Canuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio ForumCanuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio Forum
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:10 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 478
Location: San Miguel de Allende, , MX
Geez, all i did was move my stereo, at least I believe I did.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:27 pm
Posts: 1400
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
ford07 wrote:
Geez, all i did was move my stereo, at least I believe I did.....


No you actually changed your reality. A pretty big move if you ask me. :D If it sounds better than it is better.

_________________
I've been warped by the rain, driven by the snow, drunk and dirty and don't cha know that I am still willin'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 120
Location: Port Moody, BC, CA
I’ve always tried to keep as little gear as possible between my speakers. Short runs of speaker cable to power amps in the middle and long run interconnects to the gear out on the side up by my listening position

At least IMO it’s not nonsense to give your speakers more space to breath, as long as your room/situation permits. How can you throw a 3d sound stage into a pile/rack/mess… of gear?

A good comment on large coffee tables too, gets rid of those big flat reflective surfaces in front of your speakers. IMO I found this to make a big difference.

Oh, and I like how it looks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 4502
Location: Welland, ON, CA
davinci_redux;

I'm not sure why you deleted your last post to me as I thought it was well thought out, and frankly accurate. I will admit that until a subsequent reading of your initial post I did not see the humour in it. Additionally I may have misunderstood the intent and tone of that post. I think you may be right, I need to lighten up a little. This isn't to say I didn't mean what I said ,but certainly I could have injected a tad more levity to what I wrote. In the future I will try to be a little less serious about this hobby that is supposed to be fun,and also to maybe read some posts a second time before responding ,so as to let the true intent penetrate my thick skull.

_________________
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:27 pm
Posts: 1400
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
good sound wrote:
thick skull.


Just wondering if it is better to have a thick skull or a thin skull for the purpose of listening to music?? :lol:

_________________
I've been warped by the rain, driven by the snow, drunk and dirty and don't cha know that I am still willin'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 1527
Location: Smalltown, ON, CA
Hello Good Sound:

I deleted because I felt that you've got a lot to offer, and I was afraid that I might be too glib in getting my point across. I have a tendency to be a little "quick with the tongue" .... a part of my dutch heritage. Sooooooo. ....... as we all know, there's your point , and there's my point, and.... there's reality . regards!!!! DV, and for you SVP, Leon

_________________
Some people like the taste of smokey whiskey, others think that tea's too strong!!
Even if you've tried it, consider the six blind men describing the elephant before offering your opinion!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3344
Location: Welland, ON, CA
If anyone has ever owned planar speakers,at least Martin Logans,the manual will tell you to keep the space between the speakers open.

I tend to agree,they designed the beasts and know how they should sound.
Of course,I didn't listen, and like so many other audio know it alls, I placed my gear smack dab in the middle because it was convenient,not because it looked cool.

Now you would think that other audio designers would take heed of placing their gear in between the speakers when they strut their stuff at Audio shows.
But no, most every photo review of audio shows reveals gear in between the speakers.
Maybe one reason why you often hear about bad sounding rooms at audio shows.

My CLS speakers and Quads always had the best sound when there was nothing between them.
Same goes for the Tannoys.
Two out of five of my audio friends isolate their gearaway from their speakers and their sound is always good.
The two that don't should, but they have space limitations.

My point is that if you don't need to constantly be reminded of all the money you've spent on gear and don't feel the need to be distracted by a kaleidoscope of coloured lites,then find another place for your equipment if you have the option.

You will enjoy the musical experience more without all the distractions and you'll be one step closer to hearing the music and not the(effects) of the gear.

Keeping the space between the speakers open and free from junk of any kind opens up the soundstage,enables the image to be more three dimensional, and makes it easier to differentiate one instrument from the other and one voice from another.

It's pretty simple ,it's not voodoo, costs nothing to do(well maybe a longer pair of interconnect, or speaker wire, but for many who don't believe in cables that's not a problem)and I am sure there is a scientific explanation out there somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 17863
Location: Peterborough, ON, CA
good sound wrote:

The dark side, hmmm. Now what side would that be?

I don't see any irony, delicious or otherwise. What I do see is, what to me anyhow, was sarcasm of an obvious nature. I don't see how belief systems have any bearing on the matter honestly. Concurrently I don't see the correlation between a belief system and scientific proof. Inherently a belief system by nature leaves room for the possibility that our conclusions are incorrect, additionally this would require a certain amount of faith. For the most part the contributors to this site, and others like it, that proclaim that if it can't be measured it doesn't exist, have no use for the concept of faith and subsequently the slight chance that they may be wrong, unless it can be proven. It either is or it isn't, and if you can't present solid evidence to prove that it is, then it isn't, period.

I admit that in the past I have supported the "trust your ears" dogma and assuredly will continue to do so in the future, on that you can bet. I certainly would not however, characterize this support as vigorous.
What I have never done is proclaim, in any form or fashion, that my "belief" is anything more than just that., a belief. I may one day indeed be proven wrong, and if such an event should happen would accept it fully. This is at the heart of my problem with the post I responded to, that the poster stated something that was merely an opinion as fact. He didn't just leave it at that though,no, he then had to go on and belittle the OP by stating that the tweak in question was, nonsense, totally psychological. I already argued the pertinence of whether or not something actually sounds different or not,or is only perceived to sound different, and really don't want to get into all of that right now. Suffice it to say that I would paraphrase that opinion as being ,perception isn't just more important than reality, to the perceived it is reality. In other words if I hear a difference then there is a difference. You remember that one don't you?

Truth be told I have no argument with science and proof. Lets face it in today's society proof is the bottom line for everyone. However I am also of the opinion that for someone to think that we have all of the answers and there is nothing left to learn and that the human mind and hearing is consistently unreliable, well to me that is just arrogant.



I think you mean perception is reality for the perceiver...the perceived being in many cases without self-awareness as in inanimate...but I digress. Proof in many cases (especially where subjectivity rules the context of the conversation/debate) is a well reasoned position which by it's nature is open to being refuted...be golly...sounds a lot like the scientific method! :shock:

_________________
“This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head.”


Last edited by Stone on Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:59 pm
Posts: 3284
Location: GVRD, BC, CA
good sound wrote:
davinci_redux;

I'm not sure why you deleted your last post to me as I thought it was well thought out, and frankly accurate.


Always listen carefully to Re-ducks, until he predictably deletes what he said and you can no longer reference his post. A long and well documented history of same, makes one wonder why he bothers at all?

_________________
Always keep an edge on your knife, son
Always keep an edge on your knife
Cuz a good sharp edge
Is a man's best hedge
Against the vague uncertainies of life
Corb Lund


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 4502
Location: Welland, ON, CA
Stone wrote:
good sound wrote:

The dark side, hmmm. Now what side would that be?

I don't see any irony, delicious or otherwise. What I do see is, what to me anyhow, was sarcasm of an obvious nature. I don't see how belief systems have any bearing on the matter honestly. Concurrently I don't see the correlation between a belief system and scientific proof. Inherently a belief system by nature leaves room for the possibility that our conclusions are incorrect, additionally this would require a certain amount of faith. For the most part the contributors to this site, and others like it, that proclaim that if it can't be measured it doesn't exist, have no use for the concept of faith and subsequently the slight chance that they may be wrong, unless it can be proven. It either is or it isn't, and if you can't present solid evidence to prove that it is, then it isn't, period.

I admit that in the past I have supported the "trust your ears" dogma and assuredly will continue to do so in the future, on that you can bet. I certainly would not however, characterize this support as vigorous.
What I have never done is proclaim, in any form or fashion, that my "belief" is anything more than just that., a belief. I may one day indeed be proven wrong, and if such an event should happen would accept it fully. This is at the heart of my problem with the post I responded to, that the poster stated something that was merely an opinion as fact. He didn't just leave it at that though,no, he then had to go on and belittle the OP by stating that the tweak in question was, nonsense, totally psychological. I already argued the pertinence of whether or not something actually sounds different or not,or is only perceived to sound different, and really don't want to get into all of that right now. Suffice it to say that I would paraphrase that opinion as being ,perception isn't just more important than reality, to the perceived it is reality. In other words if I hear a difference then there is a difference. You remember that one don't you?

Truth be told I have no argument with science and proof. Lets face it in today's society proof is the bottom line for everyone. However I am also of the opinion that for someone to think that we have all of the answers and there is nothing left to learn and that the human mind and hearing is consistently unreliable, well to me that is just arrogant.



I think you mean perception is reality for the perceiver...the perceived being in many cases without self-awareness as in inanimate...but I digress. Proof in many cases (especially where subjectivity rules the context of the conversation/debate) is a well reasoned position which by it's nature is open to being refuted...be golly...sounds a lot the the scientific method! :shock:



Yes of course. It's amazing the difference one little letter can make in an undetected typo. Speaking of which I take it you meant...sounds a lot like the scientific method!

_________________
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 17863
Location: Peterborough, ON, CA
...you are correct good sound...and once again we prove that the generousity of spirit here on CAM knows no bounds! :mrgreen:

Cheers,

David

_________________
“This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 17863
Location: Peterborough, ON, CA
Oh...back on topic...space considerations mean that my gear sits "between" the speakers...but...I'm fortunate to have a wife who indulges me on some issues related to set-up aesthetics etc...and so my speakers are about a foot out in front of the leading edge of my rack...it works well with my stuff in the space I have.

_________________
“This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 478
Location: San Miguel de Allende, , MX
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts, ranging everywhere from the practical to debates about reality and perception, very entertaining. Of course Einstein would say it's all an illusion so enjoy your respective illusions and have a nice day... :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 17863
Location: Peterborough, ON, CA
ford07 wrote:
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts, ranging everywhere from the practical to debates about reality and perception, very entertaining. Of course Einstein would say it's all an illusion so enjoy your respective illusions and have a nice day... :wink:


...he also said something like this..."Not everthing that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured counts."

_________________
“This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder's head.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:24 am
Posts: 478
Location: San Miguel de Allende, , MX
Stone wrote:
...he also said something like this..."Not everthing that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured counts."



Now wouldn't that be a great concept to take into the boardrooms of North American corporations......


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group