Call me crazy but they (magic dots) work!

[DTB300]

So are you saying the "Dots" improved your bass "response" with less nulls or peaks in your room?

Bass absorption is what I believe Ethan was referring to. But I really do not want to speak for Ethan as I am sure he can clarify his post if he so desires.

With the "dots" addressing resonance of the glass, this in turn would help a certain frequency be reduced or sound better, which in turn could make other frequencies sound better - like bass. For example having less high end grunge from the glass means more of the other frequencies can be presented properly.

 

[jtwrace]

JT I think not, now if his 'corners' were made of glass and all he did was add a "few dots" than yes what Ethan says is true, Bass traps as we know them are for treatment of the corner loading of bass freq, thus their inherinet size.

It is my understanding that the dot thing on windows is merely for taming "spurious" and intermitent freg colorations off glass windows in other areas.

If I'm off base on this, I appoligize and will be sent to my room.

I was just asking if this is is what Ethan thought. To me, the bottom line is if he (Gordon) likes it then that's all that matters. I could care less what someone say's. Gordon likes it and that's all that matters..

 

[amey01]

Regarding Amey's comments about tweeks and the proportional cost thereof, I am also well aware that one must audition these items with a healthy sense of skepticism. I, however, am loathe to make a general statement that hardware upgrades are generally a better investment to achieve sonic nirvana versus investigating "tweek" options. Dave has made some very valid points regarding resonance control and the very high price / point ratio thereof.

GG

Well, by the title you chose for this thread, you were happy [even asking?] to be called "Crazy" - noone's gone that far, but it has certainly generated some really really good discussion.......and that's what it's all about.

I'd still like to see some PICS!

 

[DTB300]

I'd still like to see some PICS!

Lots of stuff on the web when you do some searching for it - pics too - Different sizes, different colors, etc.

"Black , White , and Green designations represent three unique formulations for the 2mm thru 6mm VTS Tuning Dots. Do not substitute a different Dot formulation from that specified in the following applications. 40mm Super Dots and 40mm Series II Dots are available with a cosmetic color choice (black or white) to match décor. Please specify"

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/carymods.htm

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue1/marigovtsdots.htm

http://www.marigoaudio.com/vtstuningdots.htm

http://www.musicdirect.com/products/brand.php?b=MARIGO LABS

 

[Gordon Gray]

I agree Amey. I take full responsibility for the thread name. Having said that, topics like this can descend into the meaningless abyss. This forum, as is typical, has kept the discussion respectful and interesting. I find the product to be worthwhile. Others may find it to be fantasy or whatever.

We can certainly agree to disagree recognizing that this hobby is quite subjective and that the "right" balance of hardware and room induced anamolies will be different for each individual.

Regarding DTB's question on the "overall" effect and the dots impact on mid / lower bass, like other room treatments, once you can bring the entire sonic spectrum into better balance, everything simply sounds more cohesive and subsequently, more engaging and musical.

Jason, thanks for the support and thank all of you for your comments and opinions.

GG

 

[Ethan Winer]

So are you saying that Gordon Gray's comments are all mental? Meaning what he thinks he hears is not possible?

Yes, exactly. I mean, other than magic, what other explanation could there possibly be?

Human hearing memory is very frail. Couple wishful thinking with an untreated room, and you have a sure recipe for imagining changes to the sound that don't really exist. This is my best explanation for why people can truly believe they hear a change in the sound when no change is possible:

A common-sense explanation of audiophile beliefs

Now, please don't shoot the messenger, okay?

--Ethan

 

[Gordon Gray]

Mr. Winer,

I've about had a belly full of your holier than thou / know it all attitude. You don't have the slightest idea what my room sounds like IN TOTAL.

How dare you question my hearing and my integrity.

You have no idea what else I have in my room that would impact the final sound but yet you appear to have the ability to make a summary judgement absent this knowledge.

I have had numerous folks with high end systems, musicians who play in the Grand Teton Summer Music Festival, and other folks who are talented enough to play piano and guitar come listen to my system.

All were complimentary of the sound.

You remind of some religious right zealot who pontificates and judges because they think they can.

I have heard numerous systems over the past 30 years in the five and six figure bracket and I do trust my ears and not someone who is trying to sell a product.

So please take your God complex and push it down someone else's throat. Pompous, arrogant people like you are part of the reason that high end has such a bad name in the general public.

In your case, the messenger, and his attitude, need to be shot.

GG

 

[User211]

My position on it is this, Gordon. Tap the window panes and listen to the response. Take the dots off. Tap the window panes again. If those dots are effective, you will hear a difference - quite a big one, right?

If not, they really are duff. If so, they do damp the panes. I can well believe that will make a difference - not at 40Hz, but at much higher frequencies. Window pane excitation must make a difference to reflected waves to some degree. And the whole pane will radiate it's own sound if vibrated enough.

However, I am prepared to accept I could be wrong - I just don't think I am!

I don't think Ethan needs shooting, though. Thought his article was a good read, and it does make some excellent points - I especially liked the cassette tape one. Also, I have in a very few cases noted I prefer MP3 versions above the CD versions of some material. Actually, I can only think of one album where that applies at the mo, and the MP3 version I prefer is at 320KBps which is high quality... but there have been others.

 

[amey01]

My position on it is this, Gordon. Tap the window panes and listen to the response. Take the dots off. Tap the window panes again. If those dots are effective, you will hear a difference - quite a big one, right?

Everything makes a difference - we know that. Heck, even putting a cup of tea on my coffee table makes a difference. It's just:

1: How much of a difference?
2: Is the difference proportional to the required funds outlay?

Number 2: is why I'm (and clearly some others too) are following this thread so closely. Any time you drop some cash on your system, you have so many options on where to drop it that you could never evaluate them all. It's a bit like "hit 'em and hope". Everyone's system and listening environment is different.

 

[C.A.P]

In fact and for the first time in many years, I really don't want to change anything. For me, I believe I really have it "dialed in".

Could be my ears, my age, and who knows what else.


GG

What more needs to be said !:rocker:

Mr. Weiner I have lost a lot of respect for you and your business. That link may I quote

" Likewise with any other expensive audio component. After all, how could a $15,000 power amplifier not sound better than one costing only $150? Yet tests have shown repeatedly that most modern gear has a frequency response that's acceptably flat (within a fraction of a dB) over the entire audible range, with noise, distortion, and all other artifacts well below the known threshold of audibility."
. My friend. You obviously have not heard of the Carver Challenge !
Mr. Carver whom I have a ton of respect for got chastised from that exact thinking.

Man alive ! I am amazed at the way this thread has went. Gordon has announced that he seen an improvement with a tweak and all he has had is negative attitude from it. Audio is so subjective and so opinionated that no way we could even think to judge his or anyones system. I know that if a man says he did this and it worked for him , GOOD FOR HIM! In todays audio clicks where its all about room tuning and tweaks I would have thought that this would be accepted. I know that the cost is not that cheap but neither is $350.00 for a burlap covered wood frame stuffed with $20 worth of Rock wool or 703 insulation.


We build our systems around our houses not usually the other way around. Gordon found a way to address a area of his concern and it worked with out compromising his other areas such as his View and such. GOOD FOR HIM ! I could care less if someone said use only bubble gum that is chewed by 3 women then ate by 3 dogs and soaked in vinegar 3 days and put it upside down on a pair of wet socks soaked in panther p!ss ! IF IT WORKED FOR ME WHAT DO I CARE WHAT YOU THINK !

Gordon Im glad you found a solution that helps you get closer to where you want to be. With out compromising your ideals and motives !

:bowdown:

 

[churchill]

I concur C.A.P, great post!

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi User and Amy,

Thanks for your questions.

User, if I could pull them off, do the "rap" test, and reinstall, I certainly would. However, the dots have an adhesive and my sense is that if I pull them off, I'll loose the adhesive and the benefit thereof.

Amy, for me and as previously stated, the benefits were audible and the cost appropriate for the requisite improvement.

I think your statement that "everyone's system and listening environment is different" is spot on and goes to the core of my positive reaction to this tweek and the subsequent skepticism expressed, some graciously, some not so, by others.

That's why I stated in my original post on this thread, and restated later on, that one should try in their own system and make their own judgement.

I respectfully disagree with Jeff and his observations on this product. However, this merely reinforces your above quoted statement.

Dismissing the product outright, without auditioning the product in one's own system and environment, is simply irresponsible and undefensible.

GG

 

[tonepub]

Not to get off topic (but what the heck), if you go back and read the issues of The Absolute Sound about the Carver challenge, he was able to come close, but not duplicate the sound of the expensive amps with the budget amp....

 

[Gordon Gray]

Thank you.

GG

 

[Bernard]

This is my best explanation for why people can truly believe they hear a change in the sound when no change is possible:

A common-sense explanation of audiophile beliefs

Your treatise states:

"When pressed, they often say they believe they can hear things that science has not yet learned how to measure. Is this really possible? Modern audio test equipment is capable of measuring everything known to affect sound quality...."

This makes me think of something stated in TAS many years ago. Paraphrasing: "If what you are hearing is inconsistent with what you are measuring, then perhaps you are measuring the wrong thing".

About that last quoted sentence: you may be able to measure everything KNOWN to affect sound quality, but how about the unknowns ?

 

[amey01]

Your treatise states:

"When pressed, they often say they believe they can hear things that science has not yet learned how to measure. Is this really possible? Modern audio test equipment is capable of measuring everything known to affect sound quality...."

This makes me think of something stated in TAS many years ago. Paraphrasing: "If what you are hearing is inconsistent with what you are measuring, then perhaps you are measuring the wrong thing".

About that last quoted sentence: you may be able to measure everything KNOWN to affect sound quality, but how about the unknowns ?

YEAH YEAH +1 +1

This is what I've been saying for years. Science has been developing for years and continues to develop. It is very naïve of ANYONE to suggest that 2008 science is complete.........That's BS - we're learning new things all the time!

So what we can't measure / don't know today may well be explained tomorrow. Anyone who says we know and can measure everything possible about sound quality today is off their face. Sorry, but yes. If this was the case, we could predict how anything would sound simply by looking at specs!

 

[User211]

Primo agreement about the measuring thing.

But what is strange is that a microphone is an incredibly brilliant and sensitive piece of kit. And you can see what it has recorded easily on a computer. Plus we have scopes, multimeters etc etc.

So where is the factor X we are looking for that we can't measure?

Ethan has the scientific approach, but until he can be proven wrong... well, it goes without saying. Or has Ethan discovered factor X in his article? Hm...

 

[Bernard]

Primo agreement about the measuring thing.

But what is strange is that a microphone is an incredibly brilliant and sensitive piece of kit. And you can see what it has recorded easily on a computer. Plus we have scopes, multimeters etc etc.

So where is the factor X we are looking for that we can't measure?

Ethan has the scientific approach, but until he can be proven wrong... well, it goes without saying. Or has Ethan discovered factor X in his article? Hm...

If we knew what factor X was, we would...well...know what it was. It would no longer be factor X. Is it something in the way the brain treats information? Why is it that you prefer 211's to 6550's? I would not be surprised if they measured the same, with the measurement parameters we are aware of today.

I have to admit that I did not read Ethan's entire article. I stopped fairly close to the start, when I had strong disagreement with what was being stated (which was what I quoted). I did not see the point in reading any farther as, like Amey, I do not feel that we know all there is to know about the subject. When someone implies/states that we know all there is to know, their credibility gets shot with me.

It has been stated over and over again that microphones are very sensitive instruments, but the human ear is far more sensitive. We have scopes, multimeters, etc, but maybe we don't know what to look for. Maybe what we should really be looking at is EEG's.

 

[Ethan Winer]

you may be able to measure everything KNOWN to affect sound quality, but how about the unknowns ?

There are no unknowns with audio. Everything has been understood fully for approaching 100 years. In THIS article I explain the four parameters that define everything needed for audio reproduction. If someone has a "theory" that something else hasn't yet been discovered, the burden of proof is on them. Further, a null test is absolute and can identify any differences between a device's input and output, whether you know what to look for or not.

What is very well known is the frailty of human hearing and perception. Every professional recording engineer has, at some point in their career, tweaked the EQ on a voice or guitar track to perfection only to discover later they were adjusting a different track. Or the EQ was bypassed. The frailty of our hearing is the real issue, not that "science" doesn't know what to measure. This is the only sensible explanation for why someone can stick teensy plastic dots on their window and believe the bass has been improved.

--Ethan

 

[DTB300]

The frailty of our hearing is the real issue, not that "science" doesn't know what to measure.

And that frailty causes each of us to have a very subjective opinion on what we hear with a particular piece of gear or sound of a room. We can measure and show the response (objective), but each person will perceive or hear something a little different (subjective).

There sometimes is a need or desire to hear a difference when purchasing something, "PsychoAcoustics" (study of subjective human perception of sounds) when there really is not much a difference presented. We have all been there.

I am not debating if GG heard a difference or not, he said he did, so I believe him. Audio is very subjective even with objective measurements and data.