Spiky

I actually answered this before you asked it.

Jay G.

If I were that good at it, this thread probably wouldn't have lasted as long.

rcortez

Yeah, long thread. Geez. Lots of mind-boggling information and lots of misinformation. Like everyone else, I have a perspective, too. There's lots of stuff I feel like commenting on, but I'll just hit on a few points.

That's rational, no argument there. What seems irrational is why you're so concerned about badgering a product that you don't really know anything about? It seems like you feel threatened by it. For example:

This is rational? It's just ignorance, not to mention spiteful and downright stupid. You're not the only one ignorant about the effects of micro-vibration with electronic audio gear, though. Being ignorant doesn't mean you're stupid, it just means there's something that you don't know about, don't understand, or haven't experienced. Or maybe you've read a bunch of articles--pro, con, or both--and just don't get it. Or, I believe more commonly, it's a subject that just doesn't interest you, like I am ignorant about many things. I think it's stupid to make statements like the above, though. And to twist things, make presumptions with no basis in fact, make factual statements that are only conjecture as quoted above and many other times on this thread.

Herbie's Audio Lab was making cd mats for at least a few years before making turntable mats. I still have one of the original grungebuster cd mats and it still works fine (since about 2003). I don't use it all the time, just when I'm in the mood.

I saw those reviews. There were hundreds of them, sort of ridiculous, huh? A "preponderance of the evidence", I guess. But if you scanned along them, you would have seen they were from all over the place. A couple of them told the results of double-blind tests. Some were from skeptics who admitted hearing a difference for the better. Some were from unrelated third-party websites and online magazine reviews. Most of them, like the one I wrote years ago, were just comments sent to Herbie's Audio Lab. I had no expectations when I bought the grungebuster CD mat because I had gotten mixed results previously with other audio "tweaks." I don't believe people often write the manufacturer of a product unless they really have something heartfelt to say.

After Herbie's Audio Lab moved from California to Texas a few years ago, I got to know the owner and have met him personally at his home. According to what I could gather, he spends a lot of time and money on research and development, experimentation and trial-and-error to perfect his products. Not so he can rip anyone off, but because he seems to have a passion to help other music lovers like himself to more fully enjoy listening to music.

There is no clear winner in this debate, only losers. You and your allies are the real "snake oil" salesmen. I witnessed a sale with my own eyes:

Yes, Grasshopper. It's all just bs.

R

spainlinx0

Having met and befriended the owner I can't imagine a more impartial person to take up the cause for this product. Do you get paid by the post?

van der graaf

To be fair, his post suggests he bought, used and enjoyed the product well before he ever met the owner. Whether you choose to believe him or not, however, is up to you.

Jay G.

I'm not that concerned about it, and not threatened by it at all. I just like arguing about it. If you want to spend your money on it, that's fine by me.

Inform me then: what's their experience with testing BD equipment?

I'd like to be informed about the effects of "micro-vibration" on entirely electronic audio gear. If you have an scientific info, such as tests with results, I'd be happy to look at them.

According the the site, they've been making turntable mats since Dec 2002:
http://herbiesaudiolab.net/ttmat.htm

The earliest references to the Grungebuster mat I can find are dated mid-2003:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/he...ms-work-33637/
http://brutus.audioasylum.com/cgi/m....711&highlight=

So you're only in the mood for clearly superior audio quality some of the time?

You wouldn't believe the number of UFO testimonials out their too.

I didn't read them all, but I did search each review page for "double blind," "double-blind," or even just "double," and came back with no hits.

Explainable as possibly being a placebo effect.

I only found two quotes from online magazines, TNT Audio and Positive Feedback. Both seem to cater to audiophiles who believe in these tweaks, and the testing appears to be purely subjective.

Oh, I'm sure that they believe they hear a difference. That doesn't mean the difference really exists though.

Here's the owner's own words from a few months ago (bolding mine):
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72451.0
Lines like "not much science-orientate," "I believe" and "whatever the reason," don't really convince me he's tested this product in a rigorous, scientific manner. Not to mention his theory that micro-vibrations affect the time-space continuum.

Welcome to the forum then, fellow loser.

Jay G.

Either way, he's clearly now biased in favor of both the product and its seller.

van der graaf

I don't disagree, but I feel it is a bit dishonest to just dismiss what he said by: "Ohhh...you are his friend!!! LOLZ".

Jay G.

Well, he's also a new member that joined on March 27 at almost the exact same time the user audiolab, the actual seller, was deleting all his posts. So there is the very strong possibility of him being a sock puppet for the owner.

van der graaf

Still, to just dismiss his argument on that basis alone does nothing to promote dialogue and just makes the forum seem like an exclusionary, ideological clique.

cpgator

I still don't get why a CD player manufacture wouldn't include something in the player to remove the vibrations if they are so harmful to the sound. I just wonder how Herbie was able to come up with a solution, and for just pennies, but none of the actual manufactures were able to.

Sdallnct

See your making up the science again. Even after you clarified it 50% of a population is not a scientific amount. If your going to use a population then you would probably use a confidence calculator (you can google if you want). And in that calculator you would put your error range. So, lets say you had a population of 10,000 and wanted to test a number of people with 95% certainty that the results would apply to all 10,000. You would test probably less than 400 people. This is what pollsters do. When you hear that 70% of Americans like Obama's hair cut, it doesn't mean they asked half of America! That is why they also give an a + or - 5% (or whatever).

And even agreed to all that, what a freaking waist of time! You simply can't buy products based on that. Few take the time of do such things and even if they do, then the scientific camp will just dismiss it (as Spiky mentioned) for do this or that incorrectly.

You have totally misunderstood my discussion. I'm not in the "completely" trust my senses camp. I'm actually fairly skeptical. I don't upgrade every time something with a cool blue light comes out (my receiver that I love doesn't even have HDMI, god forbid!). I question the significant improvement in HD audio v. upgrading speakers and than a real sub woofer makes more of an impact than getting a new receiver or DVD player.

But what I'm not is a slave to a DBT. I don't need a DBT to tell me what is good or not good on every single audio purchase I make. I borrowed a new fancy receiver. Blah...unimpressed (where as by your thinking I should have loved it) compared to my own receiver. I don't need to argue that it was better, worse or anything else. I wasn't impressed.

What I'm really skeptical about is people who say "you need scientific proof and strict DBT or it is not there!!". 99% of the time they don't have a clue what "scientific poof is". And with just a little discussion it ends up being "in their own mind" which is no different than the camp of people who really think (for example) that the mat posted in this thread clearly makes a difference every time in every situational. I get amused that each camp thinks they are better than the other "golden ears v. DBT/Science guy" when in fact they are exactly the same.

I would never buy a product based only on a DBT. I would never buy a product based only on one review. I would not keep a product just because I bought it (I've returned my fair share of items I truly thought would be an improvement).

Jay G.

I didn't say 50% of a population, I said 50% of test subjects, which would be a substantial subportion of the population. Although you are correct than any such sample would mean that there would be a margin of error, to a few percentage points, if you'd then extrapolate the test results and try to apply them to the population at large.

I would if I could.

If the test is sound, then it's not easy to dismiss. For example, the FDA absolutely relies on DBTs to help determine whether a new drug should enter the marketplace. The only time they'd doubt the DBT is if there was some flaw in the testing.

I don't understand this last sentence. Do you think getting a new receiver + DVD player is going to provide a larger or smaller improvement than getting new speakers and sub? Is this in relation to your equipment only, or some sort of absolute (i.e. if you have a $20 CD player and $1000 speakers, buying $1100 speakers would be better than getting a $120 CD player)?

I don't need one either, although it'd be nice. I also wouldn't necessarily need one to buy a Black Hole. What I would need, however, is some credible evidence that it works. A successful DBT test would be very strong evidence.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if you even bother reading my posts. I never presented any logic along the lines that a "new fancy receiver" would always be better. It's perfectly possible your existing receiver is just as good, or better.

Does this apply to me as well; you don't think I know what scientific proof is?

So, are you going to buy this product, or have you already?

Sdallnct

Ok, I "in general" feel that getting new speakers and/or sub will have a significant bigger impact on the sound than going HD audio. I do believe strongly in this, but I mention it to show you that I'm skeptical. I don't buy in to everything newer is greater. Course I also don't need a DBT to tell me that.

Again, "YOU" need "credible evidence" is not the same as scientific evidence.

Well if I misunderstood you. My bad. But I thought you said that if people get a hint of a product being better or different their subconscious would perceive an improvement even if none "really" existed. My point of saying when I was trying a new fancy receiver was that is exactly what happened. A buddy got a new fancy receiver and told me how great it was and what a huge improvement over his older receiver. When he went out of town for a couple weeks he let me borrow it. By my understanding of your statements this would have been a perfect example of me perceiving an improvement. Yet I did not.

Here is the bottom line. If you truly know about DBT and scientific evidence than you know how pointless it is for audio products. Your (or mine, I forget) medical example is an excellent example. In medical testing that they want to take a sample and state it would apply to the entire population, they have do spend a ton of time matching the sample to the population. Meaning, if your testing a pain reliever to help 60 year old men, your sample can't me 18 year old women.

This is exactly the issue with DBT, "scientific" evidence. Even if you took the time to use a confidence calculator and set up the perfect indisputable DBT that had a small margin of error and with statistically significant number of people correctly could hear the difference between this Black Hole mat and no mat, it would be meaningless to ME! Why? I wouldn't have exactly the same equipment, the testing wouldn't have been done in my listening room with my furniture with, with the same temperature/humidity as where I listen.

And if you say "well there is a better chance" to hear a difference. Blah, not scientific and not factual. You may or you may not.

If successful DBT test does indeed demonstrate a difference does not mean you will hear a difference.

I'm not buying anything right now. Tho considering a sub. If I could find a DBT that tested my current sub to that of the one I'm looking at, sure I'd read it. But it would only be one factor (but of course there won't be as there rarely is). I've already read a dozen reviews, measured my room (twice), considered placement options based on the company website, etc. If I get it, I will listen to it and probably compare it to my current sub on movies I know very well. If I like it better, I'd keep it and be very comfortable that it does indeed have an improvement. If I don't like it, I'd send it back. And if I heard a difference and there was no DBT done, it doesn't mean there is no difference.

Again, I got no problem with you determining how you like things, but I don't see the significant real life benefit of DBT in the audio world. Now I'm not saying everything makes a difference every time, that is not the point. The point is will it make a difference in my room in my system with my sources and habits.

Jay G.

That's part of the problem though: you don't know that it's true, you just "feel" it's true, so you could very easily be wrong. Also, there's so many variables in terms of speaker + sub combos vs. HD audio that it's hard to generalize.

Scientific evidence is the most credible.

So you were comparing it to your receiver, but wasn't his "huge improvement" in comparison to his old receiver? Did you two originally have the same receiver?

So the test would have to have a representative sample of the overall population.

Which is why I also said the DBT would be done over a range of equipment and environments.

It actually would be very scientific and factual. In fact, with medicine, the vast majority doesn't work on everyone, but DBTs can prove that it's likely to work on a statistically significantly portion of the population. If a certain medicine doesn't work on a particular individual, it's not because the DBT was "not scientific and not factual," but proof of what the DBT had already indicated.

Correct. It just means I'm much more likely to, and this likelihood was confirmed in a scientific manner.

Strange that you're so passionate about a product you have no interest in.

Of course if you heard a difference, it doesn't mean there isn't a difference, anymore than you not hearing a difference mean that there isn't one. You're subjective opinion doesn't mean anything in terms of proving or disproving a difference, unless it was part of a larger DBT test, were your potential bias could be averaged out over hundreds to thousands of other test subjects.

Do you mean, you don't see the potential benefit if DBTs were more common, or if you had one to review when looking at a new product? Or do you mean, since properly performed DBTs are so rare in real world terms, even though they'd be of benefit, they don't occur often enough to be of use in many instances?

As long as you believe it made a difference to you, then it did (to you). Just don't think that your anecdotal experience counts as proof that it "really" works, and isn't just in your head.

Spiky

Bose also has a preponderance of positive reviews. Definitely "sort of ridiculous".

GreenMonkey

That's exactly where I lie on this stuff.

Look, like the argument earlier in the thread, that a speaker spike will improve sound by minimizing vibration.

Let's put it this way. If you hold a piece of paper a foot in front of a speaker. I'm sure it disrupts the sound. At least the concept is sound (unlike the carbon fiber platter "improving" digital bits that this thread is based on). But what science we have about the limits of peoples' hearing suggests that difference is not discernible to the human ear.

You can tell me the theory is sound. You can tell me you can hear the difference from a piece of paper. But I'm not believing it without evidence. I'd accept a double blind test with ANYONE detecting the difference - like fancy speaker cables, this has never happened.

I'd think it was in your head. I don't think it has any merit, any more than I believe some people can see ghosts.

To me the golden ear argument comes down to some sort of blind faith / gut feeling type of justification, not proof or science. And I take a very dim view of these kinds of justifications.

kefrank

If you think that's what the Black Hole purports to do, then you obviously haven't read this thread (though I wouldn't blame you, given all the rabbit trails). The contact from Herbie's already stated that it has little to no effect in a component that is strictly a digital transport.

Jay G.

Although the Herbie's contact did suggest I try it in my set up, where my BD player is acting purely as a digital transport.

Sdallnct

No we didn't have the same receiver. But by your reasoning, that doesn't matter. It is newer, has more features and I was told it would be a huge improvement in my system. It wasn't. If fact I feel it was worse sounding. But than you wouldn't be able to believe that without a DBT.

I think your getting a little silly now. Your really not going to believe two audio products have a difference in sound unless there is a DBT over a large sampling of people with mixed equipment, rooms, furniture, etc? So before you believe there is a difference you would have to see the results of what amounts to months if not years of research???

On the other hand maybe we are getting some where. Your not saying a difference cannot exist without a DBT. Your saying a DBT can indisputably prove a difference? That is two different things. If I buy a new Monster gold HDMI wire for my set up and tell you there was a major sound improvement, you actually cannot say there is no difference, only that there is no proof of a difference. Personally, I don't think you could ever prove "indisputably" anything makes a difference in what we are talking about. I can clearly hear a difference between say Maggie ribbon speakers and Klipsch Horn speakers. However, I'm not sure a DBT could be done by your standards to demonstrate that. Meaning, anyone could always pick apart the testing method the survey size, survey sample, if the tested equipment was adequate, there was enough variety in the equipment used, if you used enough different sized rooms, with different styles of furniture, listening done on different weather conditions, different times of day, etc, etc.

OK, I'm cool I guess. If this is what your saying. I've never argued that there is proof of a difference in sound. But lack of proof doesn't mean lack of a difference. And I'm ok with saying, "Yes, I believe there is a difference, but there is no proof of difference". So long as your ok saying "I believe there is no difference in sound, but I have no proof there is no difference".

See my "anecdotal " evidence of sound difference is no different then your anecdotal no sound difference. Proof works both ways. You can't make me prove there is a sound difference if you aren't will to prove there is no sound difference.

Jay G.

1) I never said newer would necessarily better.
2) The placebo effect doesn't work on everyone in every situation. If it did, then drug trials would see 100% effectiveness for the placebo group (and for the medicine group as well). And the effect could be completely overridden by real-world factors. For example, if the borrowed receiver sounded worse, the placebo effect probably wouldn't compensate completely for it.

Again, I believe that you think it sounded worse. I just don't think your anecdotal assessment means it's true for all people and/or in all situations.

Let's take a taste test. Say Coke is trying to make a new soda. They run a scientifically rigorous taste test and discover that 100% of test subjects like it. So they release it to the public. Does this mean that everyone will like it? No, there's a margin of error in the test. Would I not believe someone if they said it didn't taste good? No, because it likely didn't taste good to them. However, when deciding whether I may like it, I'm likely to take the test results over that one person's reaction.

Nope, and I've countered this assertion several time already on this thread. I've said that a DBT would provide the most credible evidence for a difference, but that's not the only evidence I would accept.

Yes, a difference can exist, even if a DBT hasn't been performed to try and verify that difference. The difference would've had to always have been there for a DBT to provide evidence for it.

No, a DBT cannot "indisputably prove a difference." It just provides evidence that the difference is extremely likely to exist. Since the difference is subjective, there's no way to conclusively prove one way or another if it's there or not.

I cannot say that it definitively isn't true. However, the scientific method dictates that one assumes any claim or theory to be untrue until there has been enough testing and/or evidence to prove that is is true (or at least is extremely likely to be true).

So, with your Monster Wire example, I'd say that your personal experience does not count as sufficient proof, so I wouldn't believe that the difference is real.

Again, the rules of skepticism and scientific method dictate that you don't have to prove a negative (because most times you can't). You assume something is untrue until proven otherwise.

See here for more info on why your demand of negative proof is considered a logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...negative_proof

audiolab

Hi. A few very good and relevant questions that I would like to comment on:

Manufacturers do address vibration issues in components. Most often, commercially available rubber and similar materials are used. Virtually every disc player has a vibration-absorbing interface between the disc and clamping mechanism. Usually rubber or foam. Herbie's proprietary material works just a little better in most cases. This material is not cheap to produce.

Manufacturers of mass-produced components must compromise with material costs in order to be competitive. A per-part cost difference of a few cents could be a major consideration. Usually, the highest-quality capacitors available are not used because they are more expensive. Additional vibration-control that would require more labor are omitted. Capacitors, by the way, are amongst the most sensitive electronic parts to vibrational influence, along with vacuum tubes.

By compromising material and parts costs, manufacturers achieve a balance between cost-efficiency and satisfying the mass market demand. Most people are satisfied with the performance of a component right "out of the box." A small niche exists for those who want just a little more performance than what the manufacturer provides, though. Upgrading to higher-quality capacitors and other "tweaks" can improve the performance of some, maybe most, components. (Several professional after-market component modifiers use some of Herbie's products with their upgrades.)

Like audio components, automobile engines are highly-engineered marvels. And yet there is a niche population of those who wish to "tweak" their engines to more of the engines' potential. Simply changing to a more efficient air filter can make a difference, or increasing the fuel injection efficiency (in older days, modifying carburetors was common).

A single "tweak" may accomplish little, but accumulatively can produce a significant difference. Some "tweaks" work hand-in-hand. For example, a more efficient air filter on an engine might make a minuscule improvement, but if complemented with a less-restrictive exhaust, the difference is substantial. Though a casual driver might not be able to tell any difference in the car's performance, the auto enthusiast surely would.

You might argue, "Yeah, but improvements with an engine can be measured, and therefore are real."

Herbie's audio lab bench-tests materials to assess their vibration-absorbing qualities. This is primarily for comparative evaluation between prototype material formulations, however. A more important factor than how much a material reduces vibration is what kind of influence it has on the vibrations themselves. Most solid and semi-solid materials will "tweak" vibrations passing through them and subsequently influence audio electronics with some coloration.

The real assessment needs to be done with the human ear. In science, many observations are evaluated by visual observation alone. Why cannot sonic results be evaluated by aural observation as well?

There is lots of evidence that vibrations affect audio electronics. I can't provide a link because I don't have 30 posts yet, but you can Google an in-depth article on the subject at The Stereo Times entitled, "The Art and Science of Audio System Tuning." Or, read about "microphonics" at Wikepedia.

Herbie's Audio Lab does not claim that the Black Hole eliminates microvibrations. The Black hole helps to smooth out and reduce the amplitude of microvibrations.

The audible effect can be evaluated most effectively by listening. If somebody doesn't know whether there is an improvement, doesn't care, or needs external validation, then there's no need to bother with the product. Audible effects can be consciously determined, however. For example, suppose that with audition "A" you hear the vocalist spitting "s" and "ch" sounds excessively (sibilance) and the bass is bloated and bloopy. With audition "B" you notice that the sibilance is mostly gone and the bass is no longer bloated. Voila! There is a difference, and you have heard it. Why do a dbt to validate what you heard? You don't need to buy into this kind of philosophy:

Or this:

For more nuanced differences between audition "A" and audition "B," comparisons are not so cut-and-dry. During product prototyping and experimentation, I work diligently to discern subtle differences. A dbt is a valuable tool to verify observations made "at the edge."

For double-blind testing, I use a third party so that neither tester knows whether it is "A" or "B" they are listening to. Sometimes I use a "tricked-you" test, where a factor "C" is sneaked in to try and fool the listener.

This is somewhat of a misinterpretation. Stating that The Black Hole "delivers powerful bass" is not saying that it "boosts bass." To avoid confusion, I have modified the webpage description to this: "Brings out a well-defined bass that's true to the source, great timbre and sonic texture." (Remaining unchanged is a mention that "results will vary somewhat from one component/system to another.")

The Black Hole does not function as a tone control, nor does it alter the basic waveform. It just helps clear out some of the sonic junk. This "junk" can sometimes affect the bass--sometimes diminishing its impact, sometimes giving it an artificial boost. By removing some of the audible glare and haze, bass is often rendered more powerful, not because it has been boosted, but because it is better pronounced. There should be some distinguishable differences in the waveform, though.

With many, many hours in the recording studio under my belt, both as an artist and as a recording engineer, I have some degree of confidence in what I hear. Frankly, my ears are more sensitive than any low or mid-quality waveform analyzer that I could afford; probably not more sensitive than the instrument itself, but more sensitive than what I could interpret from the printed or displayed readout. (With a frequency spectrum analyzer, I would want at least 16-bit resolution, at least 95 dB dynamic range @ less than 1% error.)

The readout wouldn't do me any good, anyhow; I probably couldn't tell the difference between a clarinet and a violin each playing the same note. I could tell the difference with my ears, though. (My hearing is just about average for my age, no "golden ears" or anything.)

Component isolation and vibration-control products made by Herbie's Audio Lab are not so advanced or sophisticated that they are beyond the realm of regular human hearing.

Many of you think that audiophiles are nuts and I don't blame you. I think many audiophiles are nuts--those who overly obsess about their "gear" instead of just enjoying the music. In many ways, I'm on the same side of the fence. I think wine tasters are nuts. But I will not incessantly argue that they cannot taste a difference.

Best regards and enjoy the music (or a video),

Steve
Herbie's Audio Lab

cpgator

Appreciate you taking the time to address my question, and for sticking around.

I agree that cost-efficiency determines a lot of what the manufactures put into their electronics. But in the case of mid to high-end CD players, I don't see this as a logical answer. For player costing hundreds to thousands of dollars, what is an additional 50 cents?

If this small additional cost of the manufacturing process could result in "cleaner performance (sound), better bass, more detail, greater clarity, better highs and midrange, more natural sound, better imaging, better soundstage, and a greater depth to the performance", then it just doesn't make an sense for a company to leave it out.

audiolab

I agree!

Steve
Herbie's Audio Lab

cpgator

As Judge Judy would say, If it doesn't make sense, it's not true.