I didn't want to start another thread but these things may now be my biggest head scratcher. I'd not heard of them until a local used audio shop posted a set for sale. As I read about them and see pictures, I'm wondering, where are the "crystals?" https://walkeraudio.com/?product=black-diamond-room-treatment-crystals
In the center. But you don't see them because they are invisible crystals. Invisible crystals are the best sounding. They are very expensive because they are very hard to find (because they are invisible).
It is not a true placebo effect, because there is a clear audible component. Whether this audible component makes it into a thing of PRaT is for the listener to decide. It is a preference for a certain type of delivery, mostly in direct comparison with another product.
Compare the way the two amps make those speakers sound in this video. I think or must I say I 'feel' the Rega has more PRaT in comparison?, there is more sense of drive and pulse given to the music. Of course, the played track has the exact same speed and length with both amps, but the Rega gives me the feeling it plays the track a bit swifter, with more drive and pulse.
True, there is no volume matching, the recorded sound of the Rega is a bit louder, but you don't need to have golden ears to hear differences besides the difference in loudness. But then again, maybe these differences aren't necessarily felt/heard as PRaT or lack of PRaT by other people?
This video did convince me that not all amps sound the same and that PRaT, albeit subjective is at least a valid way of describing a sound characteristic/experience
Pace and rhythm are controlled by the musicians, not the amp. Timing error in an amp isn’t likely unless you have your speakers wired out of phase.
I don’t know how an uncontrolled comparison of amps in a YouTube video proves anything at all. Your description of what you hear is classic expectation bias of some sort. Amps can’t do what you describe.
Nothing like necroposting in your own thread, but something I read today on the Audiogon discussion forum fits in this thread, imo.
The thread was started by someone asking about room treatments and if there were significant differences between diffraction and diffusion. One person suggested diffusion was preferred by Paul McGowan (whoever that is) and that you can make your own diffusers by getting a "long, square wood pole" and cut lots of small cubes with various angles but here's the part that made me shake my head. He said softer woods absorb more sound than harder woods.
One person suggested diffusion was preferred by Paul McGowan (whoever that is) and that you can make your own diffusers by getting a "long, square wood pole" and cut lots of small cubes with various angles but here's the part that made me shake my head. He said softer woods absorb more sound than harder woods.
Paul McGowan is loved by audiophiles who won't question marketing. He's founder/CEO of PS Audio: so needless to say he'll get into pseudo science mumbo jumbo if it sells more products. Though if it's something they're not selling, then he might be honest. Like recently I've been following a sponsor link for an audiophile LAN device that is claimed to reduce noise and improve audio (even though any LAN device to spec provides bandwidths way higher than audio data). Paul had a video saying that audiophile LAN devices don't do anything. But it is funny to keep following the LAN silencer thread. There's a self proclaimed psychologist who says he knows about biases and blind testing. But he approached a skeptical attitude about this LAN device, and it was night and day difference. Now they're asking about the device sometimes having blinking lights and sometimes not: so is it working if there's no lights. The psychologist said it didn't matter to him, because it was so night and day....in fact he spent more to be able to have two devices on both ends.
There are significant differences between diffraction and diffusion. Diffraction occurs when sound waves travel through the air, it also occurs when a sound wave reflects off a surface. Diffusion is a special case of diffraction, when the reflections off a surface (EG. A wall) are randomised, causing less/no interference patterns with the direct sound. IE. Reducing/Eliminating the summing and nulling effects of room reflections resulting in a flatter room frequency response. Acoustic room treatments fall into two broad categories, absorption and diffusion.
It’s been explained above who Paul McGowan is and that he’s a much respected source of audiophile information, much of which is unfortunately pure BS. Either because it’s marketing BS or he has no idea what he’s talking about.
The reality is (should be) that acoustic room treatments are applied to a room according to the acoustic issues of that specific room. Sometimes only absorption is applied but most commonly it’s a combination of both absorption and diffusion, especially in the case of stereo music reproduction.
and that you can make your own diffusers by getting a "long, square wood pole" and cut lots of small cubes with various angles but here's the part that made me shake my head.
That seems to be referring to Primitive Root Diffusers (PRDs). You could potentially make your own PRDs but it’s far from a trivial task, there needs to be a strict geometric pattern with specific different lengths cubes/rectangles within that pattern. It looks random but it’s not, you really need specialist knowledge. The advice given is poor advice!
Here’s probably one of the most famous applications of PRDs (Blackbird studios). Note that this type of diffuser design also acts as absorption below certain freqs.
True to an extent but irrelevant in the context of these types of diffuser. In practice, PRDs and QRDs (Quadratic Residue Diffusers) is a complex subject area involving some pretty complex acoustical math. Trying to DIY it might have some benefit or could make the acoustic situation worse if you don’t really know what you’re doing. A far easier, quicker and safer DIY solution is a bunch of book shelves on the back wall behind the listening position filled with books of varying depths.
Unfortunately, the audiophile world is full of people and “personalities” who might appear to have some knowledge/authority but either have no idea what they’re talking about and simply make up nonsense (that might appear believable) or do know what they’re talking about but deliberately misrepresent the facts for marketing reasons.
In practical terms a normal room with carpet, curtains, soft furnishings won't have an issue
If you have three glass walls and Carrera marble floors might have a problem, great view though
Unless those rooms somehow break the laws of physics, they will ALWAYS have very significant issues. At least room mode issues, bass proximity issues and almost certainly various other issues. The very worst possible room shape for such issues is a perfect cube, the next worse is a cuboid (rectangular shaped “cube”), which is what almost all consumer sitting rooms/listening rooms are, so there will be significant issues. Carpets, curtains and soft furnishings may help with some certain issues, depending on how much there is and where they’re positioned but provide no help with others and can actually cause some issues. Your assertion is false.
This video did convince me that not all amps sound the same and that PRaT, albeit subjective is at least a valid way of describing a sound characteristic/experience
If that were actually an amp test then it would convince me not all amps sound the same as well. Forget about PRaT, these are two of the worst amps in history, the freq response is poor/all over the place as is the phase and, they’re taking stereo recordings and turning them into mono!!
None of the above criticism is true though, because that was NOT a test of amps, it was a test of different recordings, of speakers, of room acoustics and of whatever microphone was used to record it. In fact it was a test of pretty much everything except an amp! How it could therefore convince you of anything about amps is beyond me.
Sure it’s a possibility but only if solid state/electronic headphone amps operate on the principal of coupled kinetic movement or female hormone production. But then of course they wouldn’t be electronic/solid state amps would they?
But 4'33" certainly is. As you say, it removes many of the aspects of music making from the mix. In fact, it removes *every* aspect of music making except for the blather of critics.
Just realised there really is some nonsense in this thread this one about synergy really is a classic!
Sure it’s a possibility but only if solid state/electronic headphone amps operate on the principal of coupled kinetic movement or female hormone production. But then of course they wouldn’t be electronic/solid state amps would they?
Err because headphone amps don’t have muscles or pancreases.
That’s ALL false! You don’t seem to know either what Cage’s 4’33” actually is or how it should be performed.
What monologues, the monologue nonsense posted? You can’t be referring to me because I was quite briefly and directly responding/replying to something.
Haha, no you’re bored to pull up some meaningless script from years and years ago. And have it rent space and emotion in your brain. Get a life buddy! Really I wish the best for you.
Bored of ridiculous nonsense being post in this subforum.
What monologues, the monologue nonsense posted? You can’t be referring to me because I was quite briefly and directly responding/replying to something.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Really I wish the best for you. 
