A Visit to Mike Lavigne's Home and Sound Galleries Media Server

[Cosmik]

When one looks at the assaults on science, ... deniers... there is no doubt that the fight against the propagation of pseudo scinece is an important one.

Not referring specifically to what people are "denying" - it doesn't matter to the argument - pseudoscience as defined by Karl Popper is that you only attempt to confirm your hypothesis rather than attempting to disprove it. If your theory cannot be falsified by any actual event, it is not science.

If in any field, someone is termed a "denier", loaded with the threat of mediaeval barbarity, threat, exile, punishment, the baying mob, then it is clear that the hypothesis cannot be allowed to be falsified - you couldn't get a more literal example of pseudoscience (if it even deserves the term 'science' in its name at all). I don't think Karl Popper, in those enlightened times a few decades ago, was even thinking along the lines of a mob being raised to deal with anyone who tried to falsify a theory!

He also said:

Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers–for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

It would be quite amusing if a theory literally had its name changed as part of the process of rescuing it; making it unfalsifiable!

I suspect you will say that the gravity of a certain issue means that the purity of the 'science' is secondary; it's OK to introduce a mediaeval religious-style threat of punishment to its "deniers". If so, don't go mentioning it at the same time as talking about the importance of fighting pseudoscience! That's completely ridiculous!

 

[Analog Scott]

Not referring specifically to what people are "denying" - it doesn't matter to the argument - pseudoscience as defined by Karl Popper is that you only attempt to confirm your hypothesis rather than attempting to disprove it. If your theory cannot be falsified by any actual event, it is not science.

This is absolutely true in the world of scientific research. One can enjoy audio and form opinions about the quality of audio without trying to engage in scientific research in the formation of those opinions. That doesn't make those opinions pseudoscientific.

 

[Cosmik]

This is absolutely true in the world of scientific research.

Glad I was able to help.

One can enjoy audio and form opinions about the quality of audio without trying to engage in scientific research in the formation of those opinions. That doesn't make those opinions pseudoscientific.

It makes them not 'scientific' at all. And that is absolutely fine.

 

[Purité Audio]

This is absolutely true in the world of scientific research. One can enjoy audio and form opinions about the quality of audio without trying to engage in scientific research in the formation of those opinions. That doesn't make those opinions pseudoscientific.

Without any technical knowledge one is simply left with ‘belief’ and thus susceptible to every con artist.
Keith

 

[Cosmik]

Without any technical knowledge one is simply left with ‘belief’ and thus susceptible to every con artist.
Keith

Not engaging with scientific research isn't the same as having no technical knowledge. A person could 'believe' that mono sounds best to them, for example. On the other hand some technical knowledge might lead one to believe that there's something to MQA, where the 'con' aspect is debatable, and not solvable with science.

 

[Purité Audio]

Bottom line is if you can’t be bothered to actually learn anything about your hobby then you are liable to get ripped off.
Keith

 

[Wombat]

I don't drink

They serve non-alcohol drinks.

 

[Analog Scott]

Without any technical knowledge one is simply left with ‘belief’ and thus susceptible to every con artist.
Keith

People seem to survive despite these dire circumstances.

 

[Analog Scott]

They serve non-alcohol drinks.

yeah, nothing more fun than going to the local bar to load up on diet coke. Good company. Good value. Good quality. Good times to be sure.

 

[Purité Audio]

People seem to survive despite these dire circumstances.

I suppose if you enjoy being thought a fool...
Keith

 

[Analog Scott]

I suppose if you enjoy being thought a fool...
Keith

Ridicule is so important to the world of audio. How else would some audiophiles enjoy their hobby? Makes the world such a better place too....

 

[Thomas savage]

yeah, nothing more fun than going to the local bar to load up on diet coke. Good company. Good value. Good quality. Good times to be sure.

Don’t forget the pleasure of talking to people as they slowly get more drunk, they think more intresting with it but ....

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I just used Shazam to discover La Mer: No. 1. De L'aube A Midi Sur La Mer by Duisburger Philharmoniker. https://shz.am/t99569845

Can't find this track on youtube but here is one that should be close:

Not so sure of that. Those halls sound entirely different in the recordings that I've heard.

 

[Wes]

pseudoscience as defined by Karl Popper is that you only attempt to confirm your hypothesis rather than attempting to disprove it. ...

well, usually you only attempt to disprove somebody else's hypothesis

after a while some young upstart punk tries to disprove your hypothesis

"It has all happened before, and it will all happen again" - as some Kobol programmer put it

 

[xyzed]

I initially sat on the second room to the left. That is behind the sweet listening chair visible in the above picture.

I must say that experience was pretty disappointing. The sound was dull and uninteresting. Try as I might, I could not get excited or understand why people come back with superlatives to describe the sound in Mike's room. There was little soundstage, highs were muffled, bass rather dry but not blended in well, etc. On scale 1 to 10, I would give it 4.

We were taking turns to sit in the rolling center chair. I got my chance after 15 minutes or so and boy did that transform the experience. There was a precise depth to the soundstage with pretty high isolation of instruments. Highs came back to life and bass become very supportive. I did not want to hog the chair too long and gave it up to others.

The experience is quite predictable though. The speakers are hugely toed in toward the one seat. And listening space is very close to the speakers (I think Mike said 9 feet relative to 12 foot separation). In any other seat, you are hearing way off-axis sound of the speakers. And with walls having thin fabric, they act as high frequency filters of any reflections of direct sound. Put another way, in any other seat you are tasting two day old leftover dinner .

Psychologically, there was another huge problem for me. Speakers are towering high and very imposing. You sit so close to them that I got the feeling they were in my personal space. I don't usually close my eyes when listening to music but had to do that here as to not keep thinking the two towers were going to fall on me!

Mike also likes a playback level that is pretty mild. I think that hugely under-utilized these speakers. Put succinctly and direct, I think the speakers are overwhelming for that listening spot and levels being used. BTW, the Dartzeel amps highest stated average power level was 25 watts. If it were me, I would push them to 100 easy!

BTW I walked around the room including to the back seat and the experience did not improve from the second row.

I was hoping you could share what are your top 3 impressive set ups? I am just getting into the scene and would love your thoughts and opinions. I am certain you heard a lot more systems than most people

 

[board]

I initially sat on the second room to the left. That is behind the sweet listening chair visible in the above picture.

I must say that experience was pretty disappointing. The sound was dull and uninteresting. Try as I might, I could not get excited or understand why people come back with superlatives to describe the sound in Mike's room. There was little soundstage, highs were muffled, bass rather dry but not blended in well, etc. On scale 1 to 10, I would give it 4.

We were taking turns to sit in the rolling center chair. I got my chance after 15 minutes or so and boy did that transform the experience. There was a precise depth to the soundstage with pretty high isolation of instruments. Highs came back to life and bass become very supportive. I did not want to hog the chair too long and gave it up to others.

Sorry for revamping a very old thread, but I just came across it now.
If I understood you correctly, the 4 out of 10 rating was on the second row. What would you rate the sound like from 1 to 10 in the sweet spot (if your remember)?
On another topic, does anything know if, and where, I can find (professional) measurements of Mike Lavigne's speakers?

 

[AVphile]

I just discovered this post. I was curious about Mike Lavigne's audio system, did a Google search, and consequently came to ASR. I am uncertain how much money Mike has invested in creating his audio system, but I would not be surprised if its cost has approached $1 million (and very possible quite a bit more). What struck me was Amir's critique after listening to a number of music selections played on Mike's system; I cannot confirm the accuracy of his opinion, but I have had a similar experience more than once.

The question I have is, how does one avoid spending a lot of money on components only to discover that the result -- to use commonplace vernacular -- sucks? I suspect more than one of Mike's expensive components would not fare so well on Amir's test bench. Is that an adequate indicator of future disappointment in listening?

My own recent experience may be indicative of how vulnerable a system can be to the performance of just one component or subsystem. I own a highly regarded (by reviewers) streamer/DAC, which has been my primary source for the past couple of years. Besides being incredibly convenient (thanks to Roon), I thought the system was doing a good job of playing back everything I sourced through that streamer/DAC [manufacturer/model intentionally undisclosed]. Last Friday, I got back from George Meyer [who did a great restoration job] my Wadia 8 CD transport. I pulled out of storage my companion piece Wadia 2000 Digital Decoding Computer, which I hadn't been using these past nearly 20 years. First, I played Adele's "Someone Like You" using the streamer/DAC. Her voice sounded realistic, and her performance filled the space between my speakers nicely. Then I played the same cut on my CD and the Wadia 8/2000 system. What an eye-opener! Two things instantly became apparent: (1) the soundstage blossomed -- it became BIG as the speakers utterly vanished; and (2) a certain harshness in Adele's voice disappeared, and what remained was incredibly melodious. I can best describe it as if she were singing in front of me without even using a microphone. I would love to know how/why this happened. The Wadia 2000 is a very unique DAC, and unquestionably the Wadia 8 is a terrific CD transport. Did the 2000 inject a mix of distortion that results in a very lovely sound, or, somehow, did it simply do a better decoding job than my state-of-the-art streamer/DAC (which has marvelous test bench results)?

The conclusion I have reached is that putting together a system is one hell of a crapshoot. Spending a ton of money certainly cannot guarantee a fabulous listening experience, nor can reliance upon outstanding test bench results. All one can do, I have come to believe, is put a "new addition" into one's system and listen.

 

[RayDunzl]

CD vs Stream = maybe not the same source file

Can you play the CD through the streaming device? Or copy the CD to a file and play that through the streamer?

 

[Sal1950]

And then make sure the playback levels a equal to within .05db

 

[amirm]

The question I have is, how does one avoid spending a lot of money on components only to discover that the result -- to use commonplace vernacular -- sucks? I suspect more than one of Mike's expensive components would not fare so well on Amir's test bench. Is that an adequate indicator of future disappointment in listening?

I think the biggest problem with his system is lack of equalization. Room modes severely distort the response and are seating position dependent. Of course he is anti-measurements and anti-digital processing so he is not going to go there.