Black Ravioli
Sorry, duplicate.
I've tried the BR under my cdp, amps, speakers and they make a difference but the results are not always good for my liking.
Agreed.
I tried them on an Audio Note Dac, and they drained all the life out of the sound...........I'm not sure how that could be explained by expectation bias, which was for the opposite to happen.
Thank-you Cno.
I was trying to establish whether it was the effectiveness of the advert (and it's promotional concepts), which caused the perceived success of BR,
or whether it was the intrinsic properties of the product itself, regardless of the advertising claims, which had any effect on the function of electronic hifi equipment.
You, I think, are suggesting the latter, according to your own observations.
The ASA suggested that evidence was lacking for any substance to be attached to the advertised benefits of BR.
Therefore I conclude that if BR does have any effect on electronic equipment, so far there is no actual recorded evidence of this, in the style of a repeatable experiment according to the generally accepted conventions of science.
Why did you pick the system you have over other excellent alternatives? Did you look at some spec sheets and buy blind, or did you go and listen. Assuming you did the latter, could you measure every aspect of what swung your decision?
Yes.
Do you think isolation and coupling / de-coupling have their effect on sensitive hifi components?
Yes.
JC
Hi Cno, stand are a fudimental, but are always viewed subjectivly. Then it is down to the individual to be honest with themselves, thankfully, I am well out of this, although my thoughts have not changed.
Recently ( a couple of weeks ago) I gave the last pair of my top model 'Designer Stands' to an individual who has many years of experiance listening and making hifi components. He uses the speakers that they were originaly designed for . . . instalation was satisfactory, I was happy, a few days leatter he emailed me, I quote:-
. . . "the speakers now perform like LS3/5a should, with special ability and subtle texture . . . now with really amazing imaging"
That is not me, thats some one of many years experiance putting into words his view on my technology and ability to make a speaker stand that works in conjuction with the speaker it was designed for, he likes, (other speakers were similarly accomodated in our designs of the time).
CJSF
This goes to the heart of my point, which is atm we cannot measure all the subtle changes that the ear picks up on. This debate would not be happening if the subject was speaker stands, as people have generally come to accept the benefits.
. . . atm we cannot measure all the subtle changes that the ear picks up on.
How do you know this, Cno ?
JC
This goes to the heart of my point, which is atm we cannot measure all the subtle changes that the ear picks up on. This debate would not be happening if the subject was speaker stands, as people have generally come to accept the benefits.
It's a bit like Scottish Law where you can have a verdict of Not Proven. That is, you know the accused did it, but the prosecution have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened. Here, you know there are improvements, because you can hear them, but there is no scientific way of proving A sounds better than B. If there was, we would only have one Hi-Fi manufacturer. So we will continue to go round in circles on this debate.
Thank-you Cno.
I was trying to establish whether it was the effectiveness of the advert (and it's promotional concepts), which caused the perceived success of BR,
or whether it was the intrinsic properties of the product itself, regardless of the advertising claims, which had any effect on the function of electronic hifi equipment.
You, I think, are suggesting the latter, according to your own observations.
The ASA suggested that evidence was lacking for any substance to be attached to the advertised benefits of BR.
Therefore I conclude that if BR does have any effect on electronic equipment, so far there is no actual recorded evidence of this, in the style of a repeatable experiment according to the generally accepted conventions of science.
Why did you pick the system you have over other excellent alternatives? Did you look at some spec sheets and buy blind, or did you go and listen. Assuming you did the latter, could you measure every aspect of what swung your decision?
Yes.
Do you think isolation and coupling / de-coupling have their effect on sensitive hifi components?
Yes.
JC
So are saying that if every aspect of what makes a system great can be measured, that auditioning is not really necessary. Surely if you believe auditioning is crucial, then it is to pick up on the things that the specs don't tell you?
For example, do you believe you could measure the subtlties that different designs of speaker stands might bring...imaging, soundstaging, slight tightening of the bass etc.
If Isolation is important, maybe BR could work.
. . . atm we cannot measure all the subtle changes that the ear picks up on.
How do you know this, Cno ?
JC
If we can measure subtle nuances in sound, I would love to hear about it.........so feel free to explain it to me.
. . . atm we cannot measure all the subtle changes that the ear picks up on.
How do you know this, Cno ?
JC
If we can measure subtle nuances in sound, I would love to hear about it.........so feel free to explain it to me.
I am not interested in teaching you any lessons.
I presume from your response that you cannot personally measure changes in sound, or the behaviour of electronic circuits, or the human ear, and that you have no test equipment with which you might record such changes ?
Do you think that no-one could make the required measurements ?
JC
If Isolation is important, maybe BR could work.
Are you now in a state of mind where you think BR doesn't work ?
JC
If Isolation is important, maybe BR could work.
Are you now in a state of mind where you think BR doesn't work ?
JC
This is a game of cat and mouse (all be it a polite one), where I am not the cat.
You stated that you believed isolation etc have their effect, so if BR helps with this, I was suggesting that you could see how it might work. As far as I'm concerned, it does.
I did not want to get dragged into this, but my very final thoughts are these:
- I do not believe every aspect of what we can hear can be measured, but am happy to be proved wrong.
- I do not believe you can tell what a component will sound like, purely by looking at measurements - therefore there is more going on than can be measured.....Otherwise you could choose a system on specs alone.
- Most component manufacturers rely on measurements for designing their kit, but I would say most have listening evaluation before release to fine tune, because imo without doing so, is risky. The promo literature for the ADM 9RS says "There is even greater clarity, an even more precise stereo image and it's deeper".....is the depth of a stereo image measurable, or is it a subjective evaluation perceived by listening?
- SQ has to be defined in order to be measured, and being so subjective imo, this is difficult.
As far as I'm concerned, this is going nowhere. The original post was a link to a ruling on BR. If you have heard the stuff, I would like to hear your thoughts (and the circumstances surrounding the demo). If you haven't, why not give it a go and report back.
I'm out of this one
Cno
As previously stated, most people wouldn't be taking stuff along with them of the type JC states, nor do they have the kind of skilled practical or theoretical background required, then this is academic. It's a more polite version of Max (no offence JC), but nevertheless, the same essential approach.
Widening the terms of reference to include what the human ear can or can not hear, to my mind either requires the services of an audiologist to speak with authority or it's just left out of the discussion. I don't believe there's anyone on this thread who is qualified to speak so. Hence we're just quoting a link off a website that will tell us what frequencies the human ear can and using that to support a particular viewpoint.
I doubt those services would be needed though, as what Cno and his partner have heard appear to be readily audible from their account, so measuring equipment wouldn't be needed in their lounge I imagine. Somebody with an opposing view would though and then they can either acknowledge a difference, explain it, or not hear one and both parties walk away.
Other than that, this is a back and forth discussion that's been done a hundred times and more before. For every expectation bias line, there's an "I know what I heard".
All about 'changes' . . . it is then up to the individual if he or she thinks its 'better', that is 'completley subjective'. One mans (or womans) better is anothers worse, we dont all think or like the same things. However over many years there are fundamentals that individuals can get very passionate about, there are equaly individuals who dont undestand said fudamentals, or even, dont want to understand!
Personaly, one has not tried BR, although one has tried rubbery items claimed to do things for 'vibration' in a hifi system . . . 
I'm happy with my own views on the subject.
CJSF
IMO. Stands make a difference to the way a speaker sounds, and different designs have different effects...and generally people would agree, because they have used them at one time or another. My question is, can the full effect of this "improvement" be measured, and if not, would get the same verdict as BR?
Exactly and that's why I made my little comment under the link to the article.
Btw Cno, this post wasn't raised to point the finger at you, just thought it was something that should be brought to the forum. So apologies if you have been dragged into defending a product you and many other people believe in.
Never having tried it, I am not qualified to have an opinion myself, so as with all such things, cables, stands isolation platforms, etc I keep an open mind.
Mac
If there is an actual change when adding or removing this type of accessory, it is possible to measure it. This is a fact. Audiometric equipment is far more accurate than our hearing and I would imagine that most people on this forum have either never had a proper audiometric test or do not have regular checks. If anyone believes that they can hear more than what is measurable, I suggest a visit to the Doctors for a check for Tinitus. 
Be careful when having an open minded approach that your mind is not so open that your brains fall out!
Small beer. The real master:
CNo said,
"as far as I can tell, the ruling didn't say that it didn't work, but that objective measurements were not provided to back up the claims"
IIRC the BR company, in their submissions said that there were no objective measurements that could be undertaken by them to prove the worth of their product.
Edit: Found it, the manufacturer said,"They therefore believed that the claims were not capable of objective substantiation".
Given that a great deal of hifi is subjective, this is hardly revelatory. The knack is getting your point across without making claims you can't properly back up.
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide