Priorities

avahifi · « **on:** 2 Apr 2009, 02:49 pm »

There is an interesting set of priorities exhibited by the members of AudioCircle.

A few days ago I posted a long, detailed, and objective explanation of the relationship between input sensitivity, gain, power, and feedback in a power amplifier to answer a user's question in "The Lab". So far it has had all of 200+ views.

Meanwhile, a thread regarding Alan Maher's Power Enhancer has had over 54,000 hits over the past few months.

It makes one wonder what is important, or am I just way off base?

Frank Van Alstine

DustyC · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 03:21 pm »

I can easy imagine being at a audiophile club and trying to discuss the topic you mention, only to receive yawns. However, mention a cool new audio dingdong that you heard, and you're the center of attention.
The more wacked out the product, the more interest among audiophiles. The magic room acoustic fixer uppers are my favorite example. Sure, spending money on proven methods of room treatment are expensive, and involve getting the wife's approval. Better to hang a dodad in the corner to tame bass response (audio mistletoe?) and claim to hear a difference. I imagine the 200 people who viewed your response also have read thru a significant portion of "audio basics". They wish to acquire knowledge, not trinkets.

Tone Depth · « **Reply #2 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 04:28 pm »

Hi Frank,

If you evaluate views per day, the power enhancer thread has had 96 views per day, and the amplifier characteristics thread has had 82 views per day. I don't know if that will make you feel any better, though.

It seems to me that many of the participants on AC are drawn to the "magician's smoke and mirrors" and are attracted to promises of improved performance by tweaks, and believe that the improvements they hear or think they hear are worth the expense. They will grasp any information they can to justify their beliefs.

There are others that are attracted by overbuilt and overpriced equipment, the "cost is no object" types seeking the ultimate performance.

A much smaller group of us want the best rational design, and the best performance possible for our dollars invested. Thank you for your work towards meeting our audio motivations.

markC · « **Reply #3 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 04:39 pm »

I visit the "magic box" thread and just end up shaking my head and wondering why? I guess I shouldn't say that, as it's only my opinion and I've never heard/experienced one. I'll bet I never will either.

charmerci · « **Reply #4 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 05:33 pm »

If YOU had named the Insight line, the POWER ENHANCER line, I'd think you'd get a LOT more hits. It's marketing baby, marketing!

(Well, that and most people are looking for magical, quick cures.)

ArthurDent · « **Reply #5 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 05:54 pm »

Good posts Frank, both this & the one in the Lab. Being at best an enthusiast, rather than audiophile, I'd agree at least in part with all prior posters. For technical data I rely on yourself, Jim, Dennis, Wayner, and many of the well known folks (too many to name all) here that generously share both their experience & knowledge in specific as well as general areas. I don't presume to understand it all, in fact I think I strained a few neurons reading the Lab post, but I was able to understand a fair bit of it, which will lead to another question in the near future.

That said, window shopping for a new piece of gear or do-dad, as opposed to trying to understand what's going on with the equipment we purchase/use are, I believe, two distinctly different processes. I haven't viewed the 'Power Enhancer' thread so can't speak to it's content, but might pose that many viewers may simply be curious as to what it does or doesn't accomplish. The name alone is enough to draw attention, who doesn't want something enhanced ? On the other hand, it takes a technical interest imo, as well as some real thinking to tackle the Lab topic of electrical/engineering issues addressing sensitivity, gain, ..... .

And some of it may simply be timing. Had I not seen this thread I wouldn't have noted the Lab thread. And if folks aren't posting additional questions or comments to keep the thread in view on the board it can get missed unless one goes looking for a specific topic. I think Tone Depth's notation of the views per day numbers speak more to the interest in technical topics than the gross numbers to date. Keep up the sharing, it is appreciated by many, even if our technical knowledge/expertise is not of a high level.

btw, what ever happened to all those sonic improvers nathanm came up with ? I thought you were going to be a distributor ?

JD

PS +1 charmerci - a matter of those looking for enhancement vs Insight

Brett Buck · « **Reply #6 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 05:59 pm »

Quote from: avahifi on 2 Apr 2009, 02:49 pm

There is an interesting set of priorities exhibited by the members of AudioCircle.

A few days ago I posted a long, detailed, and objective explanation of the relationship between input sensitivity, gain, power, and feedback in a power amplifier to answer a user's question in "The Lab". So far it has had all of 200+ views.

Meanwhile, a thread regarding Alan Maher's Power Enhancer has had over 54,000 hits over the past few months.

It makes one wonder what is important, or am I just way off base?

   I think your priorities are right, but surely we all (here) realize that the vast majority of the "audio" world is about shiny black boxes, magical parts, and blinking lights. The high-end audio world is dominated by insecure and (often) technically illiterate people. They are continually worried about someone having something "better" than they have, and will fall for the audio frauds that are as transparent as snake oil claims and Nigerian banking scams. In many cases they are genuinely convinced that it works, and if it makes them happy, I don't see the harm. Somebody makes a 10,000% profit on a magic power cord (which they may even genuinely believe is better), somebody gets the enjoyment of thinking they have the world's best power cord, so everybody is happy. Of course it drives anybody with engineering knowledge crazy because it's so obviously nonsensical, but it doesn't make any difference if that's as far as it goes.

  You know all this better than anyone - I knew about it but it was never more clearly stated than in the early years of Audio Basics.

   It's when it takes the next step that it becomes damaging - when the magic component enthusiasts start trying to pontificate to others about how they are stupid, deaf, or otherwise second-class citizens for not having the most magical components, and encouraging others to buy all this crap. Then the arguments start, even here (as we see every few weeks).

   I have been a top competitor/leader type in my other hobby (model airplanes) for a long time, and one thing I have learned from that is that many people are completely locked in to their preconceived notions and pet theories, and all the physics and engineering analysis, derivations, or proof - or even competitive results - will not shake them from their beliefs. One guy developed something new, technically clearly and unequivocally better, and was completely dominating competition for about 5 years. It wasn't even close, he won 5 National Championships in a row, a World championship (the Nationals wins are more difficult and more impressive, BTW), sometimes passing on rounds because he was so far ahead. During that time, 75% of the talk I heard was how great a flier he must be, because his equipment was so "substandard" - i.e. didn't comply with the tradional lore about what worked and what didn't*. Or that he was somehow cheating. They prefer fencepost wisdom to reality. Once someone gets an idea in their heads, it ain't changing no matter what.

   Near as I can tell, it's the same dynamic in all hobbies including this one. The only difference is the scale, audiophile money is 5 orders of magnitude more than model airplanes. So while it drives me absolutely crazy to see people flock to "crank" notions (audio or airplane) you pretty much have to expect that you aren't going to shake most people off their cult-like beliefs. I think it's still worth doing, because 10% or so *actually do pay attention* and they deserve the benefit of your knowledge, but just accept that many just won't (or really, can't) accept anything that contradicts their notions.

   Brett

* as further evidence, a few of us said "hey, Paul is kicking everybody's ass on a regular basis, let's look at what he is doing" and learned from it. While we didn't necessarily copy it, we learned from it and applied that knowledge to our own systems - and between the 4 of us have fought it out mostly amongst ourselves for the past 20 years! During which time the few of us that actually paid attention have more-or-less had the event to ourselves.

martyo · « **Reply #7 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 06:49 pm »

Quote

It's when it takes the next step that it becomes damaging - when the magic component enthusiasts start trying to pontificate to others about how they are stupid, deaf, or otherwise second-class citizens for not having the most magical components, and encouraging others to buy all this crap. Then the arguments start, even here (as we see every few weeks).

I agree, but unfortunately, I have watched this camp treat the other camp the same way on MANY occasions. It's a friggin stereo. This camp has it's dogma too. IMHO, there is more gray area than black and white, especially with something as subjective as music reproduction.

Please note that my whole front end is AVA......

TomW16 · « **Reply #8 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 07:32 pm »

Hi Frank,

I read your lab posting with great interest. I think it comes down to someone having an interest in learning about why things work as opposed to just experiencing them.

Due to a limited budget, I was/am forced into learning about what makes great sounding audio equipment great so that I spend my money wisely and build things myself when it makes financial sense. As you mentioned, everything is a compromise so it is important to know where the compromises are.

As an example, I use a passive preamp, which doesn't work in every system. If, however, you know the preamp's limitations (passes all drive capabilities to source components, has no gain capabilities, and doesn't limit out of band garbage, etc.) and work around the limitations, it can be as good or better than an active preamp. Of course, if you don't know the compromises your luck in matching component impedances could lead to very bad sound.

I am fortunate that I like to learn how things work and like to build things but I can rationalize how someone could come to the conclusion that time is money and it makes more sense to simply buy what they like and not worry about why it is better.

I am very grateful to people like you who share your knowledge so that people like me can make informed decisions.

Thanks.
Tom

Dan Kolton · « **Reply #9 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 07:44 pm »

How about a link to Frank's Lab posting. I'm probably blind, 'cause I can't seem to find it.

rlee8394 · « **Reply #10 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 07:56 pm »

Here you go:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=66615.0

Brett Buck · « **Reply #11 on:** 2 Apr 2009, 09:32 pm »

Quote from: martyo on 2 Apr 2009, 06:49 pm

I agree, but unfortunately, I have watched this camp treat the other camp the same way on MANY occasions. It's a friggin stereo. This camp has it's dogma too. IMHO, there is more gray area than black and white, especially with something as subjective as music reproduction.

Not really, when it comes to many of the topics discussed here, isn't subjective. Engineering is engineering, and there is no engineering reason that, say, an 8 gauge power cord is any different from a 18 gauge power cord as far as music reproduction is concerned. People who think otherwise are falling into the (very obvious) trap.

I am glad you said "reproduction" because reproduction actually means something very specific. You (the generic "you" of course, not you personally) may *like* the sound you get from magic caps, but "like" is indeed subjective, where as "reproduce" is not. If we were talking about a performance of Mahler's 1st, some may like Slotkin and others Bernstein, but if a 100 mfd cap gives a flatter response than a 50 mfd cap, that's not debatable. Frank's job is much closer to the latter than the former.

Note that my other hobby is also subjectively judged. But that doesn't mean that there aren't either objective standards, or objective engineering "better" or "worse" involved in it.

Brett

Rocket · « **Reply #12 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 10:54 am »

Hi Frank,

I've never read the 'Alan Maher's Power Enhancer' thread, however, I read you posts all the time.

In the future I just have to buy a Van Alstine amplifier and get it shipped to Australia.

Regards

Rod

Audiovista · « **Reply #13 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 11:49 am »

I just read the Lab post and.... beautiful - concise, correct, to the point and... loved the post scriptum

Thanks for taking time to write it Frank. You should consider moving it to your circle and make a sticky. I would welcome it to the Industry Talk Circle as well.

Boris

sts9fan · « **Reply #14 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 12:05 pm »

IMHO the issue is that some people/audiophiles don't care how things work. I am not saying this as a negative just a fact. Most people don't care how the boombox makes music. This is also true of audiophiles. This results in people who are looking for the best sound but don't know much about the workings of the products they buy. This leads to magic power enhancers that:

"After installation is complete, allow the Power Enhancer 7 to 10 days to properly set up on the circuit. During the first several days you will experience a roller coaster effect of harmonic swings if properly installed. At times you will experience bass bloat, no bass, exaggerated highs, no highs, and then finally everything snaps back together to reveal a neutral and dynamic sound quality. Usually around day 5 the system snaps back together and continues to refine over the next few days."

Maybe I don't understand but isn't that electricity moving close to the speed of light? Whats the holdup?

I just think people what to believe. You see the people on here with their systems in their sigs that have 47 tweeks to go with there systems. Listing FUSES and magic sound generators.

If you don't understand at least a little of the science you will go for anything. The smartest part of all these product is the "break in time" I am not saying I 100% don't believe in break in but for these things it allows the brain to make the subtle changes that were claimed.

Kris

Anji12305 · « **Reply #15 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 12:23 pm »

We pay goal scorers more than defensemen.

Highlight reels show homeruns, rather than base hits.

The average audiophool will eventually spend the equivalent of well-engineered, functioning kit on gilded paperweights.

Perhaps it's a combination of cynicism and overconfidence?

Me, I'm old enough to pay for (and take) advice.

Among my people, being considered a chump is like losing your citizenship. - Sky Masterson

Imperial · « **Reply #16 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 12:58 pm »

Yes, very good post Mr Alstine!
Even "Cat" Stevens has made a -15db pre-amp these days, finally... (no more noise issues..)
This is an important issue indeed.

I've been going on about this for years on Norwegian forums, I started out alone doing it, but it is
catching on now, finally or the last 2-3 years I believe.

So it isn't just on AudioCircle that one needs to talk about this, it's all over the place I think.

It makes perfect sense you know, amplifying the voltage gain in a separate location, such as the pre-amp
and then allowing the poweramp to take that signal and transform it into driving current.

I suppose the Quicksilver Horn Mono is a great example of this style. When Stereophile reviewed that one they
were in aw at how powerfull it seemed, for it's rather paltry rating none the less!
Requiring something like 9 Volts volts input to work at maximum.
And it measured insanely well also! And porked out over 5 amps of current!!! Impressive for a 25w tube amp!

Imperial

dB Cooper · « **Reply #17 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 01:02 pm »

And you have to accept the fact that, for some people at least, it is not about the music as much as it is about impressing their friends/acquaintances with how much they spent on their systems. Exotic 'tweaks' are a great way to up the dollar figure in the sentence "I spent _____$ on my system" (although it is even better if you imply great expense rather than blatantly put it out there, kind of a way of 'leaving the price tag on'.)

As an example of skewed priorities, I was once at a home where there was a system consisting of a pair of B&W 801's along with hi-dollar tube setup (C-J or A-R, forget which.) The 801s were placed in front of an all-glass wall with a sliding patio door in it. I didn't get to listen to the system but I bet it sounded... glassy. There was an adjacent brick wall that would have served (ie, turn the system layout 90 degrees). The glass wall would probably still have been a problem, but possibly less so not being directly behind the speakers.

Looking at system pictures posted here, I have seen the same thing countless times... megabuck systems with component boxes piled high, in front of picture windows, sliding doors, or other room acoustic horror-case scenarios. Spending a few bucks less on the gear and a few bucks more on the room (for example, hanging some curtains in front of the glass wall instead of spending $$$$ on tow-rope speaker cables) would probably yield a more musical result, but again, that isn't what it's about for many audiophiles, lip service to the contrary.

Wow, a "harmonic roller coaster"... Just what the doctor ordered

avahifi · « **Reply #18 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 02:13 pm »

For your information, the first thing I did was spend $1500 transferring my suburban "echo box" 20 x 14 rec room into a usable sound lab when I moved to Woodbury. $750 worth of 1" thick Sonex on the ceiling, $750 worth of acoustic fabric on the walls. That $1500 was worth a jillion times as much spent on magic fire hose speaker cables, weird woven interconnects, expensive lumps in the cables, itty bitty wall dingle-ling thingies, bits of tiny scaffolding to hold the cables off the ground, gonzo fittings, and such.

None of the audiophake stuff, nor absolutely great and well engineered audio components themselves would have created a decent listening experience without step one. And step one cost less than almost everything else afterwards.

Can anyone dispute this?

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

mfsoa · « **Reply #19 on:** 3 Apr 2009, 02:59 pm »

Now, if you made 12 versions of each amplifier, and they had to be plugged into just the right outlet in just the right order at just the right distance from the rest of your gear, or else you'd be missing 98% of what your gear was capable of - You'd have a real winner on your hands.

No dispute about the room, that's for sure. I'd like to add that bracing of suspended wood floors can also have a stunning impact on the sound, not just in the bass but all the way up for some reason. Just as important as the room treatments in my case. (And the turntable will love you for it)

-Mike