Gaia Isolation anything in this?

[Purité Audio]

Bye then, just be careful you don’t trip over that sub, now you can’t tell where it is.
Keith

 

[Jim Taylor]

So the expectation is everyone to carry measurement tools .

No. Tests and measurements are made as needed, where needed, by whatever means are needed. If you need to measure a doorway, a retractable tape measure can do it easily, accurately and quickly. With commonly available and easily accessed equipment, so can temperature measurements and voltage measurements. OTOH, medical tests, horsepower tests and altitude measurements take equipment that is specialized and not immediately accessible.

The point is that an assertion needs evidence. If the evidence is not forthcoming, the assertion is discounted.

If anyone wants to disagree with my findings - I invite them to come with their tools and good pair of ears to my room and prove me wrong

That's not the way science works. If you make the assertion, the proof is incumbent on you.

these back and forth argument will never end and won’t change what i have heard or hear until one can make me hear otherwise .

In the first place, there is no evidence that you have actually heard what you say (or think) that you heard. You need to provide that evidence.

The real reason that you need to provide evidence of sensory input is bias. It's a natural - and very powerful - function of the brain that acts as a very quick shortcut to conclusions. The function is for our survival, and the need to make very quick decisions based on sensory input that may mean life or death. You can find a list of cognitive biases here.

But that function is not able to be shut on and off ... it's not controllable in that way. For millennia, people fell prey to biases that they thought (incorrectly) governed the weather, yearly cycles, coincidental causes for things that happened, as well as things that they saw ... and things that they heard.

The Scientific Method (explained sufficiently well here ) sought to change that mess ... and has done an admirable job of doing so. It, with the attendant reliance on tests, measurements, proofs and reproducibility, is the reason we have cell phones, x-rays and MRI, supersonic planes (or planes at all!) , refrigeration, audio reproduction that we're presently discussing and a whole slew of other things .... all "scientific breakthroughs".

Jim

 

[Acerun]

Keith did NOT say that he refused to accept that anyone else's opinion MAY be valid. What he said was that an audible characteristic ("... horrible and muddy...") will be evident in measurements. He also stated that evidence of such changes should be posted.

This is the normal procedure for scientific analysis. Assertions made without accompanying evidence are rejected. That doesn't mean that they are untrue, or that they didn't happen ... it simply means that they are unsupported by evidence.

It seems to me that some people believe that science is just another style or form of presenting opinions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not a style, not a font, not a grammatical method. Science is a logical and rigorously controlled method for examining the world around us. It uses those rigorous controls to eliminate the emotional effects of superstition and voodoo that have been so rampant in past centuries.

There is a difference between an opinion and an assertion. An assertion (here) is a declaration relating to something objective. It may be true, or it may be untrue. An opinion is a declaration of subjective human values (here). Notice the part of the qualifying definition that says ...

" ... "a judgment formed or a conclusion reached, especially one based on evidence that does not produce knowledge or certainty,"

That's an important difference. It seems that many people today use "opinion" and "assertion" as interchangeable. They're not.

We should never question the value of skepticism and the requirement for reproducible proofs. The cold fusion debacle made that painfully obvious.

Jim

Although I'm pretty sure Arianna Grande is a font

 

[Emlin]

Although I'm pretty sure Arianna Grande is a font

Superb!

 

[Mort]

Rythmik F12 sub is 76lbs 'shipping weight'. Should I get 70lb Gaia 3 or 120lb gaia 2?

I'm thinking it's better to use the smaller feet and have a higher tension. I'm worried the tension on the Gaia twos will not be sufficient.

 

[END WAY]

Simple rubber cabinet feet for much less money would work as simply and as well.

Do you think that well-known brands like Dynaudio, Sonus Faber, PSB, Perlisten, etc. have opted to buy isoacoustic products because they want to spend more than develop their own patent? I have tested the subwoofer vs the rubber mounts that come as standard and the difference is huge, everything vibrates much less when testing at high volume, in speakers of the same type, I have maintained the height to avoid the bias that the sound changes due to directionality and the difference is very high even at the same height, (however, where I did not feel any difference was in the Magnepan speakers).
I think it is unfair to say that a piece of rubber would work the same as a well-made piece like isoacoustic.

 

[Emlin]

Do you think that well-known brands like Dynaudio, Sonus Faber, PSB, Perlisten, etc. have opted to buy isoacoustic products because they want to spend more than develop their own patent? I have tested the subwoofer vs the rubber mounts that come as standard and the difference is huge, everything vibrates much less when testing at high volume, in speakers of the same type, I have maintained the height to avoid the bias that the sound changes due to directionality and the difference is very high even at the same height, (however, where I did not feel any difference was in the Magnepan speakers).
I think it is unfair to say that a piece of rubber would work the same as a well-made piece like isoacoustic.

If you've done the test, publish the results. I presume that you did do some measurements of some sort.

 

[Chrispy]

Do you think that well-known brands like Dynaudio, Sonus Faber, PSB, Perlisten, etc. have opted to buy isoacoustic products because they want to spend more than develop their own patent? I have tested the subwoofer vs the rubber mounts that come as standard and the difference is huge, everything vibrates much less when testing at high volume, in speakers of the same type, I have maintained the height to avoid the bias that the sound changes due to directionality and the difference is very high even at the same height, (however, where I did not feel any difference was in the Magnepan speakers).
I think it is unfair to say that a piece of rubber would work the same as a well-made piece like isoacoustic.

I'd think the brands mentioned would choose this brand more because of the market they aim at. Same reason some will mention some silly wires they put inside the cabinet. I just think overall it's not much of an issue, and not generally audible.

 

[END WAY]

If you've done the test, publish the results. I presume that you did do some measurements of some sort.

I have done frequency response measurements and it doesn't change, I haven't done vibration tests on the box or what's around it.
Sometimes we underestimate our hearing capacity, the brain and our body are very complex, they can process much more information than the best computer today.

 

[END WAY]

I'd think the brands mentioned would choose this brand more because of the market they aim at. Same reason some will mention some silly wires they put inside the cabinet. I just think overall it's not much of an issue, and not generally audible.

I find it illogical to think that the average consumer who can afford to pay $500 for isoacoustic would be interested in a product like the Sonus Suprema. I don't see Sonus increasing sales of its top model because it comes standard with isoacoustic.

 

[Chrispy]

I find it illogical to think that the average consumer who can afford to pay $500 for isoacoustic would be interested in a product like the Sonus Suprema. I don't see Sonus increasing sales of its top model because it comes standard with isoacoustic.

I still think it's a silly product with little benefit, couldn't care less what Sonus thinks.

 

[Emlin]

I have done frequency response measurements and it doesn't change, I haven't done vibration tests on the box or what's around it.
Sometimes we underestimate our hearing capacity, the brain and our body are very complex, they can process much more information than the best computer today.

No change, no difference. If there's no change in the waveform, there's no difference when it hits your ears. Whatever goes on after that it purely down to your very own and personal imagination. That's how perception works. It's the same, in our own particular ways, for all of us. But no difference, no gain.

 

[Thomas_A]

If there would be something audible you will not see it in the frequency response, but in distortion measurements. In some cases.

 

[Emlin]

If there would be something audible you will not see it in the frequency response, but in distortion measurements. In some cases.

But isn't it their purpose to reduce resonance? That'd show up, surely.

 

[Thomas_A]

But isn't it their purpose to reduce resonance? That'd show up, surely.

Decoupling reduce speaker movement and reduce transfer of energy to the surface below, as long as the decoupling occurs below the lowest frequency that the speaker reproduce. Coupling of speakers (e.g. spikes) induce vibrations of the surface where the speaker sits or furthermore in other objects on that same surface. This can in some cases be heard as rattle, overtones and distortion.

 

[Emlin]

Decoupling reduce speaker movement and reduce transfer of energy to the surface below, as long as the decoupling occurs below the lowest frequency that the speaker reproduce. Coupling of speakers (e.g. spikes) induce vibrations of the surface where the speaker sits or furthermore in other objects on that same surface. This can in some cases be heard as rattle, overtones and distortion.

But we weren't talking about coupling, and therefore not about distortion.

 

[END WAY]

No change, no difference. If there's no change in the waveform, there's no difference when it hits your ears. Whatever goes on after that it purely down to your very own and personal imagination. That's how perception works. It's the same, in our own particular ways, for all of us. But no difference, no gain.

Your answer was predictable, measure your room's frequency response with the mic and then turn it 1 cm to one side, does it still measure the same? Obviously not? Now sit in your chair and listen to your speakers but 1 cm to the left, right, in front or wherever you prefer and if you tell me that you can hear the difference I have nothing more to say.

Now measure the frequency response and lower it 0.5 decibels with a Q factor of 3, I think at 3 kHz will you notice it in the frequency response? Most likely not, but I assure you that if you have a reference song in your system and you have listened to it several times and they lower the EQ in that area, you will most likely notice it.

 

[Emlin]

Decoupling reduce speaker movement and reduce transfer of energy to the surface below, as long as the decoupling occurs below the lowest frequency that the speaker reproduce. Coupling of speakers (e.g. spikes) induce vibrations of the surface where the speaker sits or furthermore in other objects on that same surface. This can in some cases be heard as rattle, overtones and distortion.

Ok, I see what you mean now: If there was distortion caused by coupling, it could have been removed by decoupling. Fair enough, but likely?

 

[Chrispy]

Your answer was predictable, measure your room's frequency response with the mic and then turn it 1 cm to either side, does it still measure the same? Obviously not? Now sit in your chair and listen to your speakers but 1 cm to the left, right, in front or wherever you prefer and if you tell me that you can hear the difference I have nothing more to say.

Now measure the frequency response and lower it 0.5 decibels with a Q factor of 3, I think at 3 kHz will you notice it in the frequency response? Most likely not, but I assure you that if you have a reference song in your system and you have listened to it several times and they lower the EQ in that area, you will most likely notice it.

Okay, but what about use of isolators?

 

[Emlin]

Your answer was predictable, measure your room's frequency response with the mic and then turn it 1 cm to one side, does it still measure the same? Obviously not? Now sit in your chair and listen to your speakers but 1 cm to the left, right, in front or wherever you prefer and if you tell me that you can hear the difference I have nothing more to say.

Now measure the frequency response and lower it 0.5 decibels with a Q factor of 3, I think at 3 kHz will you notice it in the frequency response? Most likely not, but I assure you that if you have a reference song in your system and you have listened to it several times and they lower the EQ in that area, you will most likely notice it.

Totally off topic. Goodbye.