when it was clearly secondary, no actually at the bottom of the barrel?

>>"Your earlier post about "distractions" was offered as proof that even double blind tests are not reliable.">>

Actually you came to the conclusion that the reference sources, A and B, are unreliable. So even (and that is an if) the testing itself is reliable, an unreliable source results in a reliable conclusion. Interesting.

I could go on into greater depth on your comments, but as we have both mentioned, no progress is really being made, and no minds are going to be changed. I also have too much to do and not enough rest.

Maybe we can state, in a friendly way, that we agree that we disagree.

Hope you don't take this exchange personally. Life is more than audio. Love to buy you a beer if we ever meet.

Take care.  

[Kevin P]

Oh come on Ethan.   It's just like watching the movies.   It's called suspension of dis-belief.   Movies wouldn't be enjoyable without it.  

[Bingenito]

I "personally" don't use spikes or cones under my speakers, I "mass load" them, so you have several different things at play.

John can you please provide more detail on the mass loading. Are you slapping some 45 lb plates on the speakers?

Seriously what kind of weight are you using and can you recommend where they can be purchased because I would like to give it a try.

Thank you

Bryan

[Steve]

Hi John,

      Bound for Sound has an interesting article, issue #153, describing in part, the tatics some use. I highly recommend it.

Take care John.  
Steve

[ScottMayo]

I "personally" don't use spikes or cones under my speakers, I "mass load" them, so you have several different things at play.

John can you please provide more detail on the mass loading. Are you slapping some 45 lb plates on the speakers?

Seriously what kind of weight are you using and can you recommend where they can be purchased because I would like to give it a try.

Thank you

Bryan

Weight is weight. Wrap a nice big brick in coarse cloth and sit it on top of a small speaker, and the speaker will shake less. Encase it in a half ton of concrete and it won't shake at all. If it wasn't for material and shipping costs, I imagine most small and medium speakers would weigh more than they do.

Speakers that already weigh more than their owners generally wouldn't need help in this area. You've already paid for the bricks, in that case.  

Weight and cones solve slightly different problems. Cones won't always damp enclosure vibrations all that much, though for some geometries they may help. They mostly change how the speaker and what's under it interact. Weight changes the way the enclosure itself shakes, but also would affect (increase) coupling to the floor slightly - which might not be so great, depending on the floor. It's something you have to experiment with - the enclosure matters, how slippery the floor underneath is matters, how resonant the floor is matters, how loud you play matters.

Manufacturers have succeeded in making cone spikes sound mystic and cool, despite the fact that if you have a buddy with a wood lathe and some lead shot, he can spin out some perfectly functional spikes for nearly free. But not even an audiophile manufacturer can make a heavy lump of clay or stone be mystical, so if you go the "weight" route, you'll be forced to go to a lumber or hardware place and pay bottom dollar for a common, boring material that isn't even gold plated, cryogenically treated or time aligned. I'm not sure a true audiophile could bear the shame.    

Full disclosure - I don't use either. I try to stick to speakers where the manufacturer has already considered this issue, and built accordingly. But if I had bookshelf speakers, I'd load them down.