Call me crazy but they (magic dots) work!

[Ethan Winer]

Yet the Aerius, in my book, was and is a very good sounding speaker.

This is a great point. There's accurate and there's good sounding, and the two are not necessarily the same. Recording engineers routinely tweak the "frequency response" of instruments by applying EQ to make them sound better than was captured by the microphones. Likewise, a loudspeaker could be made "better" sounding by diddling the response. Personally I'd rather have more accuracy, because a skewed response that flatters one recording may make another sound worse. So with flat speakers at least you get as close as possible to the mix engineer's intent.

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.

Ah yes. I was saying that bass trapping below 60 Hz is less important than at higher frequencies. If a movie explosion booms a little louder or longer, it's not as audibly damaging as peaks and nulls and ringing at higher bass frequencies. The "speaking" range for bass instruments is more like 100 to 500 Hz.

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.

Exactly.

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

Yes, but your perception one day might be very different the next day. Perception varies moment by moment, where test gear is highly repeatable. I don't see why loudspeaker frequency response can't be mapped to your preferences either. Everyone reacts favorably to a boost in the fullness range around 100 Hz, and likewise prefer a cut in the harshness range around 3 KHz. Mastering engineers routinely cut harsh frequencies to make a recording sound better and less irritating.

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?

I had that same thought yesterday after I posted, and I planned to bring it up today if you hadn't first. A window barely moves at all near the edges, so that's the least likely place to apply a "damping" product.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

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.

Actually, you're both right. Measuring the glass directly would give higher resolution, so if any change at the glass is "down in the noise" you could stop there and conclude there's no change in the room either. But you're correct that what really matters is at the listener's ears, or in this case at the measuring microphone.

--Ethan

 

[jtwrace]

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.

Yep! No doubt. Then why place your palm in the middle of the pane.....

 

[User211]

JTW: because using the hand tap tests I mentioned earlier it appears to be the point of max. damping.

Ethan - you avoided my question about ESLs... what are your thoughts?

 

[JMAUSGP]

When I first started reading this thread, I thought I would inject some levity. But it became clear that after just a couple pages that people were taking this thread way too personal. So instead of working in a level of levity so to speak, I thought I would pose a couple questions for both camps.

On Ethan’s side the point of view is that if science can not measure a difference before or after then their can not be a difference. And on Gordon’s side there is the view that not everything can be measured by science and even if it could, if I hear a difference, then there is a difference.

The problem comes with the fact that when it comes to human perception, you are both right. Ethan’s side tends to perceive the world through a logical scientific filter. But unfortunately science is not complete yet. If it were and we could explain anything that we can measure then I would be really interested if Ethan could explain Gravity and yes there would be a Noble prize in it if you could.

Also if science could explain why one person perceives a Ferrari to be beautiful and another person perceives it to be down right ugly. They both look at the same object, in the same light, from the same angle, for the same length of time at the exact same time, from the same distance; they even have the same tested vision score, and the same color eyes. In fact everything we can measure is the same and yet each comes away with not just a different perception but an exact extreme polar opposite conclusion. Is one right and one wrong? You bet, the Ferrari IS beautiful. Crap I shouldn’t have said that, but it IS really it is. And any one that perceives differently is wrong…or right…and where do the undecided people fit in the perception equation? How can you look at a Ferrari and not care either way. You know this is pointless exercise, oh yeah that is the point!:music:

Maybe you can see where this thread is going, maybe not. Whenever you place humans or any living organism for that matter into the scientific equation you are going to get both predictable and unpredictable results. If Gordon says he can hear a difference, all the science in the known world can not prove he does not. You see even science can not prove with 100% accuracy if a human is lying or not. Now as for Ethan’s side obviously all the science in the known world can not prove that Gordon can’t hear a difference if he says he does. Currently machines can only go so far or do so much and then the human organism adds a level of complexity and perception that transcends machines, at least for now. Both sides need to just relax and enjoy the victory that they are both right, because after all if you perceive you are right then you are.

Hey that was easy; I am off to solve world peace. Peace out!


Now this will be interesting, let's congratulate the winners!:devil:

 

[Bernard]

Now this will be interesting, let's congratulate the winners!:devil:

Good post. YOU are the winner :bowdown:

 

[User211]

If Gordon says he can hear a difference, all the science in the known world can not prove he does not.

Of course it can! Ethan's blind listening test - 10 times with the dots on, 10 times with the dots off. Can Gordon correctly identify when they are on or off, given that he is not told?

I think I differ from Ethan a bit in that I choose to believe Gordon (or at least give him the benefit of the doubt), but I understand Ethan's arguments. Without proof either way, this thread will always be inconclusive.

Anyway, I have posted way to much on this thread recently. Time to shut up - unless provoked!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan - you avoided my question about ESLs... what are your thoughts?

I have no easy opportunity to hear them, especially in a good room, otherwise I would. I've listened seriously to flat panel speakers only twice, once many years ago (like 1980s) and again about two years ago. I don't recall what brand it was in my 80s audition, but I recall the hi-fi store had a really powerful amplifier and even with the volume knob at 80 percent the sound was too soft and very thin. So I never followed flat panels further, though I understand modern designs are much better.

The second time I heard a flat panel was at a customer's in Queens, NY. The speaker dealer was there and we've since become friends. This guy is the US distributor for Analysis Audio. Those are flat panel but magnetic, not electrostatic. They sounded really good! And changed my previous opinion of flat panels generally.

Understand that my background is in professional recording, so I've always had the same kind of speakers you find in recording studios. If you know of anyone in my area who has ESLs, and a decent room so I can hear what the speakers really sound like, I'd love the chance to hear them.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I would be really interested if Ethan could explain Gravity and yes there would be a Noble prize in it if you could.

There's no need to explain gravity because it is readily observed, and nobody disputes that it exists. You don't need a blind test to prove that falling off a tall ladder is dangerous to your health.

if science could explain why one person perceives a Ferrari to be beautiful and another person perceives it to be down right ugly.

That is a totally different issue from what we're talking about. If someone prefers a room having window resonance and someone else prefers no resonance, that's personal choice - taste - and nobody can argue. But this thread is about whether sticking tiny dots on the window actually changes the sound.

If Gordon says he can hear a difference, all the science in the known world can not prove he does not.

Agreed fully. But could Gordon tell the difference in a blind test? That is the real question, and it wouldn't be difficult to set up such a test. Likewise for power cables and all other tweaks. Again, my point is none of this is unknowable.

--Ethan

 

[theWB]

But unfortunately science is not complete yet. If it were and we could explain anything that we can measure then I would be really interested if Ethan could explain Gravity and yes there would be a Noble prize in it if you could.

Somebody fell asleep in Science class.

It's called Newton's Law

If memory serves me correctly it has something to do with the size of our planet the speed at which it revolves and the speed and size of the path our planet revolves around the sun. I think there is even a mathmatical formula for it.

 

[MiTT]

Somebody fell asleep in Science class.

It's called Newton's Law

If memory serves me correctly it has something to do with the size of our planet the speed at which it revolves and the speed and size of the path our planet revolves around the sun. I think there is even a mathmatical formula for it.

I actually heard something about this on NPR the other day Wayne. The story I heard (and I'm paraphasing here so don't try using this in a game of Trivial Pursuit), was that as we've learned more about quantum physics scientists now believe that Newton was pretty far off base. That gravity would actually become less of a force as the planets have started slowing down over time or something, but that our gravity is actually increasing (they have measured it), that they can't yet explain why it is increasing (contrary to the widely held beliefs), but that the latest theory's had to due with the influence of other physical, but not observable dimensions - like way out there 7th dimension, 8th dimension type stuff.

I know it sounds wacky as all get out and I'm certainly not explaining it very well. Did anyone else catch this story on NPR? At any rate, it supports some of the same rationale as what Rich and Amey were aluding to - we don't know everything, and continue to learn more all the time.

 

[Bernard]

If memory serves me correctly it has something to do with the size of our planet the speed at which it revolves and the speed and size of the path our planet revolves around the sun. I think there is even a mathmatical formula for it.

Guess I fell asleep too. I always thought it had something to do with an apple falling on someone's head. Or was that William Tell ?

 

[theWB]

but that our gravity is actually increasing (they have measured it),

That would explain my recent weight gain.

Guess I fell asleep too. I always thought it had something to do with an apple falling on someone's head. Or was that William Tell ?

We must have had the same teacher, thats how I was taught Sir Issac Newton started to think about gravity.

 

[JMAUSGP]

This thread cracks me up.

So when exactly did Gravity get explained by Science? I missed that particular event. I tried Googling it a few minutes ago and it was still in a controversial un-expained state as of a few minutes ago. But maybe there has been a tear in the fabric of the time and space continuum and this textual conversation is happening in the future and the past at the same moment in time. When I took a Physics class back in the 70s, yes gravity was observable, but according to my Physics professor at the time science did not fully understand all aspects of gravity. Something about incomplete formulas and Einstein or some such nonsense. However, I understood one component pretty well , illustrated by the fact that when I fell asleep in the back of the class while leaning my chair back against the wall in the last row and the teacher would kick the leg of my chair out, I hit the ground really hard with exactly the same force each time. Number one Law of Gravity.... Gravity is a bitch. I learned that on the first day. But is gravity a wave, a force, a frequency, large fat lady...... an attraction...okay there goes the fat lady explanation.

And Ethan you are ignoring the most important question is the Ferrari beautiful or not?

 

[Bernard]

But is gravity a wave, a force, a frequency, large fat lady...... an attraction...okay there goes the fat lady explanation.

If that fat lady starts to sing, it's all over ! Gravity will fail.

 

[User211]

And Ethan you are ignoring the most important question is the Ferrari beautiful or not?

For reference - a view I hadn't posted on the Top Gear thread.

Dammit I lied and have posted again! Slap! This site is addictive!

 

[twich54]

If that fat lady starts to sing, it's all over !

Say what ????? Did the Phillies win another World Series !!!!

 

[JMAUSGP]

There is actually more to Isaac Newton's story than just an apple falling. You see if you go back and read his brother's biography Sir Fig Newton. Isaac was asleep under a tree and got hit by and apple that he thought had fallen but actually his brother Fig admits that he was working on a cookie recipe and he was tossing out the bad apples and he accidently hit his smart ass sleeping brother in the head. He never admitted it and Isaac actually discovered gravity totally by accident. Of courfse you wouldn't think that an apple falling out of the tree could break your nose like that, but Isaac percieved that his brother loved him and besides if he gave him to much grief Fig, wouldn't let him have any cookies.

 

[Bernard]

but actually his brother Fig admits that he was working on a cookie recipe and he was tossing out the bad apples

ROFLMAO :ROFL:

BUT...he was using apples to make fig newton's ??

 

[Ethan Winer]

And Ethan you are ignoring the most important question is the Ferrari beautiful or not?

I'm not much of a car person, or particularly visually oriented. Sure, a Ferrari looks cool and I'd love to have one. But I'd never spend that kind of cash on a car unless I had Donald Trump's money. Hell, I still drive a '93 Camry. It's pushing 215,000 miles and still rides like the day I bought it. I should probably wash it one of these years though.

--Ethan