| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Not yet, but I have made it past Ontario, into Quebec. Sometimes you simply -have to- find beer at 3am.
Hey, this thread is still alive!
Great answer, KBK.
Next up:
You've all heard of endorphins, but there is another really cool biological substance to consider.
Oxytocin. And I don't mean the stuff Rush Limbaugh pimps his maid for.
Oxytocin is a cool nine amino acid polypeptide secreted by the posterior pituitary gland that has myriad physiologic and neuropsychological effects.
Oxytocin at Wikipedia
Here are some cool links to studies in refereed scientific journals about some of the cool stuff it does:
The affect of oxytocin on the ability to interpret the content of others' mental processes.
This one's a little touchy feely, but nonetheless...
Just think how this could interact with audio evaluation.
Direct auditory/oxytocin relationship. Really really interesting.
So, even if the effect of a tweak is "placebo" based, it may generate an actual physiologic response.
Perhaps the tweaks we call "placebos" are for some, but not for others. Perhaps the power of suggestion has an actual, repeatable effect on some audiophiles - making their experience with a given product an honest event, for them.
Also, this may explain why the effect must be "sighted" rather than blind - it's the "knowing" that creates the effect.
So, for some, these tweaks may have a "real" effect, and for others, not.
This may also be consistent with how we see "tweak susceptible" reviewers (track their reference systems) who seem to have a cycle of the "newest greatest tweak" into, and then out of, their systems - the tweak may start losing its biological effect after a certain number of sessions.
It may also help explain why we often confuse "new/different" with "better."
For me, the tweak trouble lies in someone (usually with a fiscal incentive) claiming universal truth/application for a tweak. I see it more as a bell curve kind of phenomenon.
"Your mileage may vary" seems to be an actual audio truth, as well.
Is this the new, the vaunted, the searched for - for over 20 years, Huey Lewis - new drug? Will it make my face break out?
>>> "This exact point becomes the thing I've said before, about the way that so-called scientific experts refuse to learn new things that upset their 'paradigm of existence' as this is literally quite painful for them to come to an understanding that what they know is wrong." <<<
I would go along with the first part of your sentence i.e that some 'scientific experts' find it quite painful to learn new things that upset their 'paradigm of existence' but what they ALREADY know does not have to necessarily be wrong. And, in my opinion, this is where their defensiveness comes in - that they think they are being told to forget what they have already been taught. What I would suggest is that BECAUSE of what they have been taught (or learned for themselves) this can prevent them (can hold them back) from 'stepping out of the box' to consider new things, new concepts - because, to 'step outside the box' and consider something new - they would then CEASE to be the 'scientific expert' !!!! They would just join everyone else (at exactly the same - non expert - level) trying to come to terms with something new !!!
Could I suggest KBK that you read the "Crystals redux" thread on the Iso Ward (Isolation Ward) section of Audio Asylum and "Super Tweak--Lps, Cds, SACDs, and DVDs" thread on the General Asylum section of Audio Asylum.?
Either there is 'something going on' with 'sound' which requires seriously investigating or we are back with the old chestnuts "It must be suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, audio faith healing or effective marketing."
Regards,
May Belt.
My own personal favorites are: (1) We have to draw the line somewhere, (2) It disobeys all known laws of science, (3) If you think it works, why are you afraid to take the Randi Million Dollar Challenge and (4) The testimonials are fake.
~ Cheers
Fake testimonials?
Inconceivable.
The plural of 'testimonial' is 'fact.'
You can look that up in the Oxford English Dictionary.
A post of my own lifted from another forum, about Randi and his 'million $ challenge':
It is also obvious, that no human being or organization can rest in the realm of the relevant and or valid, if it's entire reason for existence, it's past, it's present, it's future and prestige in any way..rests solely on attacking others. That's a basic double negative, a fascism, if you will... of the worst kind.
As for his methods:
Actually, I can get the link to you guys of the article where the scientific crowd, in general, specifically made a point of public ally debunking Randi as a complete 'backside clown', with respects to his scientific priorities and testing/validation procedures. They are in no-way scientifically correct, nor even remotely valid, and not at all in line with the most basic validity and acceptance levels of statistics and statistical testing procedures. They want nothing to do with that doorknob. The scientific community has stated flat out, that the level of statistical proof in the testing he desires to 'see' (to allow the so-called 'million$' out of his 'hands') and will not back down from is..actually..impossible. On all valid testing fronts.
And the link:
http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The major point to take away, is that Randi stepped into the picture, regarding Hal Puthoff's work, right when the US government was trying to cover up the exposure of their USAF, Marines, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc, etc, 35 year ongoing investigation and use of psychic phenomena, on actual operations and in subversive work.
Randi came in, blew down Hal Puthoff as a charlatan...and all the work he did for the government, the whole thing went out of the public eye..and Hal got to go back to working quietly for the US government, with the public (and the stalwarts in the scientific community backing that up, of course!!) satisfied in their 'way of life'..and no such thing as psychics, extra dimensions, mind reading, remote viewing, etc, etc even remotely exist.
Understand?
Read the book 'PSI Spies: The True Story of America's Psychic Warfare Program', by Jim Marrs.
It pertains exactly to this thread in the most fundamental and basic way possible.
The government of the US (and of other countries) does not want anyone even remotely believing in psychic considerations, nor does it want anyone even remotely looking at alternative energies which break current scientific paradigms. For a 100 different reasons. Most of them not good ones. For you, anyway.
However, we have an issue where all sciences at this time, are each reaching thresholds where their further expansion is involved in stepping deeply into these areas. What was a few isolated instances of crushing research (in those areas) out of existence..has become hundreds..and is cascading into thousands. I'm thinking the genie will be getting out of the bottle in the sense of the 'general public' knowing about it..in the next 5 years. But not likely to happen sooner.
'Personal Power' begins, then, at that time-for the first time in human history. Barring some unforeseen issues getting in the way of such - that is. This is the exact issue each and every one of you face at this time. Even if you did not know it, or do not understand it...this is the issue. Governments, major corporations, etc., and the people in them don't get to where they are without the capacity for foresight.
>>> "However, we have an issue where all sciences at this time, are each reaching thresholds where their further expansion is involved in stepping deeply into these areas." <<<
Surely, within the refined area of people who are interested in audio and have a (declared) interest in obtaining good sound, it should be possible to have a serious discussion as to what may be allowing better sound to be 'heard' and for people's experiences NOT to be instantly dismissed as "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination or effective marketing." Or such as Ethan describing John Atkinson's experiences with the Harmonix Discs as John being "mistaken".
Either people are 'hearing' the Harmonix Discs or Mpingo discs or various Crystals give an improvement in the sound or they are not. If they ARE, then we (as a general audio group) should be able to seriously discuss the matter.
Quote by Buddha.
>>> "For me, the tweak trouble lies in someone (usually with a fiscal incentive) claiming universal truth/application for a tweak. I see it more as a bell curve kind of phenomenon." <<<
Again, with the price !!! Either such as various Crystals CAN give improvements in the sound - whether those crystals are FREE and harvested from the ground or purchased from a supplier is surely irrelevant ? If such things can give improvements in the sound, then they can give improvemens in the sound !!!! Or not !! The price is irrelvant to any discussion.
Please let me make myself perfectly clear. We do not make or sell Crystals but I can readily recognise what other people are experiencing (see one example below from the 'Crystals redux thread' on the Isolation Ward section of Audio Asylum).
>>> "Quote by Paul A from Isolation Ward 19/05/08
I'll have to admit that a few months ago, I would have probably thought that crystals could best be explained by the placebo effect. But to my surprise they have turned out to be some of the most powerful tweaks I've ever used. I went through a similar process of disbelief with NOS tubes and power cords. Some of my earlier experiments were with mediocre stuff, so I came to the conclusion that the effects, while noticeable, were subtle. Once I started using the good stuff, I started to spend a lot of time improving and refining my system with tweaks. It's funny how long it's taken for me to get where I am now--it really is a long educational process. Thanks for all of your help with this latest avenue of exploration." <<<
Regards,
May Belt.
I just posted this in another thread, on measurements. It is, again, directly relevant here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Harley's book on high end audio might be a good choice as well. You'd have to look at what it covers.
Knowing what the specifications are is important but in the end, specifications are like looking at a given Formula Driver's record in racing contests. It tells you his history and capabilities, but not if the given Driver is going to win that particular race. It only indicates potential, not actual success in the given specific case. With respects to 'the race', I mean when that given audio reproduction device is actually heard and compared to others, only then will it become clear that the given item is 'good' or 'not'. The key point being in the hearing. In the end all specifications are useless, as the end point is in the listening.
Liken it to being inside of the head of the given Formula Driver, only then will you know if there is potential for that given race result for that specific day..to possibly be occurring in the direction you desire. If the given Driver then wins or fails to win the race, you will have your answer. Until then, no answer.
In a similar fashion, one can metaphorically be in the 'head' of the given audio device by considering all physical aspects and specifications of said given audio device..but the hearing of the given audio device is the only point that tells you in any realistic fashion whether or not the device is any good at reproducing audio in a way that is complimentary to and with the given person's personal auditory considerations.
Which is why audio magazines can exist that do no measurements of any kind. Not that they (such magazines or websites) are dishonest, but that the listening is, by far, the final arbiter to the point that it takes a position of extreme value over that of any measured number.
This tends to bother the stats and numbers linear thinking kind of people. They should endeavor to get themselves a cream of some sort for that, or stay about of audio, as audio contains both subjectivism and objectivism in balance, due to it's very nature. For one to give grief to those who listen over measurements and specifications is to give lie to their own human function. Presumably they are attempting surcease to and for the agitated factors of their basic human function, by involving themselves in audio, but their attitudes and behaviors give one pause with regards to decoding their intentions and behaviour.
A slightly more eloquent (and less provocative) version of that is also stated in any given Pass Audio equipment manual, for example. To cut short and misquote what Nelson said: that in the end - its the listening that counts.
Would you believe I have the distinction of being the subject of Randi's Weekly SWIFT Report 5 times since the end of last year, more than even Uri Geller. :-) I didn't realize there were so many audiophiles at the Educational Foundation. (I'm joking again). I confess I do think Randi knows a good thing when he sees it.
Exhibit A is the Million Dollar Challenge involving the Intelligent Chip, a huge bruhaha that spanned quite a few months during 2005 that pitted a customer of mine against the smooth, well-oiled JFREF machine. Who woulda thunk a few thousand artificial atoms could stir up so much angst and general turmoil?
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - Wm Burroughs
:-)
Science itself is riddled with the very same point, Ethan. For example, within the realm of all known sciences that investigate the physics of existence, or wave/particle..this, down to and including basic math.. the vast majority of those points, over time, have been misconstrued to be something called a 'fact'. 'Laws', even. The point is, that any good scientist knows that they are merely modeling functions, with regards to attempting to define 'reality' in some fashion. All of these laws, are subject to revision upon the findings of new data that can be correlated into a new paradigm..and thus a new or revised 'model'.
"Model"
Not 'Law' or 'fact'.
'Law' tied to scientific matters is a gross mishandling and application of a human social term, which ironically refers to the idea of isolation , separation, management, and or incarceration of human elements and/or considerations which are deemed to be offensive and/or detrimental to the larger group consensus. Nothing more. This point clearly illustrates the more hidden/unrealized aspects of the human function intruding into the logical function that humanity should observe when attempting to be true to the basic tenants of the sciences.
All is theory....nothing more.
So we investigate openly, and attempt to define and correlate our observations --- which is the very Raison d'
Quote May:
>>> "For me, the tweak trouble lies in someone (usually with a fiscal incentive) claiming universal truth/application for a tweak. I see it more as a bell curve kind of phenomenon." <<<
"Again, with the price !!! Either such as various Crystals CAN give improvements in the sound - whether those crystals are FREE and harvested from the ground or purchased from a supplier is surely irrelevant ? If such things can give improvements in the sound, then they can give improvemens in the sound !!!! Or not !! The price is irrelvant to any discussion.
Please let me make myself perfectly clear. We do not make or sell Crystals but I can readily recognise what other people are experiencing (see one example below from the 'Crystals redux thread' on the Isolation Ward section of Audio Asylum)."
Hi, may.
I guess you are OK with the "bell curve" part, as you went straight for the question of motivation of the claimants.
Again, with the protesting about distrust of salespeople.
Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says?
I find it an important consideration. Just as you dismiss facetious tweak claims by people who are not deemed by you as being "sincere," we should also always keep in mind the non-audio reasons that may accompany someone's claims about a Hi Fi product.
I can see that this is a frightening prospect for you, to the point of your feeling compelled to disclaim any commercial inetrest in "crystals," of all things.
Please look past your pet peeve about others' suspicions regarding a saleserson's incentive to sell. By now you should know, that is a valid aspect of anyone's consideration of a product.
Now, it wasn't that I was being utterly dismissive, I was relating that it is a consideration.
Feel free to look past the offending sentence.
>>> "I find it an important consideration. Just as you dismiss facetious tweak claims by people who are not deemed by you as being "sincere," we should also always keep in mind the non-audio reasons that may accompany someone's claims about a Hi Fi product.
I can see that this is a frightening prospect for you, to the point of your feeling compelled to disclaim any commercial inetrest in "crystals," of all things.
Please look past your pet peeve about others' suspicions regarding a saleserson's incentive to sell. By now you should know, that is a valid aspect of anyone's consideration of a product.
Now, it wasn't that I was being utterly dismissive, I was relating that it is a consideration.
Feel free to look past the offending sentence." <<<
***********
No problems, did not find it an offending sentence, see below. I just question the purpose of saying it !!!
************
>>> "we should also always keep in mind the non-audio reasons that may accompany someone's claims about a Hi Fi product." <<<
**********
I take that as 'read' - surely most intelligent people just do that as normal ?
**********
>>> "I can see that this is a frightening prospect for you, to the point of your feeling compelled to disclaim any commercial inetrest in "crystals," of all things." <<<
I did not find it a frightening prospect at all, in fact I am quite pleased that other people are discovering other 'things' which can have an effect on the sound !!!! I was trying to make it clear that I support what the people I referred to on the Crystal redux thread were experiencing and reporting EVEN THOUGH I do not have any commercial interest in doing such support. I was responding to your sentence. You were inferring that the 'trouble' with a tweak was if someone had a financial interest in promoting it. Whereas that (a financial interest) is irrelevant as to whether it works or not.
So, either the various Crystals etc work (i.e. affect the sound) or the Harmonix Discs or the Mpingo discs work (i.e. affect the sound) or they don't. Irrespective of who has a financial interest in promoting them or how much they cost. The cost only comes into the equation for an individual later - as to how much of their available spending budget they are going to allow for such things. Which is secondary to the question of whether the 'tweaks' work or not !!
So, bringing into a discussion the aspect of 'someone having a financial interest in promoting them' or their individual cost BEFORE or INSTEAD OF discussing whether they are actually effective or not is a tactic used by many people - usually as a diversionary technique to avoid actually having to discuss whether the 'tweaks' work or not !! Many people use the expression "Well, people are known to believe marketing hype so it's not surprising that they say they can 'hear' such things work." I.e. Reverting back to 'it must be suggestion'. So it goes on, year after year, without resolution. It is a way of saying "You mustn't take notice of what those people are saying because they have a vested interest in saying what they are saying."
Just as Geoff Kait knows (by heart) many dismissive tactics which people use, I was trying to pre-empt a particular tactic - the dismissal tactic of - "If people are selling something, then beware of what they say." I.e Reverting back to 'beware of snake oil salesmen'.
>>> "Again, with the protesting about distrust of salespeople.
Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says?" <<<
Why is it relevant to bring in sentences such as those into a discussion about whether things affect the 'sound' or not ?
Again, I would expect, in a discussion with intelligent people, that it would be taken as 'read' that intelligent people DO NOT BUY everything someone tries to sell them !!!
>>> Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says?
I find it an important consideration." <<<
Why is it such an important consideration in an intelligent discussion ? Surely it is something taken as 'read' between intelligent people ?
If, after John Atkinson says that he heard improvements in his sound after applying such as the Green Pen to the outer edge of a CD and heard improvements in his sound after attaching such as Harmonix Discs, would you say to John the sentence,
"Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says? I find it an important consideration." ?
If, after Wes Phillips says that he heard improvements in his sound after placing a Shakti Stone on such as the (tiny) Sonic Impact Super T amplifier would you say to Wes the sentence,
"Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says? I find it an important consideration." ?
If, after Michael Fremer says that he heard improvements in the sound from his vinyl records after demagnetising them would you say to Michael the sentence,
"Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says? I find it an important consideration." ?
Or, Buddha, would you extend to John Atkinson, Wes Phillips, Michael Fremer the courtesy of presuming that they have enough intelligence for you NOT TO say that sentence to them.?
If it is such an important consideration that you have to say that sentence to me, then surely it is, equally, such an important consideration that you would have to say it to EVERYONE ? If you don't say that sentence to everyone, then that only leaves the question "Why to me ?"
Now, I am not reacting as though I am offended. I have reached sufficient maturity not to be offended by such as that. I am purely questioning why you should say that sentence to me if it was not intended as a 'put down' sentence. Surely, to say the sentence "Maybe you buy everything someone tries to sell you, and you believe everything the vaccuum salesman says? I find it an important consideration." ? to someone who has been involved in the audio industry for over 50 years, working alongside skilled electronic/audio engineers for that same time, means that you are not giving me the same courtesy in a discussion you would give such as John Atkinson, Wes Phillips and Michael Fremer. And I merely ask why ??????? Particularly as I give everyone I correspond with, talk to, the courtesy of them already having enough intelligence not to need such sentences !!!
>>> "Please look past your pet peeve about others' suspicions regarding a saleserson's incentive to sell. By now you should know, that is a valid aspect of anyone's consideration of a product." <<<
It is NOT a pet peeve of mine about others' suspicions regarding a salesperson's incentive to sell. I EXPECT every intelligent person to have such suspicions !!!! In other words I take it as 'read' (already presumed) with people I am having a discussion with. So, again, I take it as 'read' that it IS a valid consideration, so it does not even need to be referred to between intelligent people.
So, can we get past what a salesperson may or may not say. Can we get to the point of actually discussing what might be having an effect on the sound, and also back to where the discussion started in the first place - how big or small does something have to be to affect 'sound' i.e does size matter ?
The major problem in some discussions is that many of the sentences and expressions which people use are truisms. So, it would be foolish to argue against truisms. So, they are not only truisms but they become discussion 'blockers' !!
"The placebo effect" is a truism. There IS such a thing as a 'placebo effect'.
"Suggestion" is a truism. There IS such a thing as 'autosuggestion'.
"Imagination" is a truism. There IS such a thing as 'imagination'.
"Being mistaken" is a truism. There IS such a thing as 'being mistaken'.
"Effective marketing" is a truism. There IS such a thing as 'effective and persuasive marketing'.
"Snake Oil salesmen" is a truism. There have been 'snake oil salesmen'.
"Being conned" is a truism. People CAN be 'conned'.
"People should be healthily sceptical." is a truism. They SHOULD be healthily sceptical !!
When people have gone through that list, have exhausted that list, then what remains, surely, is the original 'topic for discussion' ? Which is how it started in the first place.
And, let me pre-empt another reaction. Asking people to 'get past' that list of truisms does not alter people's right to their opinions or to 'free speech'. It is just a request that 'stating the obvious' should not be continually used as a method of discussion. Most of the controversial discussions regarding 'what affects sound' are about what is NOT an obvious, known and expected outcome !!! I will now break my own vow. I will state a truism. "If it was obvious, known and expected, then there would be no controversy".
Regards,
May Belt.
Are these two things related? The other day I was speaking with a friend of mine who happens to be a well-known, world class circuit designer (amps, preamps). He mentioned that while he thinks May Belt writes very very well, he was scared of "all that stuff." Is the attack on Stonehenge related to this audio tweak controversy?
2 Vandals Attack Stonehenge with Hammer
The Associated Press
Article Launched:
No, Geoff. Not guilty !!! I am more likely to 'hug' a Stonehenge stone than damage one.
It IS surprising though, Geoff, how many people DO feel maybe not scared but definitely 'unsure' of what we are actually about. Which surprises me as there are no two people MORE sane, sensible, down to earth, both feet on the ground, than Peter and me.
Regards,
May Belt.
May, can we get back to discussing how the devices operate? I just had a few friends over to listen to the effects of the foil on several CD's. They picked the CD's and I applied the foil after everyone had heard the same untreated disc several times to make certain they didn't hear anything new or different with subsequent playback of the same material. Everyone was bowled over by the improvement in sound quality while none of them knew what was happening when I changed discs from untreated to treated. I only asked whether they thought the music sounded the same on the last play after they had heard the music played with the foil, so everyone who doesn't care to try your foil can tear apart my unsicentific methods. Their opinions don't matter to these people since they all heard vast improvements in the musical presentation.
These are not audiophiles though they all have heard my system before and one of them is a talented musician. One is a medical transcriptionist who has complained about the quality of the dictation she has been getting for the past decade since the switch to all digital transcription devices. An as experiment she chose a doctor who she had just transcribed today and we all listened to the poor quality of his dictation. It was a horrible mess of mumbles and slurs and overall poor diction and misuse of the microphone. According to her it hurt her ears which she depends on for her livelyhood. I applied two very small strips of foil to the ear pieces of her headset and we all listened again. None of us could believe the improvement! According to her the dictation quality is now closer to analog without digital's artifacts. She's sold and will be ordering more foil for her co-workers to try. She would like to know whether applying this to the phones the doctors use for dictation would be beneficial. One problem is the cleaning staff will probably try to remove the foil. She's also interested in any advice you might have on further improvements to her home equipment. I placed another small strip of foil on the plug to her headphones and she says it made a smaller but still audible improvement. She gets paid by the amount of work she turns out and is excited about going to work tomorrow.
On my CD's I have applied an even smaller strip than your literature recommends and still had profound improvements in sound quality. Everyone to a person described the experience in similar words without coaxing. As I said, these are not audiophiles but their words said exactly what an audiophile would experience under the same conditions. "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity", etc. are the words they all used. The Electret Cream is next in the trial list for everyone next weekend.
So, May, other than what you've already told us, how's this stuff work? How small a piece can work?
I don't think the question has been asked and I do believe it deserves an answer. Who of you out there who prefers to deny or dismiss any of the claims for alternative treatments, and specifically any of Belt's devices, has tried even one of them? Not the bottle of flouride (which I seriously doubt anyone actually tried) but the foil and cream that are given away for free.
If you have not tried them, why not? Are you all "ethans"?
The foil is given away at no monetary cost to you. It costs you the time to request it via one email. Belt absorbs the cost of the trial sample and the shipping overseas. Then within a few minutes after it arrives you can test your theories in reality rather than continue to throw stones without any reason other than your desire to hide behind arrogance and fear.
If you do not experience results similar to what many others have heard and what I just outlined above, I don't think May will be insulted. But rather than try a simple experiment you have proceeded to insult her numerous times without any proof of your assertions. This is a circular battle of unjustified assertions, a battle with no end in sight other than weariness for reading the same words over and over again, unless you try the devices.
Are you all that "dup'd" on this forum that you don't want to admit to even trying something you do not fully understand? Are you afraid of being mocked because you accept something others do not? Are you all at this point too blinded by unreasoning fear of the unknown or something out of the ordinary? All you have to loose is your prejudice.
Or by doing nothing you can choose to retain those unreasonable tendencies you harbor. You can remain frozen in fear of discovery.
What do you suppose would happen if you did experience an improvement in your perception?
In a sense you are acting like bigotted, old red necks who might be forced to change your mind just the slightest bit when reality comes knockin'. What is you are afraid of? Try the foil and cream. Or please explain why you refuse to do so. Have any of you even gone so far as to ask yourself why you don't want to try the foil? I would be equally interested in that explanation.
I do most of my work in these areas that are on the border of science and into the unrealized effects and considerations of the more molecular, or quantum considerations. This effect that May has dealt with here reminds me of the very simplistic effect of when you run a 'neutralizing' chemical all over a given audio cable. The ionic discharge from the fluid neutralizes, for a time, any capacitive buildup on the given cable, thus stabilizing it's response 'in time' (high delta) regarding transients and their blending (both micro and macro transients) in time..and since our ears hear by the temporal blending of transients and micro transients over time...we hear a difference. Our ears are primarily a temporally sensitive device.
Now, audio and science, at this time, utilize 'whole signal' for evaluation and calculations of distortions.
The problem begins in the lack of a proper framing for the questions at hand. Since we only look at these tiny components, any signal measurements that utilize the entire signal is going to totally fail when it comes to revealing those tiny differences created by the use of the ionic discharge anti-static fluid on the cables.
Just a single example of why design engineers are not scientists, and they should NOT venture into specific statements about perception if they simply do not 'know their shit'. Ignorance is aplenty in this world, they should consider divesting themselves of some before venturing forth with their mouths and minds. One of the worst kinds of idiot on the planet is the person who thinks they know something..but they specifically refuse to revise that understanding. Growth is inherently painful-they fight it.
The problem is, ignorance tied to blind emotionalism can be found anywhere. As an example, look to Fox TV and the given viewers and followers of such psychotic small-minded trash. I rest my case, as they say. Brutal and violent unthinking animals leading the people who don't know any better... What a mess.
I'm not saying that May and Peter's specific effects (specifically the strips) are simple ionic discharge and thus neutralization, no. (the creme? ....quite possibly) But the comparison stands with regards to a common scientific and measurable phenomenon not considered to be of importance or of significance... ending up ruling the entire issue or consideration at hand. For example, at first flush, Jack Bybee's devices likely bear more than a little resemblance to these differing devices and effects, on more than one effect or level.
I don't know what that has to do with my post. Try it again in English. All I see in there is a rationalization for someone opposed to these devices to not try the devices. Is that a rebuttal to my post or are you just doubling down on what I said?
I tried a couple of the free tweaks.
There was no change in the sound nor in my enjoyment in listening. That is, I "can listen to the same music with the same pleasure" with or without the tweaks.
It was fun to try.
I'm just ramblin' Jan. I've not an agenda at all, on any subject. I'm just dancing to the music, not making moves or thrusts with swords in any given direction. Discussions don't always need to have posts in them which fall on one side or another. Sometimes a basic story or relational aspect is just as important, with respects to fleshing things out to help folks understand the considerations at hand.
For example, I can state two books which should transform folks here on the board, iffin' they had the balls to read them..and also to understand them..BOTH..and live with that understanding..every day of their lives.
But the vast majority won't.
The two books are:'Graceful Exits', a short bit, about each being, on how 100 or so Buddhist and Spiritual masters chose to die.
The other is 'The Big Book Of Near Death Experiences', a huge encyclopedic tome on NDE's. 100% factual, names, dates, places, every little bit.
The mere mention of such is to ostracize one's self from some folks. They are so freaking frightened. Of what?, I say. Grow up. Get some reality. Scientists, skeptics, whatever. All so freaking immaturely afraid of what they cannot explain. So very sad, it is. So they hide from it, and attack those who do understand it. They must attack, for if they don't, their internal paradigms of what 'is' begins to crack and fail' -and that is deathly and dearly painful. You know..psychology 101. The inner mental constructions-and their layering.(or perhaps it's actually a bit more advanced psychology than that
**)
So they'd rather (literally and metaphorically) stick a knife in me before undergoing any sort of psychological change, to clear their mind of their self-imposed bullshit.
On another forum I've expressed this effect as a humorous visual of me standing there with a gun in my hand, shaking..sweat pouring down my brow screaming at them.."Step away from the monkey! Now!"..and they're all confused...going, "What? what's going on! what do you mean? You are crazy! All that total shite you are talking about!"....
Yet they still walk toward me, attacking..attacking me, protecting the emotional underpinnings of their tiny universe.
I say to them.."I know! that's part of the problem!"
They reply.."what do you mean?"
I again say.."My point exactly!"
You know....that sort of stuff. No agenda.
Just watching folks with monkey issues fight off knowledge of reality is. The usual stuff on these forums. In whatever way it might occur.
Why do I bother to try?
Why not, I say. Why not.
**(On this little point I can say that I'm mot immune,like everyone else. Or I can leave the impression I'm being some sort of arrogant prick. For those who wish to do everything in their power to avoid the subject, they will call me whatever they want..as long as they get to the point where their mind creates a bullshit argument that allows them to ignore me - that's all that's important..right???)
Do you really want to talk about perception?
OK. Once I told two different people exactly HOW to get past their limitations and enter their own hindbrain and tear down the modeling that came into being and shape as children. How it was formed, and how to enter it. How to get there, to reach deep inside. Both ended up admitting themselves to a psyche hospital. I should not have done that,as that is the real reason Buddhists teach one-on-one. It's dangerous. And that dangerous animal is the one that sits here in this argument..fighting about 'perception' being either all placebo..or...all real.
People, for the very vast majority...have no clue that their every single conscious 'formed and worded' thought arises out of the hindbrain, out of their emotions....long before it becomes words and conscious thoughts...long before it is spoken with 'that voice' in the forebrain.
The forebrain is NOT in charge. It never was. The hindbrain is one hell of alot smarter than the forebrain, and IT rules the roost, No matter what some little logical thing in the forebrain, that little voice in your head might say. That little voice you call 'your own'. And that beast lurking in the back? It can be dangerous. Especially if it feels threatened. I showed those two how to get back there. And it is indeed a messy thing. But taming that monkey is critical to becoming a fully realized human. If you don't start, you will never get there.
One of the many things you learn is that most of what we call science, is full of folks who have no clue about the basics of their own psychology. Same for any other branch of any given group. Lots of mental issues to go around.
The point is that perception, as considered in this thread... is in itself - a fabrication.
Real perception is another matter altogether.
I mean, it's possible to say that the human idea of consciousness itself ---is merely a pattern recognition and interface device for a deeper system. This can be said..clearly without being wrong....interesting, huh?
Word for Windows, it is. Like a keyboard for a computer. It is only an I/O device. Designed specifically for this....reality. One way to say it.
Ie, you are one hell of a lot bigger than your conscious mind.
Your reply seems more of a dodge than a serious answer. How about letting us in on what you have tried so we could have an idea what might work for others? Have you tried the foil or cream which is where May suggests you start with the Belt devices?
The reply is as serious as it gets, Jan. As real as it gets.
The fact that it seems like a dodge is a noted response pattern. It says so, right in the post. Get it?
As for PWB products, NO, I have not tried them. I've got lots of my own weird seeming stuff on my own plate to occupy me. But, if you want me to try the stuff out, I will, and I'll give you my honest opinion. For whatever that is worth.
for example, I can get a great sonic response out of my own gear, right now..with this 'spray'. Anyone can:
http://www.photodon.com/antistat01.htm
Ionic discharge/balancing, in this case. (I just typed anti-static spray into Google and grabbed the first example).
It kills capacitive buildup in and on gear, thus reducing transient edge distortion. It clears up and takes the harshness out of transients and micro transients, making the body and the depth of the recording easier to hear. More relaxed yet more dynamic and open. Basic science. Except most would regard it as a 0.001% kind of definable or measurable change. Wrong. They're not looking at the right stuff. Wrong question, and incorrectly weighted at at that.
A friend of mine ALWAYS uses a ionizer in the house. Swears by it.
Once again, the reply is/was not a dodge. At all. It's a fully blown truth.
Not that I'm making comparisons, but you've reminded me of an incident where I tested PWB's "cream elecret" on a friend, without him knowing what I did, and he heard its beneficial effects as had I. Then I repeated the tests, showing him exactly what I was doing to affect the sound, namely smearing the cream on (another) CD not in play. He heard the same improvements. Naturally, being an engineer, he had to come up with a theory as to how this might work (before even asking me how it might work). His theory was "ionic discharge". I guess, since the CD wasn't playing, and you couldn't say it was having an effect on the optics, that was the only thing plausible for him at the time. Which was amusing to me, since I knew it had nothing to do with that. I then went upstsairs and applied the cream to an object in the 2nd floor of his home, and had him listen to the audio system on the bottom floor. Same improvement was heard by all.
You might wish to try your "neutralizing chemcial" on a cable that is not connected to the audio system, to see if that would have any perceptible effect, to see if the original theory still holds up.
I think you may have a point, that May and Peter's products bear a comparison or resemblance with other scientific phenom not considered important or significant, as on some level with the Bybee products.
That might well explain why a lot of "controversial" things in audio that have not been able to be measured over decades of time, are nevertheless reported to be effective by a great many, and said to be placebos by those that are not able to measure what they may affect; those who think they have the knowledge and test instruments sensitive enough to measure anything that humans can audibly perceive.
That certainly needed to be said! Thanks!
Hear, hear! I absolutely agree. That's why I don't watch American Idol any more. Now The Simpson's on the other hand....
Hey, how can you not love this guy?! LOL!
Again, you've reminded me of another incident I went through on another forum a long time ago.... I had been working on tweaking an old scrap amp, and surprising myself at how far I had gotten, I decided to put up an innocuous post sharing my enthusiasm over the sound that I was getting, on a discussion site that I was actively participating on at the time. Another guy had the very same amp, and was among those who wanted to know what I had done, to make it sound that good. But while I couldn't stop myself from sharing my little "breakthough", I wasn't willing to go as far as telling anyone what I had actually done, however, even though I knew it could help them (whether they had the same amp or not!), and at zero cost to boot. Because I also knew "how the monkeys would react". And I knew where I stood in amongst this crowd. I knew that in such cases, posessing the necessary information is not enough for most people. They have to be led farther than where they currently are, but they're not willing to go there themselves. And while I'm a quite silly guy, I'm not silly enough to think I'm going to be able to do that, or to care enough about them to go through all the difficulties it would require, to try.
So I simply told them "no thanks, I'm not telling you". Explaining that I didn't feel like going through another barrage of ridicule and mockery (again!), for sharing free tweak ideas with other (so-called....) audiophiles! Of course the guy with my amp wanted better than that, and him and others insisted that I had nothing to worry about, when it came to sharing tweak ideas. That's what they were there for, after all! All there to help each other in their sweet, helpy helpy ways... So okay, fine I said, and I went and told them about how I had tagged my (internal) wires. (Explaining that I had written " 'x=future time " on the tags with a special fine red marker). Now it was a monkey house! Seems they'd forgotten about promising to be civil. The guy with the amp acted like I had come up to him and stabbed him in the leg. Publicly accused me of being an "instigator" from a "competing discussion site". Some stupid shit like that. Said that I was putting everyone on (I wasn't), and surely all agreed, for I was banned shortly afterward. (Its one of those stupid forums that ban you for being the cause of too much controversy, even if its others who have created it!).
For some 2000 years, some people have waited for Jesus to return to Earth. But I'm not so sure he'd get very far, these days. Obviously the skeptics would have a field day, but even the "true believers" would probably require some convincing. What with so many people claiming to be Jesus and all... some of them must be wrong. So what's "the real Jesus" gonna do to prove he's the real Jesus, I wonder? Card tricks? Walk on water? Yeah, so can Kriss Angel. Levitate? Make himself invisible? Even David Blaine can do that. Make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights? Sure, could be Jesus, I guess. Or... could be a freak meterological storm. Another Hurricane Nina, maybe. An optical illusion, is always there as a possibility. And if his appearance is off camera, how can you trust the word of someone you don't know? Especially if they've taken part in a "mass delusion". If you see it on camera well, there you go... camera tricks. Maybe Jesus already knows all this, and that's why he ain't bothering to make a return appearance......
(And now a word from the "Are you ackshully comparing yourself to Jesus??!!" choir....)
Is this insight a result of your Kunlun training sessions or...? I mean, let's just say, "someone" doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.... Where can they learn more about "the beast lurking in the back"?!
And here is the reason why you heard no difference. From Mr. Frog's worship site... "How To Listen".
RG
Hardly a dodge, Jan.
I tried the free tweaks May specifically suggested earlier in this thread: Free sound improving techniques
I left them in for a good while, listened and then removed them. I can listen with "the same amount of pleasure" with the tweaks in or out.
If they work for you, that's cool.
Thanks for the free pub, mate. Indeed, how you listen is crucial to any audio test. That article just covers the basics; and may or may not explain Elk's experience. I don't know what Elk tried or how the devices were tested, in order to have any clue about that. But what I'm most wondering is... what's a "worship site", re: audio? Is Stereophile's site a "worship site"?
I pretty much agree with Mr. Frog's critical listening suggestions.
One addition to his list: I find that long-term listening often reveals additional differences that relatively quick A/B tests do not.
A disagreement: I find good speakers to be more revealing than good headphones in may ways (timbre, spatial cues, ambiance, transient to sustained hand-offs, etc.).
However, if one is listening for little flaws (bad edits, clicks, headphones are superior. Thus, I can't mix to headphones, but I can edit with headphones.
I agree that long-term listening can often reveal differences to people not evident in the short-term (which sort of begs the question if your tests on the free tweaks were long term or short term!). I probably didn't include that because a) I forgot b) I felt it was already evident to audiophiles, at least of the subjectivist persuasion or c) I don't engage in long term listening tests myself, so it wouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind for me. I usually know all I need to know within about 30 seconds, in my trials. I also agree that speakers have some advantages over headphones in listening trials, at least wrt spatial cues; ie. depth. I just find headphones reveal small details that much easier, than speakers.
I've never had a problem identifying differences in timbre with headphones, and good cans, ie. electrostatic, are said to be better than speakers at things like room ambience. Thing is, for the home tester, they may not want to put the volume loud enough to hear small differences (and perhaps not hear them because of that), whereas they can listen as loud as they'd like to with headphones.
My "tweak tests" were long term. I typically find that longer term listening reveals more, although I agree that one often knows quite quickly what, if anything, is going on.
I also find that removing a change is as telling as its addition, if not more so.
Re headphones v. speakers: While headphones are great at revealing small sounds, they do not appear to disclose the whole picture. Those that engage in critical listening as a profession rarely use headphones other than for monitoring. For example, I have yet to hear of a mastering engineer mastering with headphones. There are a few that mix to headphones but these people are quite rare.
Excellent point however as to being able to use headphones to listen with as much volume as you would like when others are around. I have found that others find repetition even worse, headphones to the rescue once again.
LOL, what a total load of crap. Well-expressed crap! But crap none the less. The arrogance is simply astounding. "Advanced" audiophile indeed. Just once I'd like to see guys like this try to get through one day on the job as a professional recording or mixing engineer. They'd learn how full of it they really are in the first 20 minutes.
Hi Ethan,
I see by the indignation and spittle that you're back on board, in this thread. Always ready to ratchet up the rhetoric and get a good flamewar goin', aren't ya? After that response, I'm not gonna bother to ask what it is in my article that disturbs you so much, to get so insulting toward me about it. Suffice to say, anyone that can't tell any difference between a $5 cable and a $5,000 dollar cable and goes on to claim to be an expert at critical listening, isn't dealing with a full deck, and should probably be monitored carefully around sharp objects. I'll match my skills against yours any day. Question is, are you willing to back up what you say?
Ethan, at the bottom of Michigan's "How to Listen" page is a list of "Do's and Don't's."
Which ones are crap, in your opinion?
There is a part of Michigan's belief system that I disagree with, but I find him to be a very thoughtful audiophile.
Michigan, is that a picture of your listening room at the top?
They do and I would suggest you try the free samples of foil and cream.
So, if they don't work for him, then which one of you is wrong?
I don't buy into most of Mr. Frog's testing protocols, but he is correct in highlighting that it takes effort to appreciate small changes.
However the assertion:
"You did hear it. I say that, because I know that every idea works (I
Sorry, I can only suspend disbelief for so long.
If magic talismans improve your listening experience and are worth their cost to you, by all means use them.
*Asbjorn Hrobjartsson, (2001). Is the Placebo Powerless?
You are. Read Elk's post. Have you tried the foils, Buddha?
The title to your last post is telling, Elk. You still see all of this as make believe. After 70 pages you have not moved one bit in your disbelief. How many endorsements do you need to simply try something which is given freely for your benefit?
No one is asking you to do any such thing. I am asking you to try something with an open mind and absolutely without assuming you must suspend anything other than your ability to hear and perceive music. The foils cost you only a small amount of time to send one email and they are more likely to produce results than any other freebie with the exception of the Electret Cream which is sent along with the foil. It's a simple experiment, Elk. Since you do not need to suspend anything other than some stubborness and a bit of ego, is there another reason you have that keeps you from trying the foils?
Hi, Mr. Sunshine.
In a thread about PERCEPTION, the whole point is "neither" is wrong.
You are so wrapped up in making this contentious that you have turned this into a death march.
Rather than react to your bellicosity in the manner you desire, I will just remind you that I am probably several millenia or more ahead of you on this topic and move forward with enjoying this thread.
As to your question, I have tried the foils, cremes (most non-Belt,) ointments, blocks, wires, cables, actual RCA connectors, capacitors, tubes, integrated circuits, pot, not-so-clever-clocks, Bybees, stylus cleaning solutions, clarifiers, limoncello, intelligent chips, room treatments, cupped feet, spiked feet, damped footers, and myriad other tweaks...because I enjoy trying out new things and ideas.
Some things have had a lasting effect for me and have remained in my life, others not.
I believe in keeping an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
I also have honest faith in the pursuits that Michigan tries to explore. I have never met an audiophile who has been as philosophically pure and open about his endeavors as Michigan. I think he knows the regard in which I hold him - even when he is wrong.
You, on the other hand, are not at all about the same things Michigan is.
Michigan is about the exploration and journey and discovery (even when he's wrong.)
You are all about trying to be "right" and inflicting your opinion on others.
To paraphrase Mr. T, "I pity the fool who's Jan Vigne."
In Elk's post he says he has not tried the foil. That is what I was referring to. I have no idea how you came up with the rest of that crap.
Yes, I do. And here I am trying to catch up to all you folks who are so damned advanced!
Buddha, you mention "not-so-clever clock." I'm intrigued. But not sure what you mean. Share, share.
>>> "Ionic discharge/balancing, in this case. (I just typed anti-static spray into Google and grabbed the first example).
It kills capacitive buildup in and on gear, thus reducing transient edge distortion. It clears up and takes the harshness out of transients and micro transients, making the body and the depth of the recording easier to hear. More relaxed yet more dynamic and open. Basic science." <<<
You say Basic Science KBK - obviously meaning the basic science of static ?
But MJFrog is correct. You will continue to believe it was static which was the problem until you have what I call a 'rocked back on your heels' moment - similarly described by MJFrog:-
>>> "namely smearing the cream on (another) CD not in play. He heard the same improvements. Naturally, being an engineer, he had to come up with a theory as to how this might work (before even asking me how it might work). His theory was "ionic discharge". I guess, since the CD wasn't playing, and you couldn't say it was having an effect on the optics, that was the only thing plausible for him at the time. Which was amusing to me, since I knew it had nothing to do with that. I then went upstsairs and applied the cream to an object in the 2nd floor of his home, and had him listen to the audio system on the bottom floor. Same improvement was heard by all.
You might wish to try your "neutralizing chemcial" on a cable that is not connected to the audio system, to see if that would have any perceptible effect, to see if the original theory still holds up.." <<<
Let me try to explain.
You, KBK, have used an antistatic spray, gained an improvement in the sound and, I suggest, you have done what I say all engineers and technicians do - you have gone down a 'conventional check list' until you found something on that list which gives the best explanation - i.e 'dealing with static' in this instance. You obviously believe that before you applied the antistatic spray, there must have been static 'having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system'. That when you applied the antistatic spray, you removed the problem of the static, therefore you removed the adverse effect on the audio signal and you then experienced better sound.
But now consider other things.
1) You are obviously not aware but you could have used a different antistatic spray which dealt beautifully and efficiently with the static but which would not have changed your sound at all !!
2) Again, you are obviously not aware but you could have used yet another different antistatic spray which also dealt beautifully and efficiently with the static but which could have completely spoilt your sound. How could you explain THAT from basic science.
ALL of these antistatic sprays dealing very efficiently with the problem of the static but each one giving a different sound. IF the problem was STATIC, and the problem of static was efficiently dealt with by each of the antistatic sprays, then the effect on the 'sound' should have been the same.
Now to take it further and look at a different scenario. Say, hypothetically, you have chosen the antistatic spray (the one you did actually chose) from the Internet - not to do anything at all with your audio equipment but specifically to apply to the computer in an alcove, 20 feet away from any audio equipment. To deal with a constant build up of dust on the computer !! But, after applying the antistatic spray to the computer, when you next listened to your audio system you experienced a considerable improvement in the sound. How can you then use the explanation that static was having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system ???? So, you are left with an observation (that your sound had improved) but with no explanation !! Spraying antistatic liquid on the computer cannot possibly have had any effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment 20 feet away !! It cannot have had any effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room - so what WAS it affecting ??? So, what explanation are you going to get from Basic Science now ?
Let me reverse this. Say, hypothetically, you had chosen another antistatic spray to do the same thing i.e to apply to the computer in an alcove, 20 feet away from any audio equipment. But, this time, when you next listened to your audio system, the sound was much, much worse !!! So, what explanation are you going to get from Basic Science now ? THIS is what I call the 'knocked back on your heels' moment. Something happening to your sound which cannot be explained from conventional electronic or acoustic theories !!!!
Now, say by chance, you discover later that THAT particular antistatic chemical was the same chemical being described as the chemical which a plant produces when it is under stress !! All of a sudden there IS an explanation - but it is not an explanation from the basic science of electronics or acoustics - it is an explanation from the basic science of biology and/or physiology - from the basic science of Nature !! The strongest possibility (explanation) now is that it was YOU, the human being, sensing that 'stress chemical' and going under stress yourself, which in turn stopped you resolving the musical information correctly.
Now, with this new explanation, your other experiences (with the different antistatic chemicals) begin to be explained. Some antistatic chemicals can make the situation worse (even more stressful), some can create no changes to the environmental situation and some can negate some of the worse conditions - whilst, at the same time, ALL of them 'dealing efficiently with' the problems of static in exactly the same way !!!!
So, KBK, I know that you are not aware that some antistatic chemicals can 'spoil' the sound because of the sentence you used. If you were aware, you would not be able to use the sentence "It kills capacitive buildup in and on gear, thus reducing transient edge distortion. It clears up and takes the harshness out of transients and micro transients, making the body and the depth of the recording easier to hear." If you were aware that some antistatic chemicals can ruin the sound, even though they have dealt efficiently with the problem of static, you would not be able to use any 'technical' explanation. You would have an observation without an explanation !!
When it is the human being who is introduced into the equation, then different human beings will react differently to different situations. Some may be more aware when the sound is better - some may be more aware when the sound is worse.
I have told the story many times that when Peter was doing demonstrations to a room full of audio magazine journalists or retailers he would 'treat' (say) six different objects and be met with blank faces each time. Then, when he treated (say) the seventh object someone would say "Oh I heard THAT Peter, that made the sound much more open and detailed. What did you do just then Peter because it was obviously very effective.?" Peter would answer "Oh, I treated the telephone." So, the person then says "Well, it obviously is a very important thing to 'treat', why didn't you treat it first ?" So, the next time Peter did a demonstration he 'treated' the telephone FIRST. But, he might still be met with blank faces until he had maybe treated five more things and when he 'treated' (say) the sixth thing someone would say "Oh I heard THAT improve the sound Peter, what did you just do ?"
THAT is the reason why we describe various 'free treatments' for people to try for themselves - so that people can try different things to see which might be effective for THEM !!!! THAT is the reason why we send a free sample of Rainbow Foil - for people to try for themselves and, more importantly, for people to try 'treating' various objects to see which might be more effective for THEM !!!!
To quote Elk:-
>>> "I typically find that longer term listening reveals more, although I agree that one often knows quite quickly what, if anything, is going on.
I also find that removing a change is as telling as its addition, if not more so." <<<
Absolutely correct, removing a change can be as telling as it's addition, if not more so.
And, Jan, what one perceives is what one perceives - what YOU perceive is what you perceive and what Elk perceives is what Elk perceives - both of you are correct. All we can do is to encourage people to keep experimenting !!!! And NOT, I repeat NOT have the blinkered and rigid attitude displayed by the Ethan sentence :-
>>> "LOL, what a total load of crap. Well-expressed crap! But crap none the less. The arrogance is simply astounding." <<<
Regards,
May Belt.
Merely a bit of fun. Mr. Frog cites the article with approval. I merely quoted the last sentence of the abstract's conclusion. I am sorry you missed the reference.
I like Mr. Frog's approach. He is throughly enjoying his trip of exploration. My impression is that he will also appreciate that in this circumstance he is the subject of the tweak.
I also have respect for May: . . . what one perceives is what one perceives . . . All we can do is to encourage people to keep experimenting !!!!"
She, too, is enjoying the trip and passionately shares what she has seen. I particularly respect that despite her strong convictions she retains appreciation for others' views and experiences.
I have greatly enjoyed asking May questions and learning from the responses. I have happily tried the suggested free tweaks. It was fun to do so, but they didn't do a thing for me.
Again, if they work for you this is wonderful.
Apparently it is impossible for you to accept that not everyone lives in your personal world. Perhaps you need to get out more.
I'm thinking more and more there's one place I need to get out of. Too many of you folks are a bit too full of yourself.
It is always easier, although much less interesting, to spend your time where everyone else agrees with you. Perhaps if you suspend "some stubbornness and a bit of ego" and "the rest of that crap" you would be much happier.
The world is a big woolly place full of people who do not see the world as any one of us.
Thus, when you routinely demean others' experiences, conclusions, intellectual approach and "perceptions" you are going to need to learn to emotionally handle that not every one is going to agree with you.
Oddly enough, I can listen to my system with just as much enjoyment whether or not a plain piece of paper has been placed under one of four feet of each component, and whether or not a piece of blue paper is under each plant in the room.
Yet, if this makes you enjoy your system more I am all in favor of you following these practices.
The mere fact that my experience is different shouldn't threaten you nor should it engender a response from you that I lack open-mindedness, am hampered by an overactive ego or am stubborn.
Too many of you folks are a bit too full of yourself.
Pages