Call me crazy but they (magic dots) work!

[Rich]

WE CAN'T because it is unknown! That's the whole point. Other things are going on, but WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE! It's only 2008!

I think this is the problem many of us have with Ethan's viewpoint. From what I gather in this thread, he provides no room for that which we do not know. He appears to subscribe to the belief that if we can't currently measure it, then it simply doesn't exist. I think that is a little too black & white for my tastes, and belies history. Too many times in the past, we have developed rigid ideas about the way things were, only to have those notions shattered as we gained more knowledge.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Rich,

It's pretty obvious to me that Mr. Winer trully believes he knows more than all us mere mortals; speaker, wire, amplifier manufacturers; and who knows what else.

Given his Titanic size ego, this should come as no surprise.

As I just said to Jeff in a PM, he trully represents everything that is abhorent to those who recognize that there are many things we don't know or understand (read measurements, etc.) and, despite claims to the contrary, epitomizes the elitist attitude that gives high end audio a very bad rap.

GG

 

[amey01]

Too many times in the past, we have developed rigid ideas about the way things were, only to have those notions shattered as we gained more knowledge.

It really wasn't so long ago that people were shot for being "insane" and suggesting the world was something other than flat!!

 

[Gordon Gray]

Yes Amey,

Your observations, related to this issue, are quite accurate.

Numerous other examples exist to validate the apparent anamoly.

Given the vast amount of posts of one individual to the contrary, I believe it is appropriate to question why this individual cannot understand and / or accept assertions that are not consistent with this individual's beliefs.

GG

 

[User211]

Perhaps. I've never tried those speakers so I honestly can't say. I do like the Mackies a lot though.

Say what? I'm sure if I changed speakers I would hear a very big change! All speakers sound different for the reasons I just explained above.

Not sure which comment you mean, and I don't have time to watch all 15 minutes now to find it. Please clarify.
--Ethan

Actually, for me at least, your last few posts have clarified what your viewpoint is very well - and very much for the better! Especially the comments on speaker frequency response and cables.

I once saw a frequency response for the Aerius on axis. Quite simply, it looked really bad with all sorts of break-up points towards the higher frequencies. But then, many other speakers f.r. plots look pretty awful too. Yet the Aerius, in my book, was and is a very good sounding speaker.

As for the 60Hz thing, I can't be bothered to watch the video again to lift the precise prose, but I think the essence of what you were saying was that what happens below it isn't that important. Maybe you didn't mean it to come across as I perceived it. But I think a good bottom end is pretty important.

Being an engineer, I have sympathy for Ethan's viewpoint. All we have is science to be objective about audio.

As you say - where are these other parameters that make audio so mystical? At the end of the day, it's all about moving air and how a particular room will react to it. And that ought to be and is measurable - at least, you would have thought so.

But given the measurements, and looking at a frequency response plot absolutely will not tell me how the speaker is going to sound. Or a room treatment. Nor a cable's or amplifier's measurements. I may get some clues, like whether it will sound bass light, but given the f.r. plot, if reasonably flat, I won't have a clue.

This is when ears and human perception inevitably creeps in, and things start to get very difficult indeed.

Anyway, Ethan, considering you are posting on an ESL forum, I urge you to try a pair. I believe they are markedly better than moving coil designs - there is no substitute for a near massless diaphragm - at least, a well designed an implemented one! To be honest, I am surprised your not using a good ESL - as an engineer of sorts, surely the design is obviously superior to you? Doesn't it appeal? If so, why not?

Anyway, we still need objective, measured data on the effect of those dots. We still haven't proved if there is a measurable difference or not. My gut feeling is there might well be. I know you disagree here.

One thing - I have just performed some tapping tests on a window pane. Unquestionably, the best damping is obtained by holding the palm in the centre of the pane. Why, therefore, would you want to place the dots in the corners?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hopefully Ron can provide insight on your last paragraph.

GG

 

[Bernard]

Why, therefore, would you want to place the dots in the corners?

So you don't block the view ?

This thread needed some levity !

 

[tonepub]

That's a good one!

 

[Gordon Gray]

You're a pretty funny guy Bernard.

GG

 

[User211]

So you don't block the view ?

This thread needed some levity !

That thought had occurred to me - how else do you sell the dots also occurred to me as well???!!!

I am also probably completely wrong about being able to "measure" the dots - but until someone actually tries it... and does it properly... we will never know.

 

[jtwrace]

Why, therefore, would you want to place the dots in the corners?

maybe to stop the resonance. Ron??

 

[User211]

maybe to stop the resonance. Ron??

Think you missed the point here. Go back and re-read?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Justin,

For the record and as you and the other members hopefully realize, I didn't start this thread to sell anybody anything. Alleged alien abduction aside, I was just sharing my observations.

I trust Ron's business is doing OK without additional sales.

I am amazed though, at the interest it has generated. The number of views and posts to date is quite astounding.

GG

 

[User211]

Gordon - I wasn't implying that you were in any way.

Anyway, yeah, Ethan is being really entertaining - hence the posts, I think!

Justin

 

[jtwrace]

Think you missed the point here. Go back and re-read?

Don't get what you are saying.

 

[User211]

Well, the whole point is that if you put your palm in the middle of the pane and tap it, you get the most damping i.e. the least apparent resonance. Therefore, surely that's where you really want the dots.

Go try it on a pane now - it's easy!

 

[jtwrace]

Well, the whole point is that if you put your palm in the middle of the pane and tap it, you get the most damping i.e. the least apparent resonance. Therefore, surely that's where you really want the dots.

Go try it on a pane now - it's easy!

Thanks captain obvious. Well, it would look horrible if you had dots in the middle of the pane. I would imagine the next best would be in the corner...it would all depend on the freq.

 

[Ethan Winer]

he provides no room for that which we do not know. He appears to subscribe to the belief that if we can't currently measure it, then it simply doesn't exist.

Yes, that is my view, based on 40+ years as a professional audio engineer. There's a lot new under the sun, but not in the field of audio. Besides, there are other, non-magical explanations for why we might think we heard a change after swapping out power cables, even when the sound really did not change.

As we skeptics say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The idea that there's some unknown audio parameter called tonality or whatever, but unrelated to frequency response, is indeed extraordinary.

WARNING - POTENTIALLY CONDESCENDING CONTENT AHEAD:

Whenever I have discussions like this, and it comes up often in hi-fi forums! - the believers are never educated in electronics. The sum total they know about audio is from reading magazines written by other non-EEs. And when I challenge them to provide evidence for their extraordinary claims they always say the same as you - that it's unknown so they have no answer. Yet they are adamant that they're right anyway.

As I explained a few posts back, I know a lot of EEs, and not one of them buys into any of these sort of tweak products, whether after-market power cords, or too-small magic dots, etc.

I also explained earlier in this thread that even if something is unknown, it can be easily detected in a null test. All you have to do is record (at high resolution) the output of your amplifier with a stock power cord, then record again with the replacement cord. Then bring both Wave files into an audio editor program. If the files can be nulled to total silence, that proves the power cord made no difference and it was entirely imagination or placebo effect etc. Likewise for magic dots. If you measure your room at high resolution with and without the dots in place, and there's no difference, that too proves the dots have no audible effect. The dots claim to damp resonance, and resonance is well known and easily measured, so there's no reason room measuring software would miss the reduced resonance. Guys, this is not rocket surgery!

Yet nobody here seems to have read or understood that. I'll be glad to explain more about null tests if anyone doesn't understand the concept.

--Ethan

 

[jtwrace]

The dots claim to damp resonance, and resonance is well known and easily measured, so there's no reason room measuring software would miss the reduced resonance.
--Ethan

Ethan-

One could easily use an accelormeter(s) on the pane though and that would work for sure. I use them every day in many applications on a data system that can log easily at 1000Hz.

my thought is that this might actually be better then doing a test with REW. This way you are concentrated on the pane, therefore the resolution is better.

 

[User211]

Yet nobody here seems to have read or understood that. I'll be glad to explain more about null tests if anyone doesn't understand the concept.

--Ethan

Of course I and I hope most would understand that.

JTW: we're not trying to measure the resonance damping on the pane - that is undisputed. What we want to know is whether that resonance affects the relected sound waves enough to be measured by a microphone at the listener's position.