[avahifi]

You are correct of course, you need stiff walls and floors to keep the system from sounding like a boombox.  If the floor feels a bit like a trampoline as you walk across it, the sound system just is not going to work.  Old houses built over crawl spaces seem to the worse for this.

Me - concrete slab floor and two concrete block sidewalls, the other two interior walls are standard stick and pasterboard, but they are structural supports and are pretty solid.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

[TomW16]

The room is likely the largest contributor to good sound at home.  The best equipment in a poorly set up room will be surpassed by average equipment in a well set up room.

I am in the process of finishing my basement and the goal is a dedicated home theater / 2-channel listening environment.  I will treat the room as best as I can with acoustical treatments.  The studs are up and isolated with RSIC clips.  Electrical wiring is next on the agenda followed by a city inspection.  Keep your fingers crossed for me; for the inspection that is...not the electrical work 

Cheers,
Tom

[Anji12305]

http://www.atsacoustics.com/

Cheapest I could find, and already to go out of the box.
Putting these in the obvious places was like closing the doors in an opera house...

the outside world is suspended for the few minutes my kids let me listen to "Daddy's music".

That said, Ivo Papasov still sounds like Benny Goodman on crank.  (But in a good way.)

Jim Smith codified some of this in his "Get better sound" book, and it was surprisingly helpful.
SOME of what he mentions sounds like snake oil, but careful reading teased out useful bits that were cheap to implement.

[*Scotty*]

I think technical illiteracy is the foundation for the financial success of companies like Alan Maher's. People don't even ask for proof of how effective a device is that claims to reduce noise on the AC power supplied to their equipment. In many cases there is the unstated desire to not be confused by facts when they have already made up their mind about what is and is not real. Most devices claiming to lower noise on the AC power line should have a measurable effect,likewise any device that claims to alter the acoustics of a listening room should also be producing a measurable phenomena. A wise consumer would ask for proof of such claims when such proof is lacking especially when they know little about the technology involved.
Scotty

[Zheeeem]

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

Well, I dunno.  I never go to the Lab, and even if I did, I probably wouldn't have even found your post, since it was buried in somebody else's thread.  But, to be fair, not only did I not read your post, but I didn't read the Alan Maher Magic Power Enhancer post either.

I agree with your post about room treatments 100%.  I have just refurbished my listening room.  Previously it had 50 sf of 2" sonex look-alike on the walls in critical areas.  Having now stripped 4 layers of wallpaper and sanded and painted the walls to satiny-smooth perfection, I'm noodling what to do next.  Gluing up sonex is out, partly because of aesthetics and partly because it's a pain to remove.  I am poised to buy some 2" sheets of Owens-Corning 703 fiberboard cover it in a nice looking fabric, and strategically mount and frame them on the walls.  The floors are covered with a heavy room sized persian rug, and on top several (6 actually) smaller persian rugs - essentially a double layer.  (I have used rugs on the wall, too.  But find that unless I back them with heavy cotton batting they only tend to remove higher frequencies.  This changes the sound, sure, but doesn't necessarily improve it.)  The rugs and the overstuffed leather couch helps a lot, especially with a suspended wood floor.  I am not one to rush into room treatments, though.  I like to do things incrementally, listen, think about what the issues are, them implement a solution intended to solve a problem.

Actually, because my speakers are planar magnetic with ribbon tweeters, and are angled in to about a foot in front of my listening position, the typical problem of sidewall slap echoes isn't particularly bad.  It is a small room, and I'm almost nearfield, which does take a lot of the room out of play except for a general brightness.  Indeed a treated ceiling would probably be best, but is highly unlikely to receive spousal approval.

[charmerci]

The other thing to note is that when you're dealing with areas of nebulosity, it allows people to feel that maybe they have some insight (Ooop, sorry about that, Frank.) into an area where no one has tread before - that they feel that they can contribute. Whereas, when you make definitive statements about impedance, capacitance, etc., that's just information. All of us are here for the interaction and to voice our thoughts - and also to learn, of course. If we just want information, we can always find a book to read.

So you'll always get more hits when you talk about "magic" and other ethereal subjects - especially since most people don't like to learn things because of their primarily learning-at-school-is-such-a-drag experiences.

[*Scotty*]

charmerci,Has elucidated the difference between an opinion and an informed opinion.
The latter are in short supply.
Scotty

[Bill]

  I'm happy to see some technological merit in this thread. As I get older (and more cynical), my patience for perceived voodoo or snake-oil has diminished to a large degree. In fact, I seem to let my alter ego (more on that later) get the best of me on some postings where I have tried to point out the trappings of the subjective world of electronics. I used to believe all the underground magazines, the audio salon salespeople who championed the exotic boutique equipment and their inherent sonic superiority. And then I started to read Floyd Toole, Peter Aczel, Don Morrison and Mr. Van Alstine himself among others who offered a different perspective on what's important in our audio enjoyment.

  When I unleashed my alter ego on a Hag-tech thread about burn-in, I was almost lynched! A unit that speeds up burn-in time, caps that need 400 hours of burn-in time got the better of me to say the least. When dogma sets in amongst the disciples, it's hard to shake the belief system. Maybe I have no right to express contrary views to the brain-washed, but I feel an obligation to at least try to add a little objective criticism. I suppose it makes me a little upset to see people making money off questionable engineering practice.

   It would be great to see more of the technical side of things in the audio forums. Maybe it could start right here.

[gjs_cds]

I honestly think that part of the science vs. dogma debate is how simple the explanation is.  Second is if the message conforms to what they want to believe. 

People want something simple, parsimonious, and easy to believe.  Perfect example is that of my field--stuttering research.  Why do people stutter?  The cultural prejudice is to get sucked into the Fundamental Attribution Error and reply with, "Well that's a dumb question--they're nervous people."  The simplicity of the one-liner answer seems to appeal to people, for whatever reason.  Don't tell me the data, just give me a sound bite and let me move on.  Give them the data about the genetics and neurology of it, and they glaze over and say, "but it's really because they're nervous, right?"  (Happened to me countless occasions.)

People want to believe what they want to believe. 

Scientists and Empiricists love data and fear dogma.  Audiophiles love dogma and fear data.  To me, it's that simple.  We have more 'audiophiles' on the board...

[*Scotty*]

The bothersome thing I've noticed is that both "Scientists"/Empiricists and audiophiles want to ignore the Realist's viewpoint. By dealing with reality as it is observed a Scientific Realist comes into conflict with what the "Scientist"/Empiricist "knows" is true and what the Audiophile wishes were true, thus alienating both camps.
Scotty

[BrianM]

Of all the audiophile pet theories, I think the notion of "burn in" is the most inherently misleading. What may not be silly is to believe that any component in the chain, from cap to cable to cone, could have a break-in or stabilization period, and even a measurable one, before optimum functionality is reached. What definitely is silly, is to suppose that the length of break-in time can be detected merely by listening. Say you've just replaced ('upgraded') the caps in one of your boxes. We're supposed to believe, through all the variables one is subjected to in the act of listening to music, not only a) that you picked up the difference between the new caps and the former, without the benefit of an A/B (and maybe you have! it's quite believable), but also b) in the event that the caps, because they're not yet broken in, have in fact made your system sound temporarily worse, that you were not only able to safely ascertain at which point the new caps managed to equal the old ones, but when they surpassed them -- all based on your, by this point, undeniably uncertain memory of how your system sounded before? I doubt it.

In swapping any component, if you don't pick up a difference in the first few seconds or minutes of listening for better or worse, while there may well be some benefit that doesn't blossom till later on, you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to spot exactly when that is. Nobody's aural memory is that good.

[BrianM]

Take this chip swap that Frank Van Alstine has implemented, for instance.

He tried a different chip, got a better measurement, heard an immediate difference. What if you believe that that particular chip needs 100 hours of burn-in before you can hear how 'good' it 'sounds'. Then you're asking everyone to ignore not only the improved measurement absent the benefit of burn-in, but Frank's own ears as well, i.e., someone who's spent his entire adult life listening critically to the stuff he builds in blind tests and steadily improving it. So ignore that, and insist that the promised performance gains rely instead on your memory of how things sounded 100 hours ago.

[Wayner]

I was sent the first set of chips before the anouncment. The difference was detected in the first 3 notes. I agree 100% with you Brian, our audio memory is not that good. That is why even A/B tests are somewhat difficult. However, with the Insight+ chip change, the "change" was almost instant and successive listening sessions, confirmed the initial opinion.

Wayner 

[orthobiz]

Scientists and Empiricists love data and fear dogma.  Audiophiles love dogma and fear data.  To me, it's that simple.  We have more 'audiophiles' on the board...

What's weird is the dogma used to be "an electron is an electron." Take interconnects. I clearly remember being told about an interconnect that was better than other interconnects by someone I trusted who worked at Dahlquist, the year was probably 1979. They were expensive and I couldn't believe it could be true.

And when Monster Cable came out, it made sense empirically that a little bigger wire would have less resistance and might be better for the system. But looking at the interconnects of yesteryear, the audiophile ones hanging off the end of my Linn Sondek were the same as the bundle you get in any cheap VCR! And somehow we were happy.

Now the "dogma" as it were, has completely flipped. And somehow it's gospel that the interconnects make all the difference in the world. And going against it, well, the word anathema comes to mind! Burn in, cryo, giant cables...how did we get here?

Paul

[gjs_cds]

The bothersome thing I've noticed is that both "Scientists"/Empiricists and audiophiles want to ignore the Realist's viewpoint. By dealing with reality as it is observed a Scientific Realist comes into conflict with what the "Scientist"/Empiricist "knows" is true and what the Audiophile wishes were true, thus alienating both camps.
Scotty

Science is nothing more than a theory.  Science is a method of knowledge acquisition.  It's a method based on systematic empirical amoral observations to try and get us closer to reality.  Other methods of acquisitions include dogma, etc.  Need I explain further?

[rcag_ils]

My take on this topic is it's not about science vs snake oil, it's all about human psychology. I have a friend who has a doctorate degree in physics. He wrote numerous term papers and thesis in college, and while doing post academic research work. He's currently doing research work on natural crack (not drug) pattern development for predicting earthquake in a well known institution. Boy, does he know math and science.

He bought a tube amp because it's been said to sound better than solid state, he asked me one day if it would make his amp sound better by replacing the fuse.

[turkey]

My take on this topic is it's not about science vs snake oil, it's all about human psychology. I have a friend who has a doctorate degree in physics. He wrote numerous term papers and thesis in college, and while doing post academic research work. He's currently doing research work on natural crack (not drug) pattern development for predicting earthquake in a well known institution. Boy, does he know math and science.

He bought a tube amp because it's been said to sound better than solid state, he asked me one day if it would make his amp sound better by replacing the fuse.

That simply points out that expertise in one field does not automatically give you expertise in another field.

Now, if your friend had actually taken the trouble to learn electronics and engineering and _then_ asked you about audiophile fuses...

I have also noticed that people who expect very high standards of truth and accuracy in their own fields are often willing to put their trust in obvious charlatans in another field.

It's also interesting that your friend bought a toob amp because it's been said to sound better, and not because he tried it and found that it sounded better. I wonder if he'd buy into my theory that used condoms dropped on the ground are responsible for most modern earthquakes? (Only lubricated condoms have this effect BTW.)

[rajacat]

turkey,

Have you considered that your own expectations about the sound quality of tube gear may color your your own hearing when doing evaluations?

-Roy

[turkey]

turkey,

Have you considered that your own expectations about the sound quality of tube gear may color your your own hearing when doing evaluations?

-Roy

That would certainly be possible, except that not all of my evaluations were sighted. I heard colorations even when I didn't know that I was listening to tube gear.

Frank's tube and hybrid gear is much less objectionable than other tube stuff I've listened to, but I still prefer his SS gear. (I would also note that I have seen a number of people comment that they don't like AVA tube gear because it sounds "too much like SS.")

Given the existence of the Insight+ equipment, I don't see that tubes have anything at all to offer to me.

[rajacat]

Well....everybody has an opinion. If someone finds that, in general, SS gear sounds irritating, mechanical less like live music than tube gear then they certainly shouldn't purchase what they don't like just because some "expert" says what they like is wrong. Numbers don't tell all. Correct me it I'm wrong but I believe the recent AVA upgrade  replaced an op-amp with better specs for one (with poorer specs) that actually sounded better to real live listeners.

-Roy