The NSA comment was tongue-in-cheek, silly goose. As for me criticizing you? .
Sure. No. I'm a really big fan of yours.
The NSA comment was tongue-in-cheek, silly goose. As for me criticizing you? .
stehno said:IOW, I agree that any type of mechanical conduit has the potential for 2-way traffic just like an electrical wire has 2-way potential. Hopefully, I didn't imply there's a traffic cop prohibiting mechanical energy from going in alternate directions. To the best of my knowledge the energy is simply travelling away from its source and down toward the floor as it travels further from the source. Which to me seems natural enough.
IOW, I suspect the sensitive component attracting unwanted energy just like a lightning rod now becomes the new source of mechanical energy and starts its travel from there which implies heading south in my case. And like the lightning rod attracting unwanted energy there's little I can do to prevent the capture of ALL sources of mechanical energy at the component. But there's much I can do to redirect it once captured. Which is the entire purpose of the lightning rod's grounding wire or in the component's case, the rack. Anyway, that's my take.
The wire will have 2-way potential, but in case of DC that same wire is strictly 1-way, + towards -, no way back, laws of nature. For vibrations, there isn’t a cop just because you may have implied that, there is a cop when laws of nature put one there: that cop is called impedance mismatch at the interface, laws of nature, once again.
Mechanical energy such as vibration chooses the road with the least resistance, until it comes to an interface of two bodies and there laws of nature determine, in this case acoustic impedances of the two bodies, where the least resistance will be, further down the road or back to where you came from. There is nothing natural such as movement from source to ground just because it looks intuitively good, with impedance mismatch you will get reflection, not only transmission. Your best of knowledge clearly is not up to date.
In you case, did you ask yourself why the vibration energy does not simply transmits into air instead of making the journey via the rack structure towards the ground? IOW, why can’t you simply redirect that energy towards the air, directly from the housing of the component? Air, there’s plenty of it, air comes for free, no sophisticated and costly rack designs and hours in the workshop with expensive CNC machines needed? The answer is simple: the impedance of e.g. aluminium is about 40,000 times greater than that of air, so you will get 100% reflection and no transmission at all, so vibrations are trapped. You can’t bend laws of nature, not even for audiophile purposes!
Klaus
stehno said:As for its behavior when encountering an interface, there are various means of creating an interface as well as various qualities, both inferior and superior. If I settled for a half-assed or token interface, perhaps like the ones you read in your science textbooks, I would agree. But in my book I intentionally create superior and extreme interfaces and as a result, there is something quite natural about energy seeking to travel away from its source interface after interface.
As for bending laws of physics or nature, you've already done so numerous times in your comments and suggestions here and elsewhere pertaining to my design and I can prove it with a working model. You on the other hand, without a working model, are unable to prove any of your comments here and elsewhere, at least pertaining to the principles I apply and adhere to.
In physics an interface is the boundary between two spatial regions occupied by different matter, or by matter in different physical states: room air - room wall, component housing - shelf of audio rack.
There is no such thing like a natural tendency for energy to travel away from its source across interfaces. If this was the case, then there would be no room modes, no early reflections, no reverberation, to give just one example.
Oh yes, please think twice before sending posts which contain merely ad hominem stuff, doesn’t do your credibility much good.
There's a discussion going on over on ASR where someone who does vibration analysis for a living is measuring the differences in speaker movement with various types of mounting - rigid vs compliant.
Don what's ASR and where can I see the findings? I'm interested
Thanks,
ASR is Audio Science Review.
After a few pages of discussion, the measurements start here:
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-shape-material-of-speaker-footers-impact-their-effectivness.1477/page-5#post-39365
I'm never really sure why some people insist that they are absolute masters on any part of this.
Thanks Tao. My thoughts exactly.
No-one has a monopoly on wisdom.
PeterA said:However, can you explain what is happening when someone steps in front of an audio rack (containing audio gear and a turntable on the top shelf) causing the stylus to skip in the groove?
What about a loudspeaker causing vibrations in a floor, either through cabinet vibrations or airborne vibrations, which travel up to the stylus and then cause acoustical feedback or airwaves hitting the rack, turntable and cartridge directly and causing feedback.
The analysis has shown that the acoustic radiation from the vibrating loudspeaker enclosure affects the overall radiation characteristics of the loudspeaker. The effects of enclosure radiation manifest themselves primarily at the cabinet resonance frequencies between 100 and 300 Hz.
Two types of loudspeakers were investigated: a standard production NHT model 2.9 and an NHT model 2.9 with no internal braces. Around 200 Hz the pressure radiated from the enclosures interferes destructively with the pressure radiated from the drivers. The production loudspeaker exhibits driver and cabinet radiation that constructively interferes at 300 Hz. At this frequency the unbraced loudspeaker exhibits much smaller radiated pressure perturbations induced by the cabinet’s vibration. The choice of bracing location has increased the radiation efficiency of the cabinet at this frequency so much that despite the lower cabinet velocity, the more rigidly braced production cabinet radiates more sound toward the listener.
In the case of my class A Pass Labs amplifiers, the transformers vibrate and I can sense that energy effecting the component casework and the heat energy certainly travels through the heat sinks making them hot and then into the surrounding air, making it rather warm - a distinct issue in the summer months in New England. Are my amplifiers not also an example of energy tending to travel across interfaces and boundaries, both in the form of heat and vibration ?
Don't hold your breath Klaus. Stehno keeps talking about a "working model" and to the best of my knowledge despite several requests on my part, has refused to post a picture of that model. But apparently he can prove you are wrong (bending laws of physics or nature) with said working model. Perhaps we have another example of a man who is a "legend in his own mind".
And as a former teacher, there is no such thing as a "silly" or stupid question. To say so is clearly condescending and arrogant.
Peace.
stehno said:A working model that not only disproves but stomps all over and crushes most anything Klaus reguritates from his imagination, Mr. Google, or his dusty science books.
Of course you do realize that Klaus freely admits that all cables sound the same...
... that he cannot interpret what he hears ...
... and uses stock cables and "pro" gear (Crown I think) in his high-end playback system ...
In order to disprove something one needs to provide proof. Sofar I haven't seen the slightest shred of the kind that actually PROVES that your working model words as claimed. As far as laws of nature are concerned, these are as old as nature itself, so dusty they are, I'll give you that, but valid and applied nevertheless, you like it or not. You cannot argue against laws of nature.
I don't admit anything of the kind, all I say is that so far I have not seen any proof that cables sound different.
PeterA said:I don't know if one could conclude that the cables sound different simply because some aspect of their electrical behavior looks different in a reading of their measurements, but when combined with actual listening tests, I think it can make for a pretty convincing argument that these particular cables sounded different from each other.
The question here was: given that certain differences among products are clearly audible, to what extent are listeners' opinions altered when they are aware of the products being listened to?
Overall, though, it was clear that the psychological factor of simply revealing the identities of the products altered the preference ratings by amounts that were comparable with any physical factor examined in these tests, including the differences between the products themselves. That an effect of this kind should be observed is not remarkable, nor is it unexpected.
What is surprising is that the effect is so strong, and that it applies about equally to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Since all of this is independent of the sounds arriving at the listeners' ears, we are led to conclude that, under some circumstances, believing is hearing!
PeterA said:I think you might have found going on that tour with me and talking to A. J. about differences in cables very interesting.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |