Elliott Sound Products Editorial Archives - I Am Still As Mad As Hell 

Introduction

Welcome to the editorial archives.  There is a good reason to keep these around for a while yet, since the problems have not gone away.  In case you were wondering, I still have had not a single useful response from anyone mentioned (nor anyone else for that matter) that gives any conclusive evidence that the products mentioned actually work.

In contrast to my other articles, my editorial names names.  Do not buy any product from these companies until they publicly apologise to the hi-fi world (or hell freezes over, whichever comes first), and refund all money spent on the products described herein.  These are examples of exploitation of the worst kind, using big words and small mindedness to defraud the public.

Contents


Magic Lacquer

Updated with message from Stein Music, and some general comments.

A reader sent me a link to have a look at, as he thought I might be able to do something with it (he he :-).  Well, he was quite right, and when I saw this drivel, I was incredulous that anyone could possible believe such ... well .. CRAP!

I will insert some of the text (verbatim) with my comments following, and (as always) will ask the supplier for a response.  Just wait 'till you see this - you won't believe it either.

The Austrian acoustic researcher, Dieter Ennemoser, claims ...

Let's have a look at some of these claims.  The human ear is indeed not free from resonances, and these are used by our brain to analyse the signals we receive.  If we were to change this, then everything would sound equally awful (or just different) until we re-adjusted to the "new" environment.  Bone conduction is as important as any other sensory perception technique, and is vital to the way we hear some sounds.  As for carbon - yes, we are a carbon based life form, but the majority of our bodyweight is water.  Perhaps we can have a water lacquer next.

Lumping humans, turntables, loudspeakers and violins together is a subtle and completely erroneous piece of word salad.  Humans hear (see and feel) differently, one from another.  A turntable and loudspeaker are supposed to reproduce exactly what is recorded - not more, and not less, so the human hears the sound as s/he normally would.  A violin is a musical instrument, and is specifically designed to have resonances, as does a piano, bassoon or guitar - this is how we can tell them apart without looking.  Would you like all your music to sound as if the loudspeaker driver were attached to the messy end of a bassoon.  Me neither!

So this stuff will shift the resonances towards that of the human ear, great.  I wonder how exactly it manages to compensate for the fact that a turntable has a mass many thousands of times that of the ear drum - perhaps it has anti-mass properties!

There is that stupid violin again.  Of course the lacquer on a violin makes a difference - to the violin.  If I paint my walls with the same lacquer, my room will still not sound like a violin, any more than if I paint my car with the same colours and compositions used by Formula 1 racing teams, it will not go any faster, nor handle any better.  A thin coat of anything is going to change the resonance, but unless it is either a) immensely dense, or b) has the aforementioned anti-mass property, the difference will be very slight to something as heavy as a turntable.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it must have anti-mass properties!  This is truly a scientific breakthrough.  We can paint jockeys and aeroplanes with it - can you even begin to imagine the possibilities?

But wait.  There's more !

I can't quite get my head around the statement that because it takes 10 weeks to dry, and that during this time the system will sound good one day and horrible the next, that this shows the importance of tuning mechanical resonances.  Is this stuff so ... I don't know ... magical(?) that even during the final curing stages it can shift the sonic balance so far?

And ... "In a way it creates a finish similar to that found by trial and error by Guanieri or Stradivari".  What way would that be, I wonder.  In a way, clear nail polish will do exactly the same similar thing, and also dries to a hard but flexible finish.  Are these the same similar ways, or is there a subtle difference?

What a great idea!  The manufacturers of quality loudspeaker drivers must be kicking themselves that the compounds they use to treat their cones and diaphragms are soooo inferior.  Personally, if I were to spend (say) $20,000 on a pair of speakers (with individually plotted response and decay plots, etc) I would be aghast if someone did me a "favour" and painted everything in sight with the tiny little brush that seems to be the applicator for C37 Lacquer.  Actually, I would probably just kill the person, and air-mail the body to the manufacturer of C37 (painted with the anti-mass lacquer to reduce the air-mail costs, of course).

Great.  With a little slip of the brush, you can glue the stylus cantilever to the pickup body.  I'm sure that will improve the sound.  Anything that stiffens the cables even ever so slightly will cause additional lateral forces that may cause mis-tracking, and a tiny bit of lacquer in the bearing assembly of the arm will work wonders.

What excellent results?  Did one of the world's best sounding microphones sound better, look better, taste better perhaps ... what??  I once painted a door with excellent results too.

This is the most mindless paragraph I have ever read.  Are they implying that the lacquer removes the resistance, stops the electrons "crashing" about, or stops the heat?  If it removes the resistance, then your equipment simply will not work, if it stops electrons from behaving as they physically must then it is truly magical, since the only way science has been able to do this is to approach absolute zero (zero K, or -273 Celsius).  Maybe it stops the heat - in which case we have the most amazing scientific advance so far.  Heatsinks with 0°C per watt thermal resistance!

So "The resulting distortion in the current flowing through the resistor mirrors its spectrum of mechanical resonance" does it?  I think that this implies that resistors (and all other components) are in some way microphonic, and that this is in some way audible.  Or perhaps it simply means that the man has strung a few useful looking words together, and hopes no-one will notice that it is complete rubbish.

Although this might come as a surprise, I have no intention to talk to Allen Wright about cables (Ohhh.)

No comment!

The above implies that the circuit board must be microphonic, and will create sound as components vibrate.  If you have a system that is so afflicted, it is faulty, and should be repaired.  How about the poor repair person who has to fix something where everything has been glued to the board.  I know what I would do - tell the customer that because of the "treatment" it is no longer economical to repair, and throw it away!  As for any warranty that might have existed - forget it.

Lacquer all the mechanical parts too - yes!  Glue all those annoying moving parts so they stay nice and rigid.  It may no longer work, but if it did it would surely sound better :-)

Words fail me.  I wonder what double-blind and objective testing was performed.  Did the frequency response improve, less jitter, lower intermodulation distortion, better linearity of the low-order bits perhaps?  This important information seem to have been omitted (obviously a simple oversight that will be corrected shortly).

No-one seems to have appreciated the possibility of applying the lacquer to the listening chair (which has a surprising effect on the perceived sound), nor the curtains, carpets or pictures on the walls of the listening room, all of which can cause their own (not so small) effect on the overall sound.  Indeed, the walls themselves would obviously benefit - I want my listening room to sound like a violin, that would be awesome.

Best of all is the price.  A 10ml bottle (with a 10 ml bottle of thinners and a brush) is only 139 DM (or around US$73 at the time of writing).  To adequately cover all the items in the listening room to match the acoustical impedance to the ear would need around 2 litres, which only works out to US$14,600, based on the coverage of most paints and varnishes.  Bargain.  This would increase a little if the entire listening room were to be treated (only about US$73,000 assuming that 10 litres would do the job), since it is well known that the room has a very profound effect on the perception of sound.

All we need now is a gaseous form of C37, that can be released into air (preferably all air should be replaced, since it is not properly matched to the loudspeakers or the ear drum, so acoustic coupling is severely impaired.  This would improve the situation markedly, by asphyxiating those idiots who give hi-fi a bad name

Another possibility they did not mention is to actually coat the inside of the ear with C37 (including the ear drum, but the inner ear might be a tad difficult).  Another opportunity is that maybe, just maybe, the true believers could go to the ear specialist and have the substance between the ears removed, since it is obviously of little or no use to anyone who believes this gibberish.

As a finale, here is the "theory" behind the C37 lacquer (verbatim):

The attempts by science to explain the "secrets" of the character of sound have not been unsuccessful, it is called psycho-acoustics, and is well established.  Its use has allowed compression algorithms such as those used for CD, MP3 and even the telephone to be developed, and will continue despite people who don't believe in it.

Maybe we should start making hi-fi equipment from human bones and tissue, and cut out the middle man (and his C37 anti-mass / matter transformation lacquer).

I always thought that church bells were made from a brass alloy rather than carbon (in any form), and are operated at whatever the ambient temperature happens to be.  The last I saw, the valves in a guitar amplifier were made from glass and various metal alloys, run at much more than 37°C, and have little or no carbon in their structures.  As for orchestral instruments, what about the brass section?  Are the horns all made from carbon impregnated brass, silver, etc.?  A carbon triangle or cymbal might not give quite the effects desired, I suspect.

I have no idea what he is talking about, and the analogies are flawed in the extreme.

If any of this is even a tiny bit true, why do most of the audiophiles seem to think that metal film resistors sound better than carbon composition resistors?  According to the author, the reverse should be true.

As always with this sort of argument - "Technically, however, it is not possible to evaluate such sound qualities." Why is it that when people truly believe something like this works, it can never be proven?  Acoustical analysis is not an art form, it is a science.  Instruments exist that can detect the smallest differences in a sound, well before any human can - even those with "golden ears".

While I must agree that there are still some things that are not well understood in audio, the final subjective test must be use a properly conducted double-blind test methodology.  If this reveals a difference, then there is some basis for the claims, but there is no evidence that this has ever been done with C37, and without such testing, there is no foundation for any supposed benefits.

In my humble opinion, the author should stick to making violins, and stay well away from things he obviously does not understand.  Or perhaps he is just trying to cash in on the apparently profitable business of ripping off people who don't know any better - is this possible?

Paint your speaker cones indeed - sheesh!

BTW, just in case anyone thinks I might have tried this "stuff" - I haven't, I'm not going to, and until someone gives me convincing evidence gained from double-blind testing (properly conducted with independent witnesses) or some plausible scientific explanation, I'm not even slightly interested.

This may not be the ideal scientific approach, but it is sensible


Update - Added 20 Jan 2000

I contacted Stein Music, and Holger Stein explained that the theory of C37 was incomplete, and it is more of an experimental product.  In his own words ...

I also got some feedback and gathered some existing info on C37.  The results are a mixed bag, but no manufacturer seems to be using it.  In the interests of balance, some of the comments are below (slightly edited to remove names, irrelevant info and other identifiers, but otherwise verbatim - including spelling !)  As of 15 Apr 2000 I pruned these down to save space, and have attempted to maintain a balance.  Numbering remains unchanged.

A word of warning.  These comments were obtained from the AudioAsylum (www.audioasylum.com) which in itself should tell you something - I hope no-one minds that I used their comments (If you see something you wrote and want me to remove it, let me know - hence the numbers :-).

It is worth noting that carbon exists in nature in several different forms, none of which is compatible with human hearing - diamond, graphite, and coal in particular, as well as many different hydrocarbons. The vast majority of all commonly used lacquers are based on hydrocarbon solvents, so what is so special about C37? The primary difference appears to be the price and the vast amount of hype involved in its promotion. The human body is about 18% carbon (just in case you were interested ).

As of March 2004, I have not heard any further comments, and with any luck, the product has gone away (I wish).


ESP HomeMain Index
Editorial IndexEditorial Index
Copyright Notice. This article, including but not limited to all text and diagrams, is the intellectual property of Rod Elliott, and is Copyright (c) 1999. Reproduction or re-publication by any means whatsoever, whether electronic, mechanical or electro- mechanical, is strictly prohibited under International Copyright laws. The author (Rod Elliott) grants the reader the right to use this information for personal use only, and further allows that one (1) copy may be made for reference. Commercial use is prohibited without express written authorisation from Rod Elliott.
Page created and Copyright (c) 06 Jan 2000 Rod Elliott.  Reproduced parts are Copyright Stein Music.