Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Tweakers' Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Jokes on me, but points still valid. (long winded)

Posted by bartc (A) on October 20, 2005 at 14:11:08

In Reply to: Herbie's Grungebuster - observations on what it does posted by bartc on October 20, 2005 at 06:47:45:

I'm a bit embarrassed, but on further listening it is probably not actually fingersnapping but castanets being snapped between fingers and thumb (similar dynamics though)! Just the same, the variability between the snaps is quite noticeable, and that's the cue for deeper detail and realism.

Electronically produced music sounds monotonous to my ears. The attack, sustain, decay, timbre, and the rhythm don't vary. They're pretty obvious and ubiquitous in pop music. In contrast, acoustically produced music (including electronically amplified) has inherent variability in those dimensions even when it's the same note repeated in the same sequence in the same song. Electronically produced music can be generated by a live human in real time, but its sound is not as pleasing and certainly not "realistic" to my ears, IMHO.

This difference is magnified with bodily produced sounds, most of which seem to be percussive. Because the body, unlike an instrument, is not a stable platform, each time you try to make the same sound there's a slight variation. Snap your fingers to the beat of a song and listen to it or record it and it will be obvious. Since you know this from experience, you know you're geting more realism when you can hear that variability as a cue.

To Michael Anda: My theory is actually about four common ways we alter the sonics.

1) Adding detail. As in "HF or LF extension", effectively reproducing more of the inherent detail that was being cut off or rolled off by our systems before. This is usually desirable, but can be carried to an extreme. For example, it's fine to hear all the details in the recording space, but how much of the tape hiss, live cocktail lounge chatter in background, artist humming do you really find appreciable? And if you add on one end and not the other you lose your sonic balance.
2) Resonance addition. As in adding something to the spectrum by the inherent resonance characteristics of articles we put in the sonic path of our room/system. Again, this might be pleasant if you like that particular resonance frequency - and it explains a lot of the woods or metals favored in various vibration/structural suspension tweaks. OK for you, but not necessarily realistic nor pleasing to everyone all the time.
3) Changing the frequency balance. As in suppressing bass or mids so that there's more appearance of HF detail, but in fact it's just coming through to your ears better without the other freqs masking it. Again, good only to the point that you like it or that it doesn't leave your ears bleeding from brightness!
4) Removing noise. This is what the best vibe controls and RFI/EMI controls do. They remove the junk sounds that are not the original musical information at all. Much of the junk comes through the power supply or the mechanical vibrations in the system, including the components. This does not add or subtract any real music, nor does it unbalance the presentation; it's like cleaning your glasses properly. I have yet to hear this done to any detriment, when this is all that's being done.

Number 4 is what I think Herbie's elastomers do very well.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---