| 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
"I want more Life, Fucker."
My #1 film.
I'm, listening to Alpha Blondy, on LP right now, 'Come Back Jesus'..one of his best tunes.
"Oh, why, why, why, why...are they fighting war?"
"If only you could hear what I've heard with your ears."
How's mine?
You've heard things with my ears?
Now THAT is a quantum tweak!
Or, perhaps, that's why you feel the desire to improve what you hear with your ears.
Understandable.
"Veils lifted" and "fuzzy" are legitimate descriptors for evaluating playback equipment. They are direct and noticable. Ethan, I know you are obsessed with comb filters, but your semantics are as fuzzy as your logic, if you truly believe that these two terms cannot adequately describe mediocre-to-excellent sound reproduction. All music lovers can relate directly to "I don't like it -- it sounds fuzzy," and "This is terrific -- it sounds like a veil has been removed from the front of the speakers." This is basic stuff, and no trip to some semantic Wonderland, presided over by a Queen with a teapot on her head and a scurrying Hatter can spin it otherwise.
Elk's comment has great virtue. Balanced power conditioning works. You can blather on about the difference between naugahide and any other fabrics in the environment, but when the sound suddenly clears up, at 2 AM, with no changes in the skin draping the furniture, "comb filtering" has nothing to do with it. We have all heard these phenomena. Drunk AND sober. Clean AC does not sound fuzzy. Veils get lifted.
If it has webbed feet and quacks, it is a duck, no matter what semantic matrix you invoke. If you can hear it, it is as real as the money you pay to improve your system.
I understand your bias -- comb filtering is a gimmick that you sell, and you must thus exalt it as a be-all, end-all for curing sonic misfires. But those of us who regularly traverse the route between the concert hall (where the fabric make-up of the environment always changes, and veils are always lifted) and the listening room know veils and fuzz.
If you would stop insulting your audience with chop logic and ground semantics, you might sell more comb filters than you are selling now. In a world of hype, where up is down and sideways is direct, you address fools. And they only buy once.
Avoid fuzz. Lift the veils. We all want that, regardless of your desire to eliminate them from the audiophile's verbal universe.
Repeat. Comb filtering cannot account for the difference between 3 PM and 2AM -- the room remains the same, the sound improves as the gremlins leave the lines (even they have to sleep sometime...), and effective AC conditioning facilitates the progression from fuzz to the lifting of the veils.
Happy tunes.
The cilia in the ear only care about:
-the length of time they are pressed back,
-the order in which they are pressed,
-the timing between the pressings,
-how hard (acceleration) they are pressed back or 'misplaced from their given origin point'
(the above points..also explain how we can hear near picoseconds of jitter in clocking systems in digital audio-we are very sensitive to timing issues, as you might begin to reason from the above information)
This means they hear any cumulative 'noise', be it at 0db, -20 db, -70db..as a sum total..and through the brain ear function, as a calculating and reasoning computer..can discern -70and -90db 'noise' from signal.
The ear does not use calculators and statistics. It does not separate the noise from the signal with regards to hearing it. It's a 'lump sum' calculation by the ear... as the brain does the 'separating', and can be trained to do so.
Ie, intelligent discrimination, as a learned skill.
The evidence is in the literally now..MILLIONS of audiophiles, over the years..hearing it,and commenting on it. Even a total one-day old baby audiophile neophyte can be trained to do some of these tricks. I've shown people how to do these things before...and any given audiophile in a relationship does this when they ask their partner to comment on the sound of the audio system.
They tend to (these partners and neophytes) score in the 100% area, with no coaching of any kind.
What does that say to the hardcore 'placebo' folks with their charts and numbers? It tells them to get a grip on things, to look at situations a bit more clearly and with more intelligence applied to the situation.
Although, I don't know why I'm telling folks this...as I make money by using such as information..ie, their ignorance of realities regarding the human hearing function gives me an edge over more illiterate competition.
If someone does not 'get it' from what I've written here, just now, I will have to dismiss that person as having an intractable emotional issue of some sort tied to their logical and reasoning functions, and simply dismiss them until they grow up or begin to engage their reasoning functions with regards to this issue.
To what tricks do you refer?, he asks curiously.
It would be nice to know just how many veils there are and how to recognize when all the veils have been lifted. Maybe someone should write The Book of Veils.
Book?
I prefer the dance.
Brad Goodman:
"There's no trick to it! It's just a simple trick!"
(Goofing off only. No editorial content implied.)
Yup, until you have to pick 'em out blind. Then all of a sudden...
I extend to you the same offer I extended to The Frog. Any time you'd like to get together in person I'll be glad to test you blind and see what you really can hear. Of course, I already know the answer! But apparently you don't. And I never even met you in person!
Speaking of which, where is The Frog on that? Do I have to bump that post yet again?
That -90 and -100 we hear in our imagination only.
Ah, I get it now. Fourier was wrong. That's what you're saying, yes?
--Ethan
EW wrote:
The only minor complication is that poor imaging is caused by comb filtering,
Right. (eyes rolling upward). Again with the "comb filtering". I don't know what your obsession is with comb filtering Ethan, nor do I want it explained to me, but please note that poor imaging can be caused by any number of things, both acoustic and signal-related, and often an artifact of channel imbalance. Its qualities can be observed on headphones just as with speakers, so it's not just about shifting your head a couple of inches. Example, corrosion in one set of IC's, a weak output transistor, complex x-overs, drivers not properly matched, wires not properly installed, anything in between or around the speakers. Etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum.
That said, while imaging can be an exciting criteria, its really not the be all and end all of audio. It's really more of a beginner's obsession, to me (or those more fixated on sound, than music). e.g. I used to have some really good b&w imagers. Until I traded them for speakers that knew how to play music. To each his own obessions.
Ethan wrote:
Speaking of which, where is The Frog on that? Do I have to bump that post yet again?
Sorry if you felt left out. I sometimes do crazy things like dealing with real life, when I really should be taking time to see what my pal Ethan wants. BTW, does that "bump" trick of yours work on you? Because if I knew about that, I'd have used it on the 55 questions and issues you ignored from me, previously. In any case, I'll suggest the tactic to my colleagues, who's posts or questions to you you've also gone regularly out of your way to ignore.
Yup, until you have to pick 'em out blind. Then all of a sudden...
...Then all of a sudden, you have a different set of parameters to deal with. If you think that blind testing is just as easy as sighted with DUT's any less subtle than Cerwin-Vegas at a funeral, then you might be in for an educational shock if we ever get to blind test you on safety pins and fluoridated water, or the like. Speaking of which, you should probably download a few of the test files that I put up on my site (under "Tests"). They mostly deal with perception-based tweaks (ie. Belt devices). I suggest you run them through your friend Arny's ABX software, if that satisfies. If you can't reliably hear differences between them, I think it'd be a safe bet you're not going to pass any blind test here, using similar devices.
I extend to you the same offer I extended to The Frog. Any time you'd like to get together in person I'll be glad to test you blind and see what you really can hear.
Actually, I believe I was the one who extended the offer to test you at my place. As to where that is, well I realized you haven't even told me whether you are okay with the test (by that, I mean undergoing a blind test of a perception-based device on my craptastic Sharp mini-component system). I don't know that you are, since the first thing you said to me was that your system must be better than mine, meaning you think this needs to be done on a high-rez system. And you never told me you were okay with the Sharp, or the device I intend to test. Another thing we may need to be clear on, is you aren't testing me, and I'm not testing you. We're being tested by a 3rd party in this case, so our listening skills are being pitted against the other. If you're not okay with the test itself, there's no reason to go into any further details. But if you are, we can then discuss the details of time & place in PM. Not just because it does not follow the discussion of this thread, but because for me, even though it may seem that way, this isn't about my ego. Rather, it's only about taking yours down a notch or two. ;-) And God forbid, you might even learn something new about audio in the process. If you would ever allow for the fact that you have a lot to learn.
Jan wrote:
... "more separation of instrumental lines" is read in too many reviews of treatments and devices. Isn't that, in your opinion, describing something the product under review does?
EW wrote:
No, it's too vague. That says nothing at all. Sorry. The reason such words are inadequate is because they make sense to the writer only. To be useful to others the words have to be specific enough to be understood universally. For example:
No, the above quote makes perfect sense to any budding audiophile; which is about as universal as it gets in the audiophile world. I'll dust off my 25-year old budding audiophile cap and try to explain it to you. It means for example, you might have a bass line and a lead guitar line on the track, maybe another instrument playing another line of notes; the instruments are more separated, thus their individual melodies can be more easily heard. This usually accompanies a wider soundstage (and e.g. not a "flatter or exaggerated high end"). I suggest you read more Stereophile, or something like that. Eventually, you'll learn to understand the basics of a subjective audio review.
The only vocabulary that makes sense when describing audio gear and the sound it produces are words that relate to real and physical properties. Now, the words don't have to define one of the four audio parameters. I'm okay with "harsh" which means a boost at high frequencies, or "muffled" which means too little HF content. "Fuzzy" is okay too because that describes distortion. Even "open" or "revealing" are acceptable because they too imply HF content. But - and here's the key - the words used must ultimately relate to an actual audio parameter. Then, and only then, can a description by one person be understood by others and have the same meaning. And guess what? Once appropriate words are used, it's then simple to verify them with measurements. The sound is strident? Let's see a graph. You think a tweak makes the bass fuller? Proof please.
You really need to expand your audio vocabularly, sir. Fortunately, you're on the forum of one of the better magazines that can help you do just that.
Veil is another word that is not needed because we already have a more accurate way to describe the effect - frequency response.
Sorry, that's not what "veil" is referring to. Keep reading. The name of the magazine again is "S-t-e-r-e-o-p-h-i-l-e". Spelled just the way it sounds.
Oh, that's easy - because when I talk to these people it's clear they have absolutely no clue how audio actually works.
Oh that's just too precious! Sometimes EW, I just can never tell when you're being ironic in your humour, or not.
Ethan wrote:
No! The silly part is saying that starting playback with Pause somehow sounds different than Play.
Here's another anecdote for you to "howl" at....
I was setting up an old PC for a friend yesterday. I had some old sound cards lying about, so just out of curiousity, decided I would change sound cards to see if one was better, since it had been a very long time since I compared them. The card I installed was an SB Vibra16, replacing the SoundBlaster 16. I did a bit of "Googling" beforehand, to see whether it was even worth fiddling with. The Vibra16 was a cheaper version of the company's SB16 card. This card is worth about $2 today, and that's being generous. The speakers I was testing this all with are worth no more, and we're talking retail! They're the old, cheap, no-name, off-white, lightweight, self-powered lowest of the low-end speakers (no satellites here, no sub), connected to each other by way of an rca cable.
Trying it anyway, I found that it did indeed sound much worse, in the superficial ways that Ethans understand "worse"; ie. much less detail and separation, resulting in a smaller, more mono-ish presentation. I did not need to A/B this, I could tell just from listening to the card, what it sounded like as compared with the SB16. What I did not expect, was the Vibra was more musical. Perhaps something along the lines of an Axis vs. a Rega P3. Since that's what its all about, I sacrificed all the sonic advantages of the previous card and kept the Vibra. Then another unexpected thing happend. I installed the modem card, boxed up the PC, and my musical sound mysteriously vanished. Well, the only thing I could think of is if the modem card is really a sound card, and is conflicting with the Vibra. Perhaps the system installed the other card. I was too tired to find out, so the next day, I opened the PC back up, took the modem card out, checked to make sure there were no other sound cards, and closed it. Well I was wrong, it was not a sound card with modem, it was just a modem card. Nevertheless! The musical sound I enjoyed was back, once the modem card was out.
I mention that because I can't imagine you would think there's a significant difference to be had by these 2 old and otherwise similar audio cards, heard through the two cheapette $5 PC speakers, and that that difference could be construed as a "musical" one. Howl all you want, and ignore the fact that there are all kinds things that affect all aspects of audio, that are far from your imagination, and can only become apparent if you take the time to learn and experiment, and have the means (listening skills) to make the experiments worthwhile. It remains, your loss. When I say I know more about audio than you, I certainly don't mean "everything". But I know more about things you would never "deign" to experiment with, and it gives me a very different perspective on audio than you have. If you're going to criticize ideas you've never even tried, at least have the sense to try them before you do!
Exactly, and as always - "My mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts."
Well, I've been talking about working gear...
Yes, it works on me. I think we should do a "slow" thread where any question that is asked must be answered fully before continuing. That way none of us, including me, can duck anything. Shall we start a new thread called "Ethan versus the deludeds?" I promise to honor that protocol if you agree to it.
Of course I am, as long as you're okay with tests I propose and bring along. Actually, forget that. You name the tests, and I'm down for it. Both of us taking turns testing each other, of course!
Okay, that works too as long as it's fair and proper.
Okay, but if you don't mind it's easier for me to do this by email. Everything you need is right here:
www.ethanwiner.com
I'm always glad to learn something new. And hopefully you are too.
--Ethan
Acshully.... you said, she did not exist. No less than three times. Here's two of them:
....Going on to claim Jan was a liar, and that there was no way the anecdote could be true, because you claimed any transcriptionist would not possibly have shared any portion of any transcriptions with anyone, on account of the patient privacy act. Having spent but a few weeks reading this forum, I know Jan far less than you do, but I consider myself a very good judge of character, and while he's very passionate in his discourse, he always at the least seems sincere to me (if anything, he's too sincere, for some). So I have no reason to disbelieve his example of the transcriptionist, and I can see where Jan would find that entire message very personally insulting, especially as your HIPPA rule is no basis to claim he's lying and making the whole thing up.**
Now you're saying she does exist, but didn't hear any better because of what Jan claims was done (applying the Belt foils to her working apparatus). So if your assumptions here were correct, then the transcriptionist would be only catching up to the work of the rest. But in fact, that's not what Jan has said. The transcriptionist has surpassed her peers, as monetary records show. So I can see no logic to your claim that she may only now be hearing as well as the others. As well, she noticed a drop in productivity around the time the foil came off, but without realizing it had come off. Then another gain after it was replaced. How do you explain that? Moreover, her peers that have tried it have surpassed their own standards prior to that. I'm mentioning all this, because I'm also interested in seeing what your response is to it!
I'm just wondering what it might take before you'd say "Yeah I guess there must be something to all that, and I just didn't hear it during my flirtations with it".
Elk wrote:
My comment on "veils" however was to editorialize; audiophile jargon has become meaningless through over use and by using a word or phrase to mean just about anything.
I don't see that term as meaningless. It always means the same thing, no matter how many times or where its used. One veil being lifted simply means one step closer to truer sound. If an audiophile feels they have no more veils to be lifted in their system, then I say, "It's a sad day for you, my friend!". You can't go farther than what you're willing to go.
Jan wrote:
I don't recall reading that the SR foil, presumably the foil you tried, was among their most powerful devices. Nor is the electret cream, to my knowledge. There are more powerful creams and foils than those, which are naturally reflected by their cost. But I would agree that the actual Belt devices, are likely to be more effective than the free tweaks. It's hard to compare, but I'd say the SR foils are maybe the equivalent of a pair of budget audiophile IC's. Except they produce a quality of sound not possible through conventional tweaks. In my experience, they work best if the subjects don't know anything about the theory, or the tweak itself, beforehand. Because if, say they know the theory, it usually means they have to "buy" the theory before they'll admit to themselves the devices are actually doing something to the sound.
If I'm not there and did not observe the test and know nothing of the details, or the person involved, I can't begin to know why someone did or did not hear differences. So maybe they could hear these tweaks if they did something different, or maybe they never will at present or future time, for other reasons. But in the case of Elk, I think I can speculate that he may possibly hear the devices under different conditions. It appears Elk didn't think the devices could possibly work going into it (which let's face it, is not at all unusual among audiophiles!), and after it, concluded that they don't work on him, because he doesn't need "safety or reassurance" they provide. That was obviously the influence of reading about the theory. Buddha said the exact same thing once, about these tweaks. Neither of them knew the theory well enough to understand that there are no exceptions to any of it; it doesn't matter where you live or what you had for breakfast. If its inherent in our biology, from the beginning of our species, and may be understood by but can not be controlled by the conscious mind, then there are no exceptions. Everyone is susceptible to the phenomena, whether they are conscious of it or not.
These unusual devices don't work because of the theory; that came after. But if someone needs to know how they might work before trying them, and isn't at all impressed by the working explanation, I don't know how that might color their experiences if they do try a few of the ideas. But if the suggestibility hypothesis applies to those who do hear differences, then it can surely apply as well to those who don't. If I told someone "I'm going to test a device on you. One that purports to improve your perception of sound by simple means, but it works by mysterious forces. Don't misunderstand, I didn't just invent this, others know about it. But not a heck of a lot of others. Yes, it appears to just be a square piece of paper under a table leg but its more than that, trust me. How does it work? Oh, well it helps you become less scared and stuff. Okay, ready?... D'you hear it, huh d'you hear it??! Are you feeling less scared already?".... chances are, that would be enough for them to think I'm certifiable, and so are my "tweaks". Hence the reason I say I find people are far more likely to hear differences when they don't know what it is they are listening to that has created those differences. This way, the ego or the intellect doesn't get triggered, it doesn't even enter into the equasion.
My audiophile subjects I often have to treat differently than my non-audiophile subjects, to compensate for "the audiophile ego". This ego, an identifiable component in the male chromosome, is fed by years of Stereo Review, or Stereophile, or other sources of information in electronics science & engineering, and often swells to an immutable mass, beyond economically-feasible measure. One way I did this was to put a foil at the end of a cheap interconnect. So now my subject thinks I'm testing interconnects on him. And indeed he says he can hear a difference when I swap this interconnect with a similar interconnect (that has no foil). Except what he didn't realize, is that I had cut the interconnect at the halfway point, and hid the cut with electrical tape. Showing him the interconnect he preferred, I asked him to pull on one end of it. It came apart quite easily, and he could see why. So how could it work at all?! Simple, when I was switching cables, I did not connect it to the CD input.
You can't ignore the fact that for most audiophiles who have never been made conscious of this type of audio tweak, there is a certain prejudice toward perception-based tweaks. Even if they may have already heard a perception-based tweak without realizing what they were hearing. Don't you have to get to the point of awareness that something is possible, before you can ever admit it exists? In any case, I don't know too many people who say "The reason I did not hear anything out of these particular audio cables sir, is because I obviously do not need whatever benefits they are capable of. If you do, so much the better." So even though they may be comparable sonically to many conventional tweaks, they are not given the same degree of consideration from the outset. But once you do become conscious that there is another way to improve perception of sound, without plugging it in or modifying your acoustic space, then the barrier to accepting the plausibility of perception-based tweaks is lifted somewhat and thereafter, any perception-based tweaks you try are more likely to be given the same consideration as conventional tweaks. Which doesn't mean you will always hear them, but does imply you will be less against hearing them.
I think you Jan need to apply due credit to Elk for even trying the free tweaks. The vast majority of audiophiles, who haven't evolved beyond Ethanism, can't even put their massive egos aside to do even that. As you know, I've put up many such free tweaks on my site, and if people like Elk try them and have fun but don't get anything out of them, that's often the best one can hope for. Fun and learning is what makes this hobby interesting to me (and what I think it should be all about)! That said, I hope the experience has not put Elk off from continuing to explore the unconventional! That's where there's the most fun to be had.
Ethan wrote:
Quote:
Oh, that's easy - because when I talk to these people it's clear they have absolutely no clue how audio actually works.
Jan wrote:
I bet when you travel you shout at people so they can better understand English.
Well.... it seemed to work for Mr. Fawlty, when he had to deal with Manuel.
Hi, Michigan.
I guess we have differing BS-ometers.
Quite a series of constructs, the transcriptionist who, for a decade has had difficulties with digital playback, yet surmounts the obstacles thrown in her path to rise to the level of alpha-transcriptionist, who joins in one of Jan's group audiophile experiences, and shares her dictation with others at an audiophile gathering (and has assuredly pre-considered HIPAA,) suddenly hears the dictation as though the person dictating were suddenly sitting right beside her (did you like that part?) responds to these specific tweaks (not that there's anything wrong with that, just another part of the plot,) improves her already legendary transcription skills, notices when she unknowingly drops the foil, starts to make more money than before, all within the time it took to move three pages on this thread.
Every element of the story is very 'pat.' "Fantastic" even!
Reads like the back page of a 60's comic book!
Given Jan's previous ouvre, it does strike me as suspicious. Then comes the brown-tonguing "I'm thinking of adding a reef knot next" stuff.
Apologies for my cynicism.
Interestingly, I do not get that same self-serving stench from you and your stuff.
How could that be? If I am out to call this all BS, why distrust Jan yet give you credibility?
My bias is not against the tweak.
Jan strikes me as having to find a way to be "right," you strike me as curious about how to make things sound better.
As to your assertion about her superior 'listening skills': "The transcriptionist has surpassed her peers, as monetary records show."
Sorry, but there are more factors involved than monetary records.
Budweiser has surpassed its peers monetarily, does that make it the best tasting beer?
I'll not bother you with a list of possibilities, perhaps you can imagine what else might come into play in the tall tale of the talented Texas transcripionist.
Seriously, you take her report of higher income as proof of a superior listening experience?
The whole point of this part of the thread has been to point out that either answer - "moving ahead" vs. "catching up" are equally likely.
__________________
__________________
Unrelated to Jan, I have a new one for you to try:
One of my listening areas has two seperate doorways that lead outside.
I have tried to experiment with this "signing off" hypothesis about a safe environment, and like the quick reversibility from one state of "safety" to another; but I hear no difference if I leave the doors locked or unlocked while I listen.
Then I tried leaving the windows unmoved, but I locked and unlocked their latches.
I was hoping that such an obvious event with regard to "signing off" on the safety of my environment might make a difference.
I tried it on the wife without her knowing, on the system she likes best, and also nada.
I even tried it late at night with our house alarm turned off or on, and still nothing.
Have you tried this seemingly silly thing?
I would think it might be something to consider.
(Maybe risk takers would prefer unlocked, or the risk averse would prefer locked? Maybe risk takers are not Belt material, and the risk averse are better suited?)
I must just be too trusting of the dang environment.
That's actually quite a bit. I've been meaning to ask if you could quantify the change in some fashion. You beat me with the answer.
That's unfortunate. If a tweak works we should be able to hear the difference. Period.
For example, I have great difficulty accepting that different wires sound different, but I can hear the difference - whether I want to or not. I don't find them make the earth-shattering differences as some reviewers and some users claim, but enough of a difference to test various cables and to pick those I like.
Perhaps. What do you suggest?
The hypothesizing the possible "why" is definitely the result of reading May's explanations.
However, I am pretty good at setting aside preconceptions and seriously trying things out. I thrive on new experiences and love being astonished and surprised. In a way, it is better for me to know the explanation as I actually wanted them to work - the explanation is so deliciously far-fetched.
If these tweaks depend on our unconscious appreciation of an environmental condition, how could the pre-existing environment not effect how the tweak works?
For example, what if my well water has lots of fluoride in it and I have fresh flowers on the table? (a common event). The fluoride water tweak wouldn't work as there is already fluorinated water present. Similarly, what if the environment is such that the listener has already unconsciously signed off on it as safe for whatever reason(s)?
As a separate question, how did the explanation come about as to why the tweaks work? What are the facts behind this, other than just the finding that the tweaks work?
I find that we say this a lot, but with different language; whether a set of wires will improve the sound or not depends on your equipment and the synergies present. Not all wires help all systems.
For example, I want Analysis Plus wires to work, I love the theory, but they sound shiny and harsh in my system. OTOH, they work great for others - and I am glad that these people have found them.
Fun and learning is indeed where it's at! Froggy philosophy is good!
This strikes a chord.
I am a consummate risk taker. I am the idiot the flies truly experimental airplanes and ends up "landing" after something fails, borrows a racing bike so I can ride a cycle over 200 mph, etc. It drives my co-workers nuts that I can't be startled no matter how you sneak up on me.
Perhaps just about every environment presents itself as quite safe.
We have so few true instincts that I have trouble accepting that there is a subtle complex instinct to signing off on an environment that is completely unlearned and is identical in all of us.
P.S. Having lots of familiarity with HIPA there is very little that could be on a doctor's dictation that could be shared with others. Period. It would consists of "Hi, this is Dr. Thompson". For this reason I hope Jan's story is untrue.
As an aside, I have heard digital dictation systems - they are a great advance - and they don't sound bad at all. If the transcriptionists are struggling there is something wrong.
"Neither of them knew the theory well enough to understand that there are no exceptions to any of it; it doesn't matter where you live or what you had for breakfast. If its inherent in our biology, from the beginning of our species, and may be understood by but can not be controlled by the conscious mind, then there are no exceptions. Everyone is susceptible to the phenomena, whether they are conscious of it or not."
There's the crux of it. Like I said, objectivists think all the gear is the same and people differ, and subjectivists think all the listeners are the same.
Trench warfare, a la 1914.
Thanks for admitting to it, at least.
A trenchant observation.
Well worth pondering in the context of this discussion and others.
So what do we call those like my self that find both equipment and people differ? Confused?
>>> "So what do we call those like my self that find both equipment and people differ? Confused?" <<<
Reality !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Quote Elk:
"So what do we call those like my self that find both equipment and people differ?"
Disdained by both objectivists and subjectivists, accused of being members of each camp by the other camp, at odds with both the gods of objectivism and the gods of subjectivism...
Maybe Audio Relativists?
Hi Fi Rationalists?
Tweak Muggles?
Ohms (in that we offer resistence)
Hetereophiles (like gear and tweaks) vs. Homophiles (who are soley objectivist or subjectivist.) Probably too loaded a way to go.
How about:
Subjectivists and objectivists could be thought of as monomaniaphiles. Elk and I could live in between as Heteroniacophiles!
Tis no fun sitting on the fence all day. Faint heart n'er won fair maiden.
Gee, ya think?
--Ethan
Buddha and Geoff, thanks for the laughs. Great responses.
And my respect for May continues to grow; thoughtful, courteous, non-defensive. I was wholly unaware of tweaks such as your products and appreciate your willingness to explain and discuss them so directly and honestly.
Kudos to Mr. Frog as well. Toss the noble amphibian a fly!
Off to ruminate . . .
Hi Buddha,
Quite a series of constructs, the transcriptionist who, for a decade has had difficulties with digital playback, yet surmounts the obstacles thrown in her path to rise to the level of alpha-transcriptionist, who joins in one of Jan's group audiophile experiences, and shares her dictation with others at an audiophile gathering (and has assuredly pre-considered HIPAA,) suddenly hears the dictation as though the person dictating were suddenly sitting right beside her (did you like that part?) responds to these specific tweaks (not that there's anything wrong with that, just another part of the plot,) improves her already legendary transcription skills, notices when she unknowingly drops the foil, starts to make more money than before, all within the time it took to move three pages on this thread.
Yes. I heard that Oprah's people are shopping the film rights to the story to The Weinstein Company. You know, when you put it that way, it does seem kind of "fantastic". But then, that's because you put it that way. Wasn't that the intended effect? Let me see if I can balance that out with another perspective, from someone who's both a good judge of character (owns a highly calibrated BS-meter that he usually doesn't even need to use...), and has a lot of field experience testing those very foils on others.
It appears you're taking liberties with Jan's words, to try to sell your beliefs. e.g. Jan said he had a few friends over to listen to the foils (one of which was a transciptionist by trade). You call that "an audiophile gathering". But he did not use that term, and in fact specified that they were not audiophiles. You claimed the transcriptionist "surmounted the obstacles thrown in her path to rise to the level of alpha-transcriptionist" only after use of the foils, when as far as I can see, there were no "previously insurmountable obstacles". It was merely stated that she complained of the terrible sound quality of the digital transcription devices, which affected her production (as though complaining about the terrible sound quality of digital playback devices is really that implausible to audiophiles!). It obviously didn't affect her ability to transcript, otherwise, we'd have not been told she was at the job for 10+ years. So far, I'd say all of this is a pretty good impression of Lionel Hutz, The Simpson's lawyer, but I'm not sure if you were shooting for that? As for HIPPA, I offered a number of reasons why it either might not apply, might be even dangerous to always follow those regs, or might have been okay under the rule, or the transcriptionists might just not give much of a CRAPPA about HIPPA. More importantly, Jan addressed that issue, and its hardly obvious there either that he'd by lying about that. Nothing "fantastic" yet.
One line which you failed to note the deceit for us, is this one: "One problem is the cleaning staff will probably try to remove the foil. " This is where Jan asks May for her advice, on behalf of his "imaginary transcriptionist friend", on how to use the foil in the context of a hospital environment. So take a good look at it. Give me a good reason why its there. After all, Jan made up the whole story about the transcriptionist, right? Yet he went so far as to think of asking May an incongruous question like this, one that does not advance his agenda one bit, that asks what to do if the foil falls off of the phones that the doctors use, when the cleaning staff are in session? That sounds like a question only a working medical professional would think to ask. I mean c'mon Buddha! Don't try to tell me Jan had the wherewithal to make this line up. You and I both know Jan's not that smart. (Er, no offense Jan.
). It's pretty obvious from his telling that Jan has a friend who works in the med profession, and its certainly not implausible that he applied for free SR foil, and that part can even be confirmed. I'd say your ability to sell the "lie theory" just got a whole lot harder, as after confirming those two major facts, there's not much that remains to his story which he may even have lied about.
Well I guess I can see how, to the uninitiated, this part might "seem" fantastic: "suddenly hears the dictation as though the person dictating were suddenly sitting right beside her (did you like that part?)". But not to me. For "I have heard things you people wouldn't believe". (How's that for my Roy Batty impression?). Consider this: when someone is used to the way an earpiece sounds, for a decade or longer it basically does not change, and you do something to significantly affect that change one day, its not unusual that their first reaction is one of surprise. Nor is the description of the change that unusual. It suggest to me someone might be describing the effect that audiophiles know as presence. (What do you know, after going back to read Jan's first post, that's exactly the word one of his friends used). Beltists will more easily understand that description, and not find it so surprising, because they know that the products render a more natural sound. Just having a more natural sound can create the headphone effect described, that the person is in the room with you. Other terms his friends used were "more like the musicians were playing for me", and "cleaner with more clarity", both of which can relate to the effect the transcriptionist described.
Jan's experiment reminds me a lot of one done on hearing aids back in the 80's, at one of UK's leading teaching hospitals. After the Belts found they could improve the sound of hearing aids using those very foils, a blind study was conducted by this institution. Apparently, it was Stereophile's article that may well have prompted them not to finish the study; a shame because the results were more than promising. Guess what some of the 'blinded' hearing aid wearers described, when they were given Belted hearing aids? Words like "natural", and "clearer". When you hear changes thus described on earphones, both of those things can easily give you the effect of the person in the room with you. If you had personally tested the foils as they were tested by the transcriptionist, you might have come up with the very same descriptors. One skeptic on a headphone site tried those foils on his headphones (simply because, as Jan says, they were free samples), and he reported his very excited findings to the group. Not a pretty sight that followed....
Anyway, point being if you know more about the foils, if you've heard them yourself or you've tested them on unsuspecting friends, then what the transcriptionist says she heard might not seem so "fantastic". The fact that she responded to the foil is really not unusual, even though I understand that not everyone does. Out of my own humble experiences, no one I've tested yet has not heard its effect, blind or sighted. The fact that she was a top transcriptionist is hardly a reason to describe her as having "legendary transcription skills". Just as with audiophiles, some people are simply more skilled than others. I don't see why this is so hard to understand? The fact that she notices the foil has fallen off by the drop in sound quality is also not surprising, if indeed she noticed it improved sound quality in the first place. If she hadn't noticed the foil was gone without having seen it fall off, you might then say it was suspicious that her initial claim of hearing a change was true. It seems that no matter what the poor lady says, your BS-meter would be ringing like a Xmas bell, even if there was no BS in sight! You really should see about bringing that thing to Mr. Fix-It.
As to the time frame when this all happened, this has been reported since over two weeks now. So no, the events do not appear to be happening too fast to be possible, or even plausible. Unless you've already decided beforehand to disbelieve Jan's story, because you can't believe anyone can possibly hear improvements from sticking foils on headphones. Well how about this guy?
http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm
Every element of the story is very 'pat.' "Fantastic" even!
Reads like the back page of a 60's comic book!
??? Oh yes of course. Now that you mention it, I see all the references to Archie & Jughead that I initially missed in Jan's story. Oooh, y'almost had me goin', Jan!
As if it wasn't long enough already... Part Deux:
Then comes the brown-tonguing "I'm thinking of adding a reef knot next" stuff.
As a common free tweak in the Belt stable, you often see that follow one's positive experience with a different Belt tweak. It's natural to want to explore other possibilities when your ears are opened up to the idea that this is even possible. It's also natural to want to share your new audio experiences with others on the audio forum you frequent. Now if Jan said "following the reef knot, I think I'm going to try the L-Shape device", then you might have a reason to be suspicious!
How could that be? If I am out to call this all BS, why distrust Jan yet give you credibility?
Good question; you've got me on that one. Hell, even I would give Jan more credibility than myself, if I didn't know me! After all, I've been talking about Belt's stuff from here to Alberquerque, and as far as I know and it appears, Jan only tried the Belt devices for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and only spoke about it this one time. And I've talked about stuff that makes Jan's foils look like, well, Ethan's acoustic panels.
But how would you feel if you honestly shared your experiences with an amazing tweak on your favourite audio forum, and some cynic flat out called you a liar for your effort? If what Jan said was true, that's what he's experiencing. I could understand calling him deluded if he thinks he's heard a difference with a tweak, I've seen a lot of that. But to claim he must be making up the entire story about his experiment with the tweak, I don't see it. Didn't you say you give people the benefit of doubt that they are at least hearing what they purport to hear? If so, why so much distrust toward Jan? That's the part I don't get. Maybe your policy doesn't extend to their friends?
Or maybe the real reason you distrust what Jan says to the point of claiming he's lying about it, is simply because you don't like Jan. And maybe the reason you don't like Jan, is because he's provocative. And by that, I don't mean "sexy provocative baby-doll n
Hey, what about the safety tweak?
We will just have to remain on different sides in the case of Jan's transcritpion story.
>>> "As a separate question, how did the explanation come about as to why the tweaks work? What are the facts behind this, other than just the finding that the tweaks work?" <<<
Elk, this is where I have quite a serious problem because you are coming new (in 2008) to Belt techniques some 25 years after many others. Please be assured that this is not a criticism - it is merely stating facts. That what you see NOW, in 2008, is the list of various Belt devices and techniques with the best refinement of an explanation we can give. What you are obviously not aware of is the story from the beginning (which so many other people ARE aware of). So, many people have been with us, every step of the way - i.e have grown with our progress and with our concepts gradually over those 25 years !!!!
Let me use another example as a perspective.
Go back to 100 years ago in medicine. It is like you, having some interest in medicine, 25 years after Lister first presented his concept that the germs which caused septicaemia were "in the air", suddenly asking "How did this explanation that the "germs were in the air" come about and why and how do Lister's antiseptic techniques work ?"
So, from the very fact that you ask that question shows that you have no idea that it was Louis Pasteur (the famous French chemist) who made his own wine, discovered that when he left the tops of the wine bottles open to allow the fermentation bubbles to escape, his wine went off !! Then, when he devised something to fit over the bottle tops which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but which stopped the outside air from getting in, his wine, from then on, was OK. From that Pasteur deduced that there must be 'something in the air' which had been getting at his wine !! In other words, Pasteur OBSERVED what was happening. Obviously there was nothing about 'something being in the air which could get at fermenting wine' in the wine text books, nor in the chemistry text books, or else Pasteur - a well known chemist - would have known exactly what to do !!!!! But he didn't. He just experimented, observed what had happened, and what was going on around him !!!
Dr Joseph Lister (an eminent Glasgow surgeon) either read of Pasteur's findings or was told about them and he soon began to ask the question "Could there be 'something in the air' which could be getting into his patients wounds and causing septicaemia ?" And NOT as the belief structure he and all the other medical profession had been taught that the micro-organisms which caused septicaemia were in the patients own 'bad blood' to erupt or not spontaneously !!! I.e. By pure chance !!
From Lister's first attempts (using a carbolic spray during operations) he went on to try numerous other things. I have listed some below :-
Lister's trials of the various antiseptic gauzes,
Early 'antiseptic' pads were - a piece of calico dipped in a solution of one part carbolic acid in four parts of Linseed oil.
then a mixture of carbolic acid, linseed oil and common whitening - antiseptic putty, spread on tinfoil.
then oiled silk, coated with copal varnish.
In 1868.
He tried a mixture of carbolic acid and shellac, spread on calico and coated with a solution of gutta-percha.
then he tried a complex combination of paraffin, wax, olive oil and carbolic acid.
then he tried Chloride of Zinc, Boracic acid and salicylic acid.
In 1878.
Charles Darwin suggested Benzoic acid.
In 1881.
Lister became interested in oil of eucalyptus and also tested oxidized oil of turpentine.
In 1882.
He tried iodoform.
In 1883
He tried gauze containing corrosive sublimate beneath which he used a rubber protective.
In 1885
He used gauze impregnated by Sal Alembroth, the double cyanide of mercury and zinc.
then he tried various zinc and mercury compounds, often in combination with the new aniline dyes.
In 1887.
Lister dropped the carbolic spray and experimented with various dressings to replace carbolic acid. All these experimental dressings were coloured with different dyes as a King's student put it :- In a Ditty :-
"There is a worthy Baronet who once took up the cause
Of Antiseptic surgery and Antiseptic Gauze.
First there was a yellow one, then there was a blue,
Then there was a red one, and a white one too.
Next there was a violet one, so we thought he'd go
Right through all the colours of the bright rainbow."
The Violet gauze was the last one to be produced. It was muslin gauze covered with a fine white powder, the double cyanide of zinc and mercury. Lister found that this powder would not stay on the gauze unless it was moistened. He first tried a solution of chloride of mercury, but it proved too irritating to the skin. Then he found a dye called "rosanilin" would fix the powder, so he had a very satisfactory dressing which was coloured a beautiful shade of heliotrope. This cyanide gauze was used as a dressing for many years.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
All the participants in the Joseph Lister story are long since dead - now, we can only shake our heads in dismay at so many of them having such a rigid and blinkered attitude.
*********************
So, Elk, back to the present day. You are looking at the list of our devices and techniques and asking "How did the explanation come about as to why the tweaks work? What are the facts behind this, other than just the finding that the tweaks work?" And, you are wishing to understand by me giving you some explanation in a few paragraphs !! I can't do it. I can't explain 25 years work in a few paragraphs. Because it is not ONLY those 25 years since the early 1980s but it is coupled with the previous 30 years experience working completely within conventional audio, electronic and acoustic theories !!! I know what the conventional theories are and I also know what we have discovered. In exactly the same way that, 100 years ago, to FULLY understand Lister's concept of antiseptics, you had to be conversant with the trials and tribulations of the medical profession, their belief that the micro-organisms which caused septicaemia were in the patients own bad blood, and their practices of going directly from carrying out autopsies in the mortuary to the operating theatre WITHOUT washing their hands, without washing their instruments and without changing their dirty, filthy, blood stained, pus stained frock coats !! You had to know all that to be able to understand someone like Joseph Lister being able to suddenly see the source of the 'germs' being 'in the air' or on the hands, instruments and clothes of the surgeons - the equivalent of Enid Lumley's "Gremlins in the modern environment adversely affecting the 'sound." OF COURSE the 'germs' seemingly erupting spontaneously appeared to confirm what the medical profession had been taught !! But the 'germs' randomly causing septicaemia could ALSO be explained by the 'germs' being on the surgeons own hands, on their medical instruments and on their dirty, filthy, pus stained, blood stained frock coats and that these 'germs' may or may not be entering the open wounds !!
Every step of the way and how we got to our concepts has been explained, in some cases over and over again !! I am afraid Elk it just means a lot of reading for you - that is if you are seriously interested !!
Two areas I would point to for you to go to are :-
1) Greg Weaver's first article on our techniques - April 1999 Rainbow Foil review
Http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm
2) My first article in Positive Feedback Online - "Myth, Mirth or Magic? - The Peter Belt 'Snake Oil' Fallacy"
Http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/belt.htm
And, in the third paragraph of my article on positive feedback online you will see :-
"Sometimes things get nastier however. Between 2005 and late 2006, a section in the news group in Stereophile called "Why do so many buy into the "cons" in high-end Audio" (link) ran an entry from 'Buddha' who actually wrote this:
>>> "The Peter Belts of this world are sly, like the serpent. They are driven off, but then always find ways to slither back into to hobby to suck the green life blood from the uninitiated
>>> "Neither of them knew the theory well enough to understand that there are no exceptions to any of it; it doesn't matter where you live or what you had for breakfast. If its inherent in our biology, from the beginning of our species, and may be understood by but can not be controlled by the conscious mind, then there are no exceptions. Everyone is susceptible to the phenomena, whether they are conscious of it or not."
There's the crux of it. Like I said, objectivists think all the gear is the same and people differ, and subjectivists think all the listeners are the same.
Trench warfare, a la 1914.
Thanks for admitting to it, at least." <<<
******************
I think that last sentence Buddha is quite disingenuous. I think you have twisted MJFrog's meaning.
I don't think that MJFrog was meaning that all listeners are the same and will therefore react the same. I think MJFrog's sentence "It's inherent in our biology, from the beginning of our species, and may be understood by but can not be controlled by the conscious mind, then there are no exceptions. Everyone is susceptible to the phenomena, whether they are conscious of it or not." should be regarded as similar to the example I gave some time ago. I.e The example that the human body is programmed by evolution to be constantly monitoring it's environment in order to maintain a constant body temperature. As MJFrog says - there are no exceptions - everyone is susceptible to the phenomena, whether they are conscious of it or not.
I, personally, would never be able to predict who (which particular human being) could detect a one degree change in the environmental temperature - but what I do know is that their body can and will !!! Whether they are aware of it or not.
Similarly I would never be able to predict which human being would be able to detect the effect of a particular 'tweak'.
It is like you Buddha, knowing that I react adversely to the presence of a spider and that at such a time I will experience the sound to be 'much worse'. Then deciding that you will do the experiment of getting someone to introduce a spider into your listening room to see if you 'hear' any changes in the sound !! If you personally do not have the same fear of spiders as I do, then you may not react in the same way, the sound may not alter for you, but on another occasion, if you wife enters the room when you are listening to some music and your wife is particularly anxious because of something which has happened to her, your sound may suddenly be perceived as much 'harsher', as 'sounding much more aggressive'. In other words, you may be more sensitive to your wife's moods than you are to the presence of spiders !!!!! Your wife's sense of fear or foreboding or anxiety may make you feel 'less safe and secure' than the actual presence of a spider !!
I have used the following example before.
If someone has grown up in a home where one parent had a violent temper, then that person will be extremely sensitive to the FIRST signs of a temper brewing in someone long before another person who has never had that experience. But, on the other hand, that second person may have grown up in a home where one parent suffered occasionally from serious depression and that person will be extremely sensitive to the FIRST signs of the onset of depression long before another person who has not had that experience.
And, such as those experiences will determine to a great extent which atmosphere in their environment causes THEIR sound to be better or worse !! Or what they may or may not react to.
>>> "I have tried to experiment with this "signing off" hypothesis about a safe environment, and like the quick reversibility from one state of "safety" to another; but I hear no difference if I leave the doors locked or unlocked while I listen.
Then I tried leaving the windows unmoved, but I locked and unlocked their latches.
I was hoping that such an obvious event with regard to "signing off" on the safety of my environment might make a difference.
I tried it on the wife without her knowing, on the system she likes best, and also nada.
I even tried it late at night with our house alarm turned off or on, and still nothing." <<<
*************************
As I have just explained Buddha, no one can predict which particular circumstances or which specific things could be the problem (stopping them 'signing off their environment as safe') for the majority of people. I would just like to quote from a reply which Joseph Cohen gave me earlier on Tweakers Asylum.
>>> "If in fact we need a device to correct the devices that detract from our well being, then perhaps it's time to rethink the whole thing.
I have been saying for years that the interactions between all of the devices, traces, chassis material, circuit board material and wiring in a circuit are practically incalculable, that the interactions between all of the materials in the construction of a single cable are way more numerous than can be acounted for by LCR alone, that the interactions of all of the individual components, wires, materials that make up the room and building are probably infinite. This is not original thinking but purely derivitive of what I have learned from others and what I have observed." <<<
I could not agree more with his two words "probably infinite" !!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Buddha wrote:
Unrelated to Jan, I have a new one for you to try:
I have tried to experiment with this "signing off" hypothesis about a safe environment, and like the quick reversibility from one state of "safety" to another; but I hear no difference if I leave the doors locked or unlocked while I listen.
.... I must just be too trusting of the dang environment.
If I understand you correctly, you're simply opening and closing doors. Not actually incorporating them into Belt experiments, yes? In which case, I'm not surprised you're not hearing anything different. That speaks to what I was saying to Jan recently about people getting tripped up on the theory part of it. To be honest, I've always believed that you can't really understand the theory (apart from the abstract), without the experience. And a heck of a lot of it, even. Then when you stitch all your experiences together, you can better see how they fit in with the theories, and only then might it start to make more sense. With the theories alone, you are asked to follow Peter's path. He developed them only after years of experimental research, outside research and a lot of consideration. What slowly came to pass over many years as a working theory is what made the most sense, in light of the experiments he was researching. Take away the experiments and you're left with a map, a matchbox and a dark tunnel, and you have to figure your way out of it. So although its great that you're curious about it, I'd say you've taken the wrong direction with your experiment of "signing off"; you've taken that too literally. The "signing off" thing is not something you can consciously control. Put it back into its context, and you'll see.
The context it must be placed back in is a few million years ago, during initial development of the species that would later result in the modern human. "Signing off on the environment as safe" means this early creature, constantly checking the environment many times a second, for information that could save its life, reassure or nurture it. Presumably, the system it used succeeded, else I wouldn't be here telling you this. Hypothetically, we've inherited that same ability from this early creature; in effect, it never left us (even though its a now obsolete part of our evolutionary instinct). Only our environment and lifestyle today is different. 'Mightily different'. How this survival mechanism (on what is arguably a very primitive level of our brain) works is purely instinctual. I would have to suggest that its below -everything- (far, far below your ever-working intellect). Yes, even far below May's fear of spiders.
Not just below our common fears, but even below whatever is considered our "primal fear".
Q. "So this primitive sense we allegedly have can't be affected by turning the alarm system off, but can only be affected by Belt products??" A. Yes, call me presumptious, I anticipated that one... My answer to that would be yes and no. Peter discovered a very peculiar phenomenon that could affect the perception of senses, but it followed some very odd rules. (Which even quantum physicists would find odd...). It would be considered a biological phenomenon because it affects humans, but by observation alone, its really an indirect effect, provoked by our immediate environment. As say you have hayfever, and have a physical reaction from the pollen in the air in your environment.
You might just say we are allergic to all objects in our environment, to a certain degree.
In fitting with the grand scheme of things, PWB sees the energy pattern on objects in our environment as "benign" or "threatening" (rather, more so or less so), because of how the senses react when you change the pattern. Its the energy on/around the objects we're reacting to, not just the objects themselves. Hence the reason opening or closing doors might not change anything. This effect on this part of our brain (and in turn, our senses) is and was always present in the history of our species, long before any Belt was born. Since the phenomenon is always with us, from birth, we don't know its there. We might only know its there, when we change what affects it, to us (to a degree high enough that it is repeatedly observable to the observer). Which means, causing a change to what is in our environment, including us changing our environment (ie. going from outside the home to inside the home, vice versa). This change can be brought about without Belt products, ie. simply changing an object in the environment. Say, moving a pencil from a desk to a chair.
As there is no known objective way to measure the change (to our senses), the best known way is an audio exam. But I'd guess that to hear that subtle a change (as in the pencil example), you'd have to have one powerfully keen set of ears. Enter the Belt tweaks..... As they've been designed to manipulate energy on the objects, whether free or commercial, the Belt devices are going to be a more tangible way of observing this "primitive part of our brain" in action, than shuffling pencils around. (n.b. I used this example because I did once hear a rather subtle but repeatable difference from moving a non-Belted object on a desk, a few inches -- from the desk to its extension I believe). The commercial products can be expected to be more effective. They are often designed to act on specific objects, and applied in specific ways (for best result), as determined by the research that went into designing them.
As I say, they often follow odd rules that you would not expect from any other familiar phenomenon. One of them is the manipulation of "dark places". Certain products, such as the "safe foils", are designed to be used in places that are hidden to humans. Indeed, you can experiment with them and find that if they are placed in places we can't easily see, perception of sound improves beyond what might be achieved in an open space (naturally, this is a repeatable observation, and regardless of whether the human is aware the device is in this location or not). This observation I would presume is one thing that leads to the hypothesis that we are sensitive on some level, to this sort of minutiae; to every tiny little crevice, crack, hole or hidden compartment (the idea being that we are constantly looking for signs of safety, on some level). This is why you can place even the basic Silver Rainbow foil near the headphone jack of an amp, and find that it generally yields better results than 2" away on the same face of the object (regardless of where the jack is on an amp). Who knows what's lurking in there behind a headphone jack, to possibly kill you, right? Truly, you'd have to be pretty darn paranoid, to get paranoid about that on any level. Except maybe that of an amoeba!
The hypothesis of the earliest creature is only part of the Belt effect, for we are affected by much more than that, under the laws of this phenomenon. Apparently, we picked up a lot of other things along the way in our evolution, and they are as much a part of 'the Belt effect' as black holes and turntable lids. If someone just felt like trying to access the Belt phenom without actually trying a Belt tweak device (free or commercial), there are lots of better ways I can think of off the top of my head, before I would try opening and closing doors or alarm systems. A few that come to mind are removing all magnetic objects from the listening room, including tapes and even CD's. Or simply freezing records and CD's in a home freezer (although home freezing your audio equipment is probably even more effective). Cutting the corners of clothing labels, pinning back the corner of a few curtains.... maybe even trying to create "safe holes" without the use of a Belt device, by simply putting masking tape over headphone jacks and analog or digital RCA jacks. (Actually, I just remembered that blocking my RCA jacks with tape or fun-tak is something I already do to good effect, but I've not tried taping the headphone jacks).
These were some of the first Belt tweaks that I ever did, so they worked for me (and continue to do so, btw). I don't know how effective they are to others, in light of the commercial tweaks. I would think Jan's suggestion of the foils is a good place to start (and a good place to apply them if you have 'em, is on the CD logo of a CD). But if you feel you're "immune to it", maybe this is a case where your wife might hear a change if you tried them on her? Women have a deserved rep for perceptive listening. In order to get to the point of testing some of Belt's hypotheses, you'd have to pass the point of hearing the effect via a tweak. If you can do that, and if for example you have some foil, then you have a "tool" to measure. Then it makes sense to start playing with doors and windows and alarm systems. And then you will surely see that windows, doors and entryways do in fact have unique properties in Beltist research; but not from opening and closing them (as far as I know). From the sound you obtain when you attach foils to certain places on these specific objects. My uninformed tests on neos (neophytes!) indicates to me that hearing the effect of improved perception with a good tweak in place isn't the hard part. The hard part is people getting beyond their personal obstacles; beyond the theories or prejudices. But you never know, as sometimes some people hear the effect despite all that. (I've seen people far more skeptical than you, who've nevertheless heard the effect of the 5-pinhole aspirin tweak Go figure!).
Maybe risk takers would prefer unlocked, or the risk averse would prefer locked? Maybe risk takers are not Belt material, and the risk averse are better suited?)
To be "Belt material" is to be a risk taker by definition! There's a certain "death to the ego" you need to risk, just to get to the point of trying experiments in this domain. Any idiot can make the observation that "it appears ludicrous". We all know this already, Beltists and non-Beltists equally! The difference is, the Beltists have been able to go beyond their own prejudices ( and make no mistake, most had prejudices that everyone else has), in trying the ideas out.
Quote May: "As I have just explained Buddha, no one can predict which particular circumstances or which specific things could be the problem (stopping them 'signing off their environment as safe') for the majority of people."
That is a good answer,
True, and your observation is fair.
What I am trying to understand is why the two of you concluded that the tweaks work as a result of evolutionary sensitivities that humans possess.
I appreciate that you apparently looked into physical explanations such as resonance control, etc. But how did you come to conclude that we are sensing a "safe" environment in some sort of extra-sensory fashion? (beyond our five senses)
I am not demanding that you "prove" that you are correct. I am just curious as to how you reached your conclusion.
Thanks for the links by the way. I read these and have gone through your site as well.
Ethan wrote:
Exactly, and as always - "My mind is made up so don't confuse me with the facts."
I was thinking more along the lines of "I've heard the sermon before, I don't need to hear it again...". The fact that there is an administrative system that oversees the affairs of the country, called "the government", is a verifiable fact. But the people who think its responsible for everything from crop circles to secret brain implants are doing a hell of a lot with that fact, you know.
Yes, it works on me. I think we should do a "slow" thread where any question that is asked must be answered fully before continuing. That way none of us, including me, can duck anything. Shall we start a new thread called "Ethan versus the deludeds?" I promise to honor that protocol if you agree to it.
Do we really need to have a special "slow" thread with an ironic title that makes you feel more comfortable in your delusions, before you will respond to even the most glaring questions and issues? I hope not. But I suppose its mighty big of you to even agree to respond to your many detractors under some sort of condition, however bizarre that may be. I'll put the word out and see if I can generate some interest for the idea.
Of course I am, as long as you're okay with tests I propose and bring along. Actually, forget that. You name the tests, and I'm down for it.
The test could be of the safety pin I mentioned, or maybe another PWB product I have. The test system would be on the Sharp carousel mini-component system. (I warn you now, you have to be -very- careful around it. Raise an eyebrow too fast, and it will skip). But you could get to listen to it all you want beforehand, to familiarize yourself with it.
Both of us taking turns testing each other, of course!
Well, no. I thought I made this clear already in the several times I mentioned it. We're not testing each other, we're simply the ones being tested. Being tested at the same time, under the same conditions. Whoever gets the most positive hits is the big weiner. I don't know what you have in mind, but as for you directly administering a test to me and me administering one to you, it would be kind of pointless, wouldn't it?! That said, if you wanted to have a more informal additional test following the primary one, where you dust off your ABX comparator or what have you, I don't see why not, so long as you took the same test.
MJF: We're being tested by a 3rd party in this case
Okay, that works too as long as it's fair and proper.
Of course. We would both have to agree to it.
I'm always glad to learn something new. And hopefully you are too.
Of couse. I have no problem saying "Hey, you're right!", to someone. But if you asked me to remember in which lifetime I last said that, I'm not sure I could.....
MJF: But I would agree that the actual Belt devices, are likely to be more effective than the free tweaks. It's hard to compare, but I'd say the SR foils are maybe the equivalent of a pair of budget audiophile IC's.
That's actually quite a bit. I've been meaning to ask if you could quantify the change in some fashion. You beat me with the answer.
Just to clarify, the comparison I was making was referring to the paid SR foil product, not the limited free sample, and not a single piece but the entire quantity (effectively applied, of course). Even so, I realize I might be conservative in the estimate. I know that if given the choice between the SR foil and the equivalent cost in a pair of IC's, I'd easily choose the foil.
MJF: In my experience, they work best if the subjects don't know anything about the theory, or the tweak itself, beforehand. Because if, say they know the theory, it usually means they have to "buy" the theory before they'll admit to themselves the devices are actually doing something to the sound.
That's unfortunate. If a tweak works we should be able to hear the difference. Period.
In an ideal world, that would be so. But as you know, perceptions are everything; and you can have intellectual perceptions mixing with auditory perceptions; it matters the same. In this world, we have a gaggle (lookitupfokes...) of "objectivists", who think there are no real differences to be had among the various cables, cd players, ss amps (operating within their stated blablabla...), etc. They'll tell you without flinching, that they don't hear these differences. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe they're right. Maybe 50 million Elvis fans CAN be wrong. Both believe they have wonderful audio systems. But even to the objective observer, the Elvis fans seem to rock out a bit more.
For example, I have great difficulty accepting that different wires sound different, but I can hear the difference - whether I want to or not. I don't find them make the earth-shattering differences as some reviewers and some users claim, but enough of a difference to test various cables and to pick those I like.
Your difficulty in accepting that wires sound different is part of what I'm referring to; when theory impedes observation. In your case, you're still able to find differences in cables, despite your belief telling you they shouldn't be there. However, transposing that to someone else... if their belief that cables can't make a difference were any stronger, and perhaps as a result their confidence that they are hearing a difference any weaker, they might "conclude" that they are not hearing a difference. After all, you said the differences weren't that great. They might in fact be hearing the differences consciously, but if "to them" it isn't great enough, they might conclude they can't reliably tell whether one cable is producing better sound than another. This is where long term listening might help, in such cases. (I specified "to them" in quotes, because I feel that the more experienced you are in doing these tests, the more likely they are to "hear" the differences as greater than another. So two people can hear the same audio product and one person finds a night and day difference, the other says "yeah I can hear the difference, but its hardly that". Both are perfectly right, of course. )
But in the case of Elk, I think I can speculate that he may possibly hear the devices under different conditions.
Perhaps. What do you suggest?
Well... if you don't find considerable differences among considerable qualities of cable, it might have to be something that produces a considerable difference. Or at the least, as Jan suggested, a sample of the foil or cream. But even the free tweak ideas (as on my site or PWBs) are more effective when compounded, as with anything. As to what might work is hard to say, as it depends on the individual. I've never been able to predict that. But some of the free tweak ideas on my site that some people have been able to hear (either individually or compounded to many instances); include the 5-pin paper device, the cod liver oil device, the L-shape device, or the plug notch technique. As it doesn't cost anything but time, at least there's no limit to how many you can install a device. But if multiples are used, I would try to install them in odd numbers.
However, I am pretty good at setting aside preconceptions and seriously trying things out. I thrive on new experiences and love being astonished and surprised. In a way, it is better for me to know the explanation as I actually wanted them to work - the explanation is so deliciously far-fetched.
I believe you. It doesn't sound like the theory was much of any factor involved. Maybe whatever tweak you tried just wasn't effective enough, or the way it was applied.
If these tweaks depend on our unconscious appreciation of an environmental condition, how could the pre-existing environment not effect how the tweak works?
I wrote a long explanation on the subject to Buddha today. That should explain the basics.
For example, what if my well water has lots of fluoride in it and I have fresh flowers on the table? (a common event). The fluoride water tweak wouldn't work as there is already fluorinated water present.
Ok, wait a sec, lemme go do some quick research.... (I'm not particularly familiar with the fluoridated water tweak!). ....Well, came up empty in a quick search, and I don't see it on my site, either. I recall it involved concentrated fluoride drops, presumably added to the water of a vase of flowers. Ok, I suppose if the water you have is already fluoridated, then you might not notice anything. And that's assuming you would hear this particular tweak if you didn't have heavily fluoridated water. But it still leaves many questions open, such as the degree of fluoridation in your untreated water, and that added by the fluoride drops in the quantity of water in the vase.
Similarly, what if the environment is such that the listener has already unconsciously signed off on it as safe for whatever reason(s)?
Again, please see the explanation to Buddha for more elaborated opinions on this. My quick answer is, you're never safe. There are only degrees of safe. You're constantly looking for signs of safety.
As a separate question, how did the explanation come about as to why the tweaks work? What are the facts behind this, other than just the finding that the tweaks work?
If that isn't in my explanation to Buddha, then it is written about in depth on PWB's site.
I find that we say this a lot, but with different language; whether a set of wires will improve the sound or not depends on your equipment and the synergies present. Not all wires help all systems.
If we're talking "improve", that I agree. If we're talking "change", that's another matter. But then, "improve" is another hotbed of contention.
For example, I want Analysis Plus wires to work, I love the theory, but they sound shiny and harsh in my system. OTOH, they work great for others - and I am glad that these people have found them.
Yeah, sounds like that might be synergy. That's why I always recommend that people employ the same type of wires from the same company throughout their system, wherever possible. If they like the house sound, they'll have consistency across the chain. In fact, with some amps, getting the wrong cables can be murder.
Fun and learning is indeed where it's at! Froggy philosophy is good!
Ribbit!
Is this like an argument of audiophiles?
The 3rd part of my reply to your post (!!), the part about the safety tweak idea, was posted today a little later than the others, at 5:54p. I mistakenly addressed it to Elk, so that's why you may have missed it! Back button <--- ....
A little catching up to do.
If we wish to discuss the vocabulary of clipped amplifiers, "fuzzy" might work. But it has nothing to do with this thread and I will strongly consider cancelling my subscription to Stereophile when the reviewers are predominantly concerned about how an amplifier sounds only when it is clipped.
I see that you have looked up "fuzzbox" and how they typically work. Excellent.
However, you are missing the point.
"Fuzzy" is a wonderfully descriptive term for any form of distortion, whether it be distortion resulting from overloading an input circuit or otherwise.
Sounds are most vividly described with onomatopoeia. Thus, "fuzzy".
It is so apt the term makes sense even to non-audiophiles.
Now, once again, if this is uncomfortable for you - do not use the term.
But if you have a better single word for the sound of distortion, please share.
I have no recollection of ever having called you, Elk, closed minded about trying the "tweaks". I am curious as to why you will not divulge the specific treatments you did try but that is another matter. And I have suggested there might be other reasons for your refusal to try the free foil and cream offered by Belt. Allowing your prejudices to rule your thoughts and actions can be the result of more than one influence and in this case I do not believe your's is due to being close minded. Nonetheless you still allow your prejudices to rule. Why else would anyone refuse the offer of a free device which is going to improve your enjoyment of music in your home? At the moment I can think of only one particular reason.
Elk, why do you see this as "personal"? " ... misguided armchair psychology and page long rants against me and others" is what you wish to see and retaliate against. Just as you prefer to paint me as some wild eyed, hyperventilating kook you continue to play this game of diminishing my input in order to make my contributions less valuable. Less valuable than what? People who haven't tried the treatments? After almost 90 pages on two threads we still are engaged in a discussion regarding something most of the major contributors have no experience with. And as it plays out those who have no experience with the Belt products get to insult those who do. There are a few on this thread who would prefer to not hear any proof of anything they do not agree with. And they are not shy about responding in a very rude manner. They ignore what is asked of them. And they spin everything to what they hope will provide them some advantage. Even to the point of implying I compared them to the unabomber when I was speaking only of TK's simple lifestyle. You're the one who brought up the environment in which you live, did you not?
No, Elk, I did not repeatedly call you close minded. And implying that I am the only one who has "attacked" and "disparaged" anyone on this thread is BS. Yes, this is a hobby and it should be fun. And, no, I'm not particualrly enjoying how the discourse on this thread has progressed either.
If you only see my respsonses as attacks, I suggest you place my name on "ignore" and you won't have to deal with them. Or, we can call a truce and act like we do respect each other. If, however, you wish to continue your game of "paint Jan as a wierdo", then respect is not what will drive this thread forward.
There you go again. Why are you so dedicated to this game?
Buddha wrote:
MJF: "Neither of them knew the theory well enough to understand that there are no exceptions to any of it; it doesn't matter where you live or what you had for breakfast. If its inherent in our biology, from the beginning of our species, and may be understood by but can not be controlled by the conscious mind, then there are no exceptions. Everyone is susceptible to the phenomena, whether they are conscious of it or not."
There's the crux of it. Like I said, objectivists think all the gear is the same and people differ, and subjectivists think all the listeners are the same.
Trench warfare, a la 1914.
Thanks for admitting to it, at least.
I'm sorry, what were you saying about universal claims not being universally true? Well... I hate to be a prisoner of logic here but... you know.... that's not at all what I said in the above quote. Is this style of interpretation of yours some new form of post-modern art you're trying out? Because if so, I want in on the ground floor. It looks like it could be a "thing". If it matters at all what I think about the words you apply to me, I'd have to say, I don't think anything is the same. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be a subjectivist or an objectivist, but I must not be a subjectivist, because I don't think all listeners are the same. I don't think there are 2 audio components exactly the same, any more than there are two people. The question to ask is, where do the differences lie?
That is a good answer,
Last week's numbers have been posted and my friend has (for her second week with the foil) approximately duplicated her production increase from the previous week. Her friend who worked with the foil for two days also showed an increase in production and monetary compensation. There is now a third transcriptionist who is interested in the foil treatment after seeing their results and remaining frustrated by the quality of the digital transcription.
Additionally, I heard from another friend who ordered the foil and cream from May. He is a listener with a system comprised of Linn LP12, Rega Saturn, Rogue, McIntosh and Gallos. He heard the same improvements everyone else heard when I auditioned the foil for them a few weeks ago. He also froze a few CD's and is convinced there is improved sound on the frozen CD. He is very happy with his results. And, like the others, he was purposely not aware of any "logic" to explain how the treatments would work. He was provided no information about what he would perceive as "changed", if he would find anything at all. It was merely suggested he order the foil. He has trusted my advice in the past and did so once again.
I had seriously hoped to have a discussion of alternative treatments by comparing notes with others who had tried the treatments. I didn't expect anyone to spend a fair amount of money on the Mpingo discs or the Shakti room device. But when the Belt foils are offered at no real cost to the interested party, I thought this might be an opportunity to have a comparison between listeners who had seriously tried the devices. Obviously that isn't going to happen and we continue to have those with no experience with the foil nor any treatment/device they can actually describe shouting the loudest and, while claiming their superiority in every facet of life, calling me both a liar and a criminal (how I can be both I don't know- if my friend doesn't exist, no rules could have been broken; if she does exist, still no rules have been broken and this is just another form of obfuscation meant to keep the real issue of the thread at a distance). Intimidation and insults replaced reason long ago.
Instead of having a shared experience to discuss with other forum members I can only report what I have personally heard in my own system and from others around me who have used the foil. That group would make up a four for four scoring in favor of the foil. Eventually, I would expect to find someone who does not respond to the improvements but so far everyone around me who has tried the foil and/or cream has found improved sound.
I don't know who I would have been playing up to when I suggested a reef knot as my next experiment. All I do know is that is just another childish insult which diverts attention while keeping someone from answering any real questions that might be uncomfortable for them.
How likely is it that all four people were "inferior" listeners a few days ago and all four now have improved their abilities to the point where we have all "caught up" with those superior folk out there? With a four for four score I think we can easily dismiss as wishful thinking the BS about "inferior" listeners doing any "catching up".
The two transcriptionists have been doing their day to day listening for decades and unlike "audiophiles" they do not compete with their fellow transcriptionists for who has "superior" status when to comes to listening. They do their job and they get paid for how much they turn out. Knowledge and speed are what sets one transcriptionist apart from the others. My friend does not have to claim "legendary" anything. She is very good at what she does and is getting paid for that talent.
When it comes to audio systems I don't claim superior skills. I just know what live music sounds like and what it should sound like in my room. I am more inclined to believe everyone has different listening skills rather than one group who approaches music in one fashion having either superior or inferior skills compared to any other listener. There are listeners who do not have the skills, knowledge or attitude to recognize the improvements brought by the treatments but that is not the case with this group of four.
However, four out of four listeners now are either enjoying their music with greater satisfaction or they are earning more money as the result of their recent experiments. How that can be is one of the questions Buddha will not answer to anyone's real satisfaction. He would prefer to question my truthfulness rather than answer a simple question.
Four listeners do not suddenly improve their perception with out a reason. If we assume that all four did improve their perception as reported, to what do we attribute the change? This seems like a simple question that deserves an answer after all these pages.
Quote Michigan: "You might as well be saying some people don't need Duntech Sovereign speakers, because they are already hearing what the Duntech's provide on their Paradigm mini-monitors."
Hi.
No, what I'm saying is that some people don't need hearing aids. They already 'hear' just fine.
I need glasses, and you may see clearly without them. I do not insist that my glasses will make you see more clearly.
You may need Belt tweaks, and others may not.
Everyone needs Ethan's traps, everyone needs Belt's tweaks...please.
I am a staunch supporter of you hearing and supporting Belt tweaks, but I am an equally staunch opponent of your claim that these 'affectations' have universal utility.
How can you know that until you try the treatments? More enjoyment with no cost. How can you turn that down?
Pages