Cafad Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 In the past there have been quite a number of threads where the stranger tweaks of the audio world have been discussed, and, most of the time, rubbished. Not by people who have tried them out and not liked them but by people who simply refuse to believe that they could work and who are happy to condemn them without trial. I find it very frustrating to see people in the current age of the internet trashing something when the information covering its operation is there waiting behind the google front page. So, if someone was interested in how a tweak might work then they should be able to find out using nothing except the very computer/tablet/phone that they access SNA with. After all, anyone capable of reading this has access to more information via the very device they are using than anyone before them could have even dreamed of. Literally thousands of encyclopedias worth of knowledge. It is human instinct to trash things we think are stupid, but what if those things are actually not stupid at all, what if there is a very real reason for their claimed effect? Would you want to know? If the answer is yes then this is the thread to come to. I encourage everyone out there who feels that they may understand how a particular tweak works to post it up here. This isn't a thread about judgement, it's a thread about curiosity and abstract ideas. I for one, want to know and I am acutely aware that the marketing hoopla written about some of these products are long on flowery exposition and very short indeed on anything that could be considered an actual explanation. Often fancy words like "quantum" are used but they don't really mean anything. Using the word "quantum" to explain something is a bit like using the word "pasta" to explain an Italian meal, the one word by itself just doesn't contain enough information. By the way folks, no promises as the accuracy of the posts and the ideas contained within. The very nature of many of these tweaks tends to make them difficult to explain. But if you're willing to try, then welcome to the thread. I'm going to kick things off with my theory covering the operation of Akiko Tuning Sticks. They have been mentioned in a few threads over the past year or so and I have to say I was pretty damn curious as to how they might work. I freely admit that I have never heard them so I can't make any claim on how effective they are but I do have a theory as to how they work. They only plug into the neutral side of the electronics (ie the outside of the RCA connectors and the ground of the power board) so my thought is that they are acting as a ground plane antenna. Check out the printed circuit board section of the link below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_plane Increasing the size of the ground plane reduces electrical noise, cross-talk and interference so it would seem to make sense that if you can increase it via an external add-on then you could effect the operation of an electronic device. Perhaps even effect it enough to produce an audible difference in its operation. Unfortunately I don't think this theory covers the tuning stick that you velcro to your ICs or speaker cables, that one has me stuffed. Still, two out of three is not a bad start, yes? Can anyone out there back me up or prove me wrong? 7
Guest Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Cafad said: After all, anyone capable of reading this has access to more information via the very device they are using than anyone before them could have even dreamed of. Correction, through the internet everyone has access to more misinformation, un-edited, un-fact-checked, un-moderated, ill-informed personal opinion, usually expressed with an ulterior motive. As a person with a 40+ year career in electroacoustics and a passion for high fidelity, I have witnessed the demise of *facts* on the internet. By facts, I mean "generally accepted *insert area of interest here* engineering principles" (thanks @rossb ), you know, those principles that when applied produce a result that was expected. The problem with 'voodoo science' is that the results are not predictable, but prey on the ill-informed and stem apparently from the marketing hype and/or ignorance of purveyor. It's ironic that the application of incredibly advanced technological principles which makes, for example, digital audio, work are the same principles that debunk high fidelity 'voodoo' tweaks. You can't have it both ways! Which is not to say that all phenomena of sound reproduction and the human ear/brain perception mechanism are fully understood. When they are, you can bet it won't be because of some internet voodoo explanation.
rossb Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 52 minutes ago, Cafad said: There's also the minor point that my profession falls under the realm of science. Engineering is a sub-set of applied science. Science is a process of observation, testing and discovery. Engineering is about applying those discoveries. Engineering and science are related but are not the same. 55 minutes ago, Cafad said: When an engineer starts a thread then they can call it whatever they like. This is part of the problem. I have lost count of the number of threads in which I have read someone say in effect "I'm an engineer and the only thing I know is inductance, capacitance and resistance and therefore nothing else exists, because it's science". If the internet had existed a century ago, every engineer in existence would have ridiculed Einstein and said: "I'm an engineer and we know Newton's laws have been proved a million times, so this relativity crap is just snake oil and voodoo science". That doesn't mean I'm defending the ridiculous marketing claims of cable manufacturers, for example. I'm just saying that, again, engineering and science overlap, but are not the same. 6
VanArn Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 Audio engineering covers an amalgam of disciplines :- electrical, electronics, acoustics, mathematics, physics (and others). Unfortunately the Hi Fi Industry and the Audiophile World readily adopts 'Old Wives Tales' as being factual and in so many cases the arguments for a phenomenon are by weight of agreement by believers rather than by proof of by way of a repeatable experiment. Listening tests are useful indicators but they should be conducted under controlled means where identical levels and instantaneous switching between components under review can be performed. 6
rossb Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, VanArn said: Audio engineering covers an amalgam of disciplines :- electrical, electronics, acoustics, mathematics, physics (and others). Unfortunately the Hi Fi Industry and the Audiophile World readily adopts 'Old Wives Tales' as being factual and in so many cases the arguments for a phenomenon are by weight of agreement by believers rather than by proof of by way of a repeatable experiment. Listening tests are useful indicators but they should be conducted under controlled means where identical levels and instantaneous switching between components under review can be performed. I agree with everything you say, except your final point. Double blind testing would be a useful way of establishing real differences. But "instantaneous switching between components" is not an effective double blind test for audio. This would test only gross differences which can be quickly detected. It does not identify subtle differences which can become noticeable over time but which can have a profound impact. Sometimes a big difference - eg the difference between two speakers - can be great in magnitude but not that important to musical enjoyment. Conversely, a small change - eg a change of DAC - can result in changes which are not immediately obvious on "instantaneous switching" but can become apparent over time as the difference between a system which is musically satisfying and one which is not. I am all in favour of double blind testing (how could a rational person not be?), but we need to develop a methodology where this can be applied to the ways people actually listen to audio gear and music, and not just to testing obvious differences from "instantaneous switching", which is not how people listen to music. 2
Nada Posted February 23, 2017 Posted February 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, rossb said: I agree with everything you say, except your final point. Double blind testing would be a useful way of establishing real differences. But "instantaneous switching between components" is not an effective double blind test for audio. This would test only gross differences which can be quickly detected. It does not identify subtle differences which can become noticeable over time but which can have a profound impact. Sometimes a big difference - eg the difference between two speakers - can be great in magnitude but not that important to musical enjoyment. Conversely, a small change - eg a change of DAC - can result in changes which are not immediately obvious on "instantaneous switching" but can become apparent over time as the difference between a system which is musically satisfying and one which is not. I am all in favour of double blind testing (how could a rational person not be?), but we need to develop a methodology where this can be applied to the ways people actually listen to audio gear and music, and not just to testing obvious differences from "instantaneous switching", which is not how people listen to music. Clearly an experiment is needed just to establish the validity and reliability of testing methods. Having done a pilot trial with rapid vs longer term comparison at home with n=1; Im struck at how much info appears to present with the instantaneous and seamless switching protocol. Given the known audio sensory memory limitations its not surprising that it appears to provide both a rapid and effective test protocol. 1
davewantsmoore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 13 hours ago, Cafad said: Increasing the size of the ground plane reduces electrical noise, cross-talk and interference so it would seem to make sense that if you can increase it via an external add-on then you could effect the operation of an electronic device. Perhaps even effect it enough to produce an audible difference in its operation. Can anyone out there back me up or prove me wrong? If that were the case .... then there is also measurable difference in the operation of the device. If there is no measurable difference in the operation of the device, then it is impossible (yes, this is a strong word) for there to be an audible difference. The first step in working through this, is not understanding how / why something does what it does .... but simply quantifying that it does something. 2
davewantsmoore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, rossb said: First, can we stop talking about "science" when we really mean "generally accepted electrical engineering principles", which is very different. "generally accepted" can be dangerous ..... but as long as we look at the evidence, then I don't think the semantics matter. 3 hours ago, rossb said: This is part of the problem. I have lost count of the number of threads in which I have read someone say in effect "I'm an engineer and the only thing I know is inductance, capacitance and resistance and therefore nothing else exists, because it's science". If the internet had existed a century ago, every engineer in existence would have ridiculed Einstein and said: "I'm an engineer and we know Newton's laws have been proved a million times, so this relativity crap is just snake oil and voodoo science". Yes, but by doing that they would be ignoring the evidence presented for relativity. Edited February 24, 2017 by davewantsmoore
davewantsmoore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, rossb said: develop a methodology where this can be applied to the ways people actually listen to audio gear and music, and not just to testing obvious differences from "instantaneous switching", which is not how people listen to music. Controlled testing doesn't dictate how long each sample should be listened to.
Guest BobbyD Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 Great idea/ thread @Cafad........... anything that may make the music I love sound more real and put me closer to the actual performance is a winner!!
Willco Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 My good friend Cafad has made an interesting and basic request for knowledge of the "tweak" market--kudos to him Before this thread goes the way of all the others on similar subjects be it tweaks,power cables, who likes what/etc/etc I'll let Jeff into a secret--I use the Akiko Tuning sticks--in fact I've had them 5 years and yes sorry to say they DO make a difference to MY ears--even as old as they are Do I care what others think? --no--it was my dosh and MY decision with MY ears Not some dam fangled test setup with CE/FCC/ CIA/ approval --blahhh! I thought this was fun hobby-- how wrong can one be when some want to only point to the error of our ways Sad Carry on Willco 12
Guest Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/akiko-audio/akiko-audio-audio-accessories/56-qwd interesting
davewantsmoore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, Willco said: I thought this was fun hobby-- how wrong can one be when some want to only point to the error of our ways Why worry ?! ..... There's no "error" for you to be using the things you perceive to be valuable. FWIW. I don't really see what you're talking about. I don't see many of these types of threads where people (for example) tell you you're doing the wrong thing (for using something you like). However, something quite different ..... is if we ask the question how to quantify if a device is making a difference, or how to quantify if people can reliably hear a difference .... or similar. There is a "right and wrong" way to go about these things. I dunno, in general I really just don't get the angst (not from you specifically Willco, I mean in general) 12 minutes ago, Willco said: Sad I suspect you probably misinterpret the intention and perspective of some posters (?!)
davewantsmoore Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 21 minutes ago, 125dBmonster said: https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/akiko-audio/akiko-audio-audio-accessories/56-qwd interesting I found this to be borderline drivel. They do briefly mention: Quote ABX test to confirm that these differences are real and not some psychoacoustic phenomenon unrelated to our test subjects. To test this we used the files at the end of this text and the well-known Foobaar2000 plug-in. The score proved to be particularly encouraging, as they gave only a 1.1 % error margin, in other words, the listener achieved a 9 out of 10 score. Their math seems bad .... but if they are saying what they appear to be (90% correct ABX), then that is significant - I'd like to know the details of the test. The measurements provided do not (even remotely) support audibility.... so whatever is going on (if anything) is somewhere else than what they've shown. 2
Guest Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Cafad said: In the past there have been quite a number of threads where the stranger tweaks of the audio world have been discussed, and, most of the time, rubbished. Not by people who have tried them out and not liked them but by people who simply refuse to believe that they could work and who are happy to condemn them without trial. I find it very frustrating to see people in the current age of the internet trashing something when the information covering its operation is there waiting behind the google front page. So, if someone was interested in how a tweak might work then they should be able to find out using nothing except the very computer/tablet/phone that they access SNA with. After all, anyone capable of reading this has access to more information via the very device they are using than anyone before them could have even dreamed of. Literally thousands of encyclopedias worth of knowledge. It is human instinct to trash things we think are stupid, but what if those things are actually not stupid at all, what if there is a very real reason for their claimed effect? Would you want to know? If the answer is yes then this is the thread to come to. I encourage everyone out there who feels that they may understand how a particular tweak works to post it up here. This isn't a thread about judgement, it's a thread about curiosity and abstract ideas. I for one, want to know and I am acutely aware that the marketing hoopla written about some of these products are long on flowery exposition and very short indeed on anything that could be considered an actual explanation. Often fancy words like "quantum" are used but they don't really mean anything. Using the word "quantum" to explain something is a bit like using the word "pasta" to explain an Italian meal, the one word by itself just doesn't contain enough information. By the way folks, no promises as the accuracy of the posts and the ideas contained within. The very nature of many of these tweaks tends to make them difficult to explain. But if you're willing to try, then welcome to the thread. I'm going to kick things off with my theory covering the operation of Akiko Tuning Sticks. They have been mentioned in a few threads over the past year or so and I have to say I was pretty damn curious as to how they might work. I freely admit that I have never heard them so I can't make any claim on how effective they are but I do have a theory as to how they work. They only plug into the neutral side of the electronics (ie the outside of the RCA connectors and the ground of the power board) so my thought is that they are acting as a ground plane antenna. Check out the printed circuit board section of the link below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_plane Increasing the size of the ground plane reduces electrical noise, cross-talk and interference so it would seem to make sense that if you can increase it via an external add-on then you could effect the operation of an electronic device. Perhaps even effect it enough to produce an audible difference in its operation. Unfortunately I don't think this theory covers the tuning stick that you velcro to your ICs or speaker cables, that one has me stuffed. Still, two out of three is not a bad start, yes? Can anyone out there back me up or prove me wrong? The ground plane theory works and is used with remote area power supplies to bond all the components together on a single plane on a conductive surface, as well as a low ohm 6mm2 conductor firmly fastened to each piece of metal clad gear the backing plane and sent to the main earth bar. These actions help eliminate noise on the supply and better protection against earth potential rise. this theory is an extension of circuit board ground planing which is also an effective way of helping soak noise and induced cross talk within an appliance. Photo is of a bit of manufacturing involving several power supplies that do run stereo's and other appliances very reliably and quietly off the grid, similar situation with regard to the normal metal clad switchboard and metering cubicle, being all bonded to the main earth. All these factors contribute to a better stereo ! a dead quiet one in amongst a sea of stuff generating noise Edited February 24, 2017 by Guest
PleasantSounds Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 I sympathise with the attempt to expand the base of our knowledge of all things audio, which may even require questioning the boundaries of the established level of knowledge. I see very often that “science” becomes just another form of religion, based on blindly applied set of dogmas. While I resent this approach, I am equally dismayed when the well-researched and proven facts are ignored because they stand in the way of the voodoo of the day. I am talking about the placebo effect, confirmation bias and similar effects that impact our judgement – proven phenomenons that impact our perception of the outside world. Double blind testing is not what I am asking for: in the end we don’t listen to music blindfolded, and if the view of a beefy amp adds to our enjoyment then so be it. But at the same time please let’s not ignore what we already know in pursuit of more facts, or we may be chasing a mirage. 3
Guest Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 Thread cleaned, and a serial 'derailleur' removed from participating in the thread. I'm putting this thread on 'mod watch', so hopefully it can continue. 1
Guest dr_carl Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) What concerns me when it comes to "tweaks" that are also products is the requirement that a product does actually do what is advertised or else the manufacturer is in breach of consumer law. There seems to be an attitude held by some that it does not matter if you can't prove it works as long as you like it. I think that is OK only if money is not required in exchange for goods. I think also it is reasonable to expect designers of gear that is made for the enhancement of some specific audio feature to demonstrate that the gear actually works (note I do not write "how" it works - patents are also OK and legal) in order to be allowed to enter (or remain in) the marketplace. Edited February 24, 2017 by dr_carl left a word out
Cafad Posted February 24, 2017 Author Posted February 24, 2017 Oh my, what have I started. Obviously there are issues with the thread title and the way I worded my first post so let me try again. What I was after was more of a "let us assume that these tweaks do actually do something and then try to work out a reasonable explanation for how they might do that" thread. I was a bit miffed at peoples general tendency to poo-poo things without wanting to know anything about them and I let that colour my language. I apologize. I understand people and their strong feelings involving testing, blind testing, double blind testing and many more things involving testing but I was not proposing to do any of that. I would never stop anyone who wants to test things but this thread is not about testing so please could we put that subject to bed. @125dBmonster, that's the sort of post I was hoping to elicit. Not conclusive proof of my idea of course (I doubt we will ever see that) but more information that seems to support it. Thanks mate. Thanks for the post @Willco, I know you've been down this tweak road a few times before. Thanks for the support mate. I still think that a tweaks thread could be fun, if you feel the same way then please join with me in keeping things calm and maybe we can keep Marc's finger away from the "Lock" button. Is there anyone else with any theories about the Akiko Tuning Sticks? Or any other tweaks, there's no need to stick to just the one. 4
Martykt Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 @Cafad, I got what you were getting at. Here's one tweak I'm curious about. Sorry I can't remember the name of them. (I hope someone has more info on them) Seems to me to be a form of vibration absorbsion/control.
Cafad Posted February 24, 2017 Author Posted February 24, 2017 Cool pic @Martykt. I didn't get anywhere with a google search of the image. Is it sitting on top of a speaker? I suppose it's too much to hope that it's called a Fat Pack Rat?
Guest BobbyD Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, Cafad said: Cool pic @Martykt. I didn't get anywhere with a google search of the image. Is it sitting on top of a speaker? I suppose it's too much to hope that it's called a Fat Pack Rat? @BaCang Music had some on his equipment in a photo from memory, he may shine some light??
Martykt Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, Cafad said: Cool pic @Martykt. I didn't get anywhere with a google search of the image. Is it sitting on top of a speaker? I suppose it's too much to hope that it's called a Fat Pack Rat? Ssshhhhh don't tell anyone I borrowed the photo from a showcase your system and blew it up a little......... I can work with that name till the real one is found.
Willco Posted February 24, 2017 Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Martykt said: @Cafad, I got what you were getting at. Here's one tweak I'm curious about. Sorry I can't remember the name of them. (I hope someone has more info on them) Seems to me to be a form of vibration absorbsion/control. Entreq of Sweden W 2
Cafad Posted February 24, 2017 Author Posted February 24, 2017 Ah, I believe I found the system thread that contains the Rat. It looks to be sitting on an Accuphase DAC which is parked on a vibration rack of some kind so my guess would be that the Rat is being used to mass load the DAC. Take the total weight of the DAC and the Rat up to the range that the rack is built for. This probably means the Rat is quite weighty. I see Willco has replied but since I've already typed the paragraph above I'll post this and then see if he can shine any light on the subject. 1
Recommended Posts