| 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
Yep, that's pretty much how boooooood"Ha!" goes about a discussion. Be careful, geoff, when he gets cornered he really starts with the insults. He can do two whole pages on one fifth. I imagine you've noticed that already.
LOL!!!
Well, it's not a Clever Clock, yet.
Think of the CD as a digital medium. It has binary data, and we now see can exist in binary magnetic states. magnetized, or demagnetized. Binary, see?
All we are doing with demagnetizing is creating a zero state, and with re-magnetization we are creating a 1 or -1 state, depending on the orientation of the disc when it is remagnetized. None of the in-between states of magnetism, any more!
Now, you and your western dogma science of Brilliant Pebbles and such may not be able to open your cranium to such a breakthrough, but we now have more sonic options!
Just as they laughed at Einstein and Lister, this baby will have legs.
I've been comparing the 1 state to the -1 state and have found a clear preference for -1, which is magnetized with the label facing the magnet.
No creme required, either!
I wonder how many of these 'curious' and 'intellectually open' subjectivists will consider it, not coming from someone who sells them their pablum and all, but they'll be missing out.
No worries on not agreeing with me, you seem to think the tweak market is so competitive that people may consider a re-magnetizer OR a Brilliant Pebble, but it's not like that. They can have both.
Although, I do have the advantage of having my tweak more in keeping with Sheldrakes' ideas. My -1 tweak generates what appears to be a morphic field of good sound. The good sound extends from the actual disc surface. With a demagnetized CD, all the good sound just stays at the surface of the disc.
You could say, my approach is much more three dimensional.
He's been drinking, hasn't he?
And so early in the morning even by Vegas standards!
Drinkin' and makin' up crap.
Man, this is great. Vigne, can't hear you!
If I didn't see my moniker at the top of the reply, I wouldn't know you were even yammering on the thread!
So, KBK has come up with some induction trials, and we've moved to consideration of the fidelity of properly magnetized CD's.
Good thread!
I must respectably disagree, as a manufacturer, on this one Jan. I know of several dishonest reviewers who have been misleading the public for years through their articles/posts. (There are at least 4 reviewers I know of that are crooked behind the scenes.)
I know because an aquaintance of mine (I actually never met him) who is a federal investigator was kind enough to do an analysis of some posts/articles I sent him, and he explained how these guys "work"/manipulate in their writings. (It is not Stereophile or Bound for Sound, but some other big name online review magazines.) Pretty interesting how they do it.
Your post struck me as quite interesting since I just read a post on another forum where a loudspeaker designer stated this regarding a certain un-named reviewer:
"I am aware of an industry figure who claims to have exceptional hearing who had his hearing tested recently. I'm told that he has lost 95% of his hearing in one ear at 1kHz, which makes him profoundly deaf at the most critical part of the audio spectrum. His claims of super-acuity are therefore self-deluded bunkum. Yet people believe him.
This same designer also states:
So trusting in those ears without putting in place counterbalancing comparator or measurement techniques to guard against the limitations of your ears is folly. Unless you see 'audiophilia' as purely art, have money to burn, where absolutes really don't matter and where you have no shame in continuously reversing rock-solid conclusions that you have drawn.
I know the "tweakers" are going to laugh at these statements but they are all too true. Would you buy a loudspeaker that was designed purely by ear? Food for thought. Cheerio.
Would you buy a speaker that was designed purely by measurements without anyone ever lending an ear?
I wouldn't.
So now everything that appears on an internet forum that you agree with is suddenly factual? Oh, GoodLord! Given your posts on this forum I can only imagine what other forums you visit.
Has no one ever explained to you the most dangerous aspect of "the internet"?
You can say anything and it remains forever in cyberspace for any nut job to pick up on and amplify a thousand times over. Really, presenting an unsubstantiated comment taken from an internet forum is about helpful as believing the made up crap booood"Ha!" has posted on this forum. The "I'm told ... " should have been your first clue to get off that forum.
Maybe sas' federal investigator will bring down this whole scheme and these reviewers will be up there with Bernie Madoff in the federal pen. People do believe what they wish to believe and, if you buy based solely on a reviewer's recommendation, you get what you deserve.
FS, your constant disparagement of "tweakers" is as ridiculous as Winer's claims of super intelligence and super hearing accuity - ooooooh, not a good topic to bring up after that one quote, eh? - and booood"Ha!"'s made up BS. If you don't care for the views of others, you can continue on as a bigot in your personal life. However, constantly spewing this sort of bigotry on the forum pages doesn't win any battles. As a matter of fact, it places you in some pretty poor company, a group that includes the morally challenged, the ethically challenged, the uber-hypocrits, the just plain creepy, those who contribute nothing other than insults and at least one alchoholic who cannot get from one end of a sentence to the other without loosing track of what planet he is on.
As the saying goes, "I wouldn't want to belong to any group that would have me as a member."
YMMV
Of course he listens. The point is that he doesn't trust his ears to be the definitive tool to produce the finished product. You, the "tweakers" do. You only trust your ears because you cannot prove otherwise.
J.V., If you spent half of the time you spend insulting others on actually listening and trying to find ways of "proving" how a tweak works, you'd be better off, just a word of advice. Your ears are not the definitive judge, get it!
Cheerio.
Doesn't surprise me Frank.
The ones I know use bait and switch techniques, mislead even basic college textbook science information in their reviews, destroyed one of my preamplifiers (looked like with a hammer) when I would not sell it to them for next to nothing.
And yes. Although specs gets one close, everyone knows that a speakers FR is not a straight line. Imo, listening (and final adjustments) is the final test, over a period of time of course.
Frank, the reason Jan, Clifton, and others are so annoyed is that some (not all that have argued with Jan) here have posted manipulated data/graphs, changed positions depending upon the subject matter, claim to use science and logic only to find they have not had a single course in basic electronics or science. We all found out they do not understand a simple thevenin equavalent circuit, and can not design a basic first semester electronics circuit. Some also have attacked things that were simply competition to their sales.
Yet they claim to know more than PHDs, and engineers from large and established companies. This has happened more than once.
I hope this helps you to a deeper understanding of what has actually been transpiring for some long time Frank.
Take care Frank.
Uh, "prove" what?
We're talking about a speaker. Can you name a speaker designer who doesn't perform and use measurements? If not, you're off your f'ing nut!
Please don't tell me you are willing to replace booood"Ha!" as manager of "the made up crap" department.
Here's one final statement I'll post that sums up my feelings as well.
"But the odd thing is that I, as a loudspeaker designer, making a living, paying the bills, raising my family don't trust my ears. If I did, I'd potentially put my family at risk because if my ears fooled me (something they are more than capable of doing, and have frequently done so) I could be on the streets or stacking supermarket shelves."
I'm beginning to think you indeed are "full of crap" You are the ultimate "know it all", unwilling to take any other opinion or experience "in" that disagrees with your delusional thought process on how your ears can play tricks. This has been and always will be your trump card.
I think it's hilarious to read posts by certain people regarding cremes on telephones and pebbles and telephone tweaks, makes for great comedy, for me at least. None of these have anything to do with reality so ultimately you live in a "dream" world. More power to you, don't need drugs to take a trip, must be nice.
Read my previous post Frank as I have edited it. Thanks. Also I do use listening as the final test once the FR is as close as I can get it. But I take my time, a long time to make sure it is right, and use many test songs.
Take care.
But my ears are the definitive judge.
Got it!
I feel sorry for you if you don't trust your ears and you are involved in this hobby.
I've said more than once I don't own a lab full of test equipment and I don't place all of my faith in a machine measuring a machine. If I did, I wouldn't be on the Stereophile forum. I'd be Googling another forum member's personal information and making soft porn videos while hypocritically saying I support abused women.
So why are you here?
Let's play this game of yours.
How many audiophiles do you suppose own a lab full of test equipment? Give a per centage rounded to the nearest .01%
Since most audiophiles do not own a lab full of test gear, you're here to insult everyone of those who do not, every one of those peole who "listen", by saying they shouldn't buy anything that hasn't been measured? And tested?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
By whom? And for what?
You're here to say using your ears to choose an audio component is nuts?!!!
Awww, believe me, FS, that's about as nuts as I have ever heard even from some of the uber-crazies that have populated this forum. Next you're going to tell me you use a $150 receiver as your pre amp!
Since this is your "specialty" and you know so much about it why not tell me what measurement I would look for in a speaker if I wanted one that reproduced greater "palpable presence" than my current set up? Find an example for a speaker measurement that I can look at to decide why that system would have better depth reproduction than my current system. How about one that was "transparent"?
Please, post examples of all of these.
Convince me! I'm waiting.
Then show me what measurement of a turntable would do the same.
FS, you are just blowin' smoke out your cheek squeezed butt!
And, ya'know what? I don't "insult" prople who display a modicum of sense. I just get on this forum and point out how folks like you are truly misguided and then folks like you and booood"Ha!" get flustered and they have nothing to say other than I have insulted them. Oh, boo-f'ing-hoo!
I've never had to point out those same issues with May or Frog or sas or geoff, JA, JVS, or RD. None of them. Just goofballs like you.
There you go! You make up crap just like boooood"Ha!". I've always been open to a discussion on this forum. I would say more than anyone else, that is what I have called for on numerous occasions and only been insulted further by "your side". That's what "your side" does!
I never get anything other than "believe me - do as I say to do - or you're a fool" from people like you.
I said convince me. Do it. Prove I don't know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, you're just another bag of hot air on this forum who doesn't want a discussion because you might find out you're wrong. Don't just tell me to measure stuff. That's BS! Tell me what measurements I should be looking at to get what I described above. Not Winer's big four, what specifically should I be looking for?
I'm waiting.
Hi, SAS!
This 'manufacturing question' is one of my favorites, and I ask it alot of manufacturers.
The answer is always, "Both."
Measurements and even computer modeling in advacnce, maybe even choosing drivers based on specs to try together.
Then, building and listening come into play.
I've yet to meet a designer who didn't test, listen, repeat extensively beforehand.
Many will even say that at first blush, a speaker may sound fine, and then when they measure again, something can be brought to their attention that that had not noticed at first listen...and they change.
They also say that they may love a measured response, but then need to further 'voice' the speaker based on more detailed listening.
I mean, it's so common, they have that word "voicing' for the process!
If we had speakers made only by measurement, we'd all have Ethan's system. If we only had speakers made 'subjectively,' we'd have Homer Simpson's barbeque. There has to measurement and acquisition of objective data at some point in the chain.
I've played with being a 'subjectivist' speaker builder, but it's been a act of buying parts someone else made and all I have to do play with trying to make an enclosure. The objectivists who design saws, drivers, etc...did all the heavy objective lifting!
HA, HA J.V. There you go again. Someone makes a statement and you write an essay about it's flaws based on your "dreamworld" Like I said, if you enjoy fooling yourself into believing that certain ridiculous tweaks change the way you hear music through "your speakers", that's fine with me. I don't care, really, I have better things to do than become involved in a meaningless debate with you. I can't win an argument with a mindless twit so I won't bother to continue J.V. I've offered my opinion and tried to show that other "sensible" professionals don't "solely" rely on what their ears tell them. They listen and measure. I enjoy listening to music, not pieces of gear, or cremes, or other rocky particles scattered throughout my room. Enjoy living in your dreamworld J.V. but please don't preach your "crazy" way of thinking to me. I'm not ready to go down the "looney" trail just yet. Cheerio for now.
Are you implying that my Mackie and/or JBL speakers don't also sound good? It is well known that when a system measures good, it also sounds good. Or at least is faithful to the source material. Countless hit records have been mixed on both of these speakers! They may not have a response that's skewed to be euphonic like many audiophile models, but some people (ahem) actually treat "high fidelity" as a worthy goal.
The reverse might not always be true - witness all the love for vinyl which only the most deluded believe is actually "better" than CD quality. Most vinyl fans accept that the raw fidelity of vinyl is no match for CDs, but they prefer it anyway. I have no problem with that.
Hey, you chided me for making fun of Jan's system but now you're doing it too?
--Ethan
I'm late to the party. When did that take place?
Nice "proof", FS.
You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.
That would make you a phoney. And someone who makes up crap on a par with boooood"Ha!"'s best.
Please, don't bother me again with your bigotry.
Boy, there's an understatement if ever there were one.
Oh, on numerous occasions. dup actually was banned for that once. But not Winer.
And, just so you'll know, my system is not a topic for discussion on this forum any more than what goes on in my front yard is a topic for discussion.
You just proved my point. Thank you very much!
You try to reverse everything in question and never defend your claims with any proof other than, "I heard a difference". You really are a detriment to your cause and I thank you for confirming what I have thought all along.
Now Geoff will be really disappointed in your effort and May will be forced into demoting you to Private of the "tweak brigade". What a sad, sad day indeed.
Cheerio for now.
Got it! No worries here.
A couple of months ago. Too many posts to search through, but here's the gist of it:
For all of Jan's posturing and posing it turns out his (her?) hi-fi is, well, let's just say it's not excellent. Just as Jan is unable to express what tweaks don't work, he is incredibly paranoid about letting anyone here know the details of his system. Apparently for good reason. Some forum members were nice enough to PM me a few details, though nobody seems to know the full gear list. As best I can tell - Jan please correct me if this is wrong - Jan's speakers are a single 5-inch midrange driver with no woofer or tweeter (think Bose 901). He also uses 30 gauge magnet wire as speaker cables because he thinks that sounds better than normal lamp cord. I believe his power amp is a low-power (under 100 watts) antique toob model.
--Ethan
Like that's ever going to happen. L.O.L.
Oh, you're right. I am so ...
no, wait ... let me double check ...
yep, yep, you're the one who wouldn't answer a few simple questions.
Geez, FS, that still makes you a phoney and someone who makes up crap. And someone who came here only to insult people who disagree with you. Nice going!
I would say this thread is in the ditch and ready to be closed.
You'll have to remind me what those were. L.O.L.
I offered concise, clear statements given by a reputable manufacturer as an example of how products are supposed to be made in order to provide the consumer with clear and concise "proof" that their product is driven not just by their own two ears. This is how things are done in the "real world"
Cheerio for now.
You, OTOH, only offer pure psychobabble to your cause. There is no effort on your behalf or substance to your argument that your tweaks are indeed making "sonic" differences as opposed to "placebo" (in your mind) differences. You still never answered Buddha's question regarding "the Belt/Frog tweaks that didn't make a difference" yet you demand everyone else provide proof that you are lying. L.O.L.
You have some serious problems there, FS, serious problems. Are you sure you're not boooood"Ha!" in disguise? You can't read and you make up crap.
L.O.L. That's your answer to everything dude. You sound like a badly broken record. L.O.L.
Cheerio for now.
"Think of the CD as a digital medium."
Therein lies your problem. The CD is not really a digital medium - it only appears to be one. Think of the CD as an analog medium.
The laser and photodetector operations are simply a lot of ONs and OFFs, separated by minuscule periods of time. All the optical stuff is anlog. The digital part happens later when the ONs and OFFs and time intervals are arranged into a digital stream. The digital stream is converted back to analog. So the CD is mainly analog, like those antique music boxes with the metal discs.
Yeah, I've decided not being able to read and making up crap is a disease that goes along with not being able to hear. "Your side" has a lot of all of it going around.
Ahh the peace and quiet of a Jan free forum, ahhhhh.
Sorry about my lack of input here but the radio station put on a 50 hour broadcasting marathon from multiple outside locations so I've been busier than a one-armed paper hanger! Hopefully the coming weekend will allow time for the listening tests and anaylysis that will forward the conversation on this thread.
Frank, I think you should avail yourself of the "Jan-go-away" option in your account setup. Once ignored, he can squawk as loud as an eggbound Rhode Island Red and you'll be none the wiser. He has a habit of derailing every thread that discusses tweaks and other such ephemera. It's a better place with "you are ignoring this user" in place of his hysterics.
KBK, you're not going to get any traction with this "you have the wrong mental attitude" diversion. Forget it man, I use my ears critically every day in my work as a professional. It is contingent on me to be aware of everything that goes to air on my station and that it be of high quality. That's my job. Audiophiles think that they know how to listen because they have "trained" their listening. I have been sharpening those skills for the past 20 odd years. I also listen to audio for up to eight hours a day, five days a week. I bet you don't.
Geoff, I don't know why you bother posting on here. You seem to have a lot of opinions but little knowledge to back them up. CD players with no buffers, CD as an analogue medium? Seriously, the laser pickup in a CD player is built for one thing. It converts reflected laser light into pulses of electricity which are effectively logic 1's and 0's. I know it doesn't suit your business model for things to be this way. However, people with enormous knowledge and experience in electronics and engineering designed the device to do just this one job and do it the best way possible. Your pebbles cannot affect how the CD playback mechanism works, no matter how hard you think they can.
But..... do you really think they can???
On with the experiment.
Geoff, I don't know why you bother posting on here. You seem to have a lot of opinions but little knowledge to back them up. CD players with no buffers, CD as an analogue medium? Seriously, the laser pickup in a CD player is built for one thing. It converts reflected laser light into pulses of electricity which are effectively logic 1's and 0's. I know it doesn't suit your business model for things to be this way. However, people with enormous knowledge and experience in electronics and engineering designed the device to do just this one job and do it the best way possible. Your pebbles cannot affect how the CD playback mechanism works, no matter how hard you think they can.
Why do I post here? I guess I enjoy trying to get through the thick membrane surrounding the brains of the naysayers and those convinced they know it all. I also like to watch the knee jerk reactions. It's for the entertainment!
Is it a better place when you never hear a dissenting voice? Most reasonable folk would say it's a paradise for fools. But you'll never reach that conclusion.
Never being challenged to go outside of what you already know or can imagine, everyone you see agrees with you and only you, what a life - the life of Riley, and we all know how well all of his schemes turned out.
Guys, everyone but you realizes it is only the weakest or the most autocratic of arguments that can bear no dissent.
However, even if you can't see me, I can still see you. And I'll be there when FS can't recall what was discussed an hour prior, when boooood"Ha!" makes up his crap and Winer hypocritically praises him abilites and all the rest of you follow along behind like the good little puppy dogs you are.
FC, you are just about as proud of your abilites as Winer is of his. I've never understood why anyone must constantly justify their existence by telling everyone how wonderful they are. Justifying your own existence to yourself and your audience, what a life. What a mindset!!!
You guys have this all worked out now, eh? You've been provided the camps and you're rounding up the agents of change that would tear down your little house of cards.
I seriously doubt the "ignore" feature was intended to operate as a gulag.
>>> "Could be an out, but many times, if something improves the sound of a system (less glare, etc.) then people may tend to turn it up a little and get more out of a recording because whatever was holding them back now isn't.
Perhaps he did dance around the room. If he noticed and improvement, the music may have become more involving.
Maybe the tweak was good enough that he "just listened" for a while, too! Not professional, but excusable!" <<<
Of course Clement Perry could have done all those things. However, Buddha, you know perfectly well what I was meaning. To dismiss a reviewer's experience (an editor at that) as BillB did, with a simplistic wave of the hand, with the simplistic "Oh, he might have been listening at a slightly higher level", after the reviewer had taken all the trouble to write about a device which gave him improvements in his sound, shows that BillB was using that technique so that he, BillB, does not have to think further. He has the simplest of explanations which satisfies him. But, if it satisfies HIM, then it certainly should NOT satisfy other so called 'professionals in audio'. Now, because BillB is satisfied with his simplistic explanation, he does not have to think "Wait a minute, wait a minute, I wonder what the Schumann resonance device was ACTUALLY doing that Clement Perry (and other reviewers) could hear such an improvement in their sound that made them want to write about it ?"
I do not hold reviewers and editors in awe as though they were Gods. They are human beings, like the rest of us. Some, however, have the courage to risk being ridiculed and will describe their experiences and others are terrified of being ridiculed so keep silent.
Now, Buddha, regarding your comments "I wonder if there is something in common between this demagnetizing and remagnetizing both having a positive effect.
With demagnetizing, we are supposedly taking a partially 'predominant' magnetic field and are reducing/eliminating it. Maiking a more uniform field.
With remagnetizing, we'd be taking a partially magnetized disc and giving it a uniformly set orientation, which would also be homogenous."
I was just about to ask you "How SERIOUS are you in having such a discussion ?" when I saw your reply to Geoff :-
>>> "Well, it's not a Clever Clock, yet.
Think of the CD as a digital medium. It has binary data, and we now see can exist in binary magnetic states. magnetized, or demagnetized. Binary, see?
All we are doing with demagnetizing is creating a zero state, and with re-magnetization we are creating a 1 or -1 state, depending on the orientation of the disc when it is remagnetized. None of the in-between states of magnetism, any more!
Now, you and your western dogma science of Brilliant Pebbles and such may not be able to open your cranium to such a breakthrough, but we now have more sonic options!
I've been comparing the 1 state to the -1 state and have found a clear preference for -1, which is magnetized with the label facing the magnet.
No creme required, either! " <<<
So, it became obvious to me, with that mockery, that you aren't really seriously interested in a serious discussion, you just used the words "I wonder if" as a form of banter, as a 'jousting' tool.
Regards,
May Belt.
Of course I wouldn't expect you to try it or discuss it, May. It's outside your thinking box.
I was, in fact, bantering with Geoff because on the one hand he extolls the virtue of products with no 'typical' explanation, yet dismisses other possibilities out of hand, much like those despised objectivists do. His response to the magnetic question is identical to a standard objectivist's. Identical.
Funny how that works, eh?
Geoff sells packaged clocks as a tweak, and you fawn over him. An audiophile tries something new that doesn't fit a preconceived notion, and you toss it aside as 'jousting.'
Not up your alley, dismiss. And you call yourselves open minded.
May, even cows can align themselves based on magnetic phenomenon. Talk about objective evidence and evolution!
Oh, well. Go ahead and stick to your comfort box and leave all the trying new ideas that may go against the grain to others. Embrace demagnetization because it fits your limited view of how things work, and skip right over proper magnetization and magnetic states because that is not as simple a bromide. I read you.
No kidding. When I first saw Geoff's web site products page I was sure it was a goof, designed to snare gullible fools along the lines of Nathan Marciniak's "Elemental Voice" bogus products but with a real web store. I figured whoever is behind the Machina Dynamica products has to know they can't work as claimed. But that was a few years ago, before I saw all the ridiculous posts by Geoff here. Now I realize that Geoff really is as clueless as the people he hopes to sell to, and I assume he believes his own bullshit. Amazing.
--Ethan
You believe your own bullshit. Even more amazing!
Hey! Here's a litle test of BS. Show that video of yours to the abused women you say you support. See what they think is bullshit.
Hey, Ethan.
Did you notice May didn't chide me about saying that if we only used measurement, we'd end up with Ethan's system? She didn't accuse me of jousting with you...because it fits her preconceived notions.
She didn't chide Geoff for dismissing magnetism out of hand like you do with demagnetism, either.
Funny. She's quite the objectivist when it comes to magnetism. De-magnetism is a one way street, I guess.
Geoff answered dismissively to the notion of re-magnetizing like you did, but that didn't bother May at all. neither of them has even tried it! And it's free! They must know in advance that it couldn't work, like you do with de-magnetizing.
Ethan, I think May and Geoff have more in common with you than you think. They can dismiss tweak ideas a priori based on their own view of the world! At last, common ground!
May got upset at me for saying the tweak wasn't a Clever Clock, yet. She thinks saying something isn't a Clever Clock, yet, is dismissive of a product.
I think she let slip that she thinks the Clever Clock doesn't work.
_____
Boy, start talking about things they don't market and subjectivists can get as testy as one of them there objectivists!
Did you notice you and I are the only ones who have said we think the same recording may provide a different listening experience at different times?
We are actually being subjectivist sharpeners talking about how things sound...which drives some of them to apoplexy!
They're dug in deeper than that Russian Cave Cult!
"My tweak, my way. None other shall pass."
It's been a revealing thread!
Maybe May can tell us all the other tweak ideas that can't work...even though she hasn't tried them.
LOL! But if she did then we'd never be able to put her on ignore in good conscience.
--Ethan
Buddha-
You are taking it from both sides on this one and it is completely undeserved. Geoff blowing off you hypothesis of demagnatizing and magnetizing creating similar effects because it creates a constant state because of a difference of semantics is laughable. You thing he would be smart enough to take open-minded allies wherever he could in these parts. But then one remembers his irrational stance that cassette sounds better than CD and it all comes into focus and starts to make sense.
One of the things that I don't get about the strict objectivists is they deny anything that can't be measured as if it can't exist. Don't they realize that the first step to scientific understanding is many times anecdotal observation which is then persuade to a new scientific understanding? Just because we can't measure something doesn't mean it is non-existant, it just means we don't yet have a method to quantify it. Newton didn't discover gravity he only found a way to quantify and describe it. Gravity existed long before him.
That's certainly not my attitude! But if something makes no sense using known science, and I can't hear it either, then the first step is to establish that "it" even exists at all. This is a perfectly reasonable position.
So let's take replacement AC power cords as an example. It makes no sense via known science that swapping out one perfectly competent AC wire for another will make a difference in the sound. If pushed I might even entertain the believers and give it a try. Let's assume I hear no difference. So then what? Does a reasonable person go along anyway and give the believers the benefit of the doubt? Or do we insist they prove there really is a difference before spending time that could be better used for other endeavors?
Since I know a lot about audio, and AC power cords mattering defies all that I know, I choose to put the burden of proof on the believers. But they never have any proof! Nor can they tell which cord is which without seeing the label. Hence my conclusion on AC power cords, and by extension all the other stuff that defies common sense like magic pebbles and clever clocks and everything else Geoff Kait sells, and too-small magic acoustic bowls, ad nauseum.
If the believers could actually prove the stuff they claim, I absolutely agree with you that the next step is to investigate further. But it never gets that far.
--Ethan
Ethan-
Let me start off by saying that I have a great respect for all of your work with acoustics and for the amount of information that Real Traps provides free of charge on your web site. So I'm not trying to pick a fight.
Have you ever considered that your scepticism was SO strong that your logical brain wasn't allowing you to subjectively listen and give these tweaks a fair shot? Do you try to measure these differences even before you listen? This is off topic but have you tried a better power cord between the power conditioner and the wall? Obviously only changing one power cord would cause only a small change but if one hears that change then it's only logical that changing ALL of the power cords in the audio system would have an affect many magnitudes greater.
For the record I consider myself to be on open-minded skeptic.
>>> "Of course I wouldn't expect you to try it or discuss it, May. It's outside your thinking box." <<<
I was ABOUT to TRY to discuss it with you until you started with the mockery !! I was not trying to get out of discussing it - I just realised that you were only 'jousting'. I can assure you that it CERTAINLY is not outside my thinking. In fact, I think quite well !!!!
>>> "Oh, well. Go ahead and stick to your comfort box and leave all the trying new ideas that may go against the grain to others. Embrace demagnetization because it fits your limited view of how things work, and skip right over proper magnetization and magnetic states because that is not as simple a bromide." <<<
I was about to agree with you that BOTH applying a demagnetiser AND a magnetiser could create changes in the sound. I was NOT embracing ONLY demagnetising as changing sound. I was embracing applying a magnet ALSO as changing sound. I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. It is Peter and I who have introduced new ideas which go against the grain to others !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> "An audiophile tries something new that doesn't fit a preconceived notion, and you toss it aside as 'jousting.'" <<<
Oh please. Haven't you read the 'quickie list' I put together earlier. The list of things which do not fit a preconceived notion but which give improvements in the sound !!!!
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.
>>> "Oh, well. Go ahead and stick to your comfort box and leave all the trying new ideas that may go against the grain to others. Embrace demagnetization because it fits your limited view of how things work, and skip right over proper magnetization and magnetic states because that is not as simple a bromide. I read you." <<<
"MY limited view"!!!!!!!!!!! That is the understatement of the century !!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
>>> "Geoff sells packaged clocks as a tweak," <<<
This is going to really upset you Buddha but I would suggest that Geoff's Clever Little Clock is doing EXACTLY what your laser lights are doing, in the room, when they improve the sound. How is THAT for new ideas that go against the grain ??????
Also, would you like to explain your published experiences on the effect of crystals in the room ??
Quotes below :-
>>> "Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear. Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.
The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.
The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.
With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.
I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."
It may be something I listen for that others may not.
The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.
Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done." <<<
*************
Regards,
May Belt.
And he questions your logic. Amazing!
RG
I never assume someone is looking for a fight unless they toss insults. You don't do that, so no need to worry or preface legitimate questions. <thumb-up smiley if the forum had one>
No.
No, because I mostly ignore stuff that makes no sense. As I said before I might try something just to humor a believer, especially if the believer came here for a visit and brought a tweak. But mostly I already know the answer. Sort of like asking a bridge designer if he ever tried elastic bands for a suspension bridge. A real engineer doesn't have to try that to know it's not sensible. Only someone who is clueless about bridge design might think elastic bands could be a good idea. Same for people who know nothing about how audio and electronics work. Those are the only people who give credence to what I consider "tweaks." (Versus valid tweaks like trying different speaker placements.)
No, and I don't have any power conditioners anyway.
Obviously.
No, not logical at all. People hear all kinds of stuff that don't exist. That is the real issue, and if you follow my posts here at all you'd know this is my opinion. Prove to me that someone - anyone! - can hear a difference between competent power cords without looking and I promise you'll have my full attention.
Me too.
--Ethan
I thought, according to you, that telling lies and telling the truth could also change the sound, not only for the individual telling the lie, but for everyone else in the room!!!!!!!!
I didn't see that on your list?
RG
This myth that you and Buddha have created - more made up crap - and persist in repeating is a lie. The idea a subjectivist must have visual proof before they can perceive a change is simply BS. It's convenient for your story but it is a lie.
Buddha tells the story one way and then, when it is more convenient not to tell the same story, he says something different - something that suits his purpose at that moment. You have picked up on this lie and you repeat it simply because it favors your illogical sense of how things work.
This is by no means the only example of blind identification of changes or improvements. This happens all the time. That you cannot hear the change is by no means proof it does not exist. That you cannot reason through the fact others can hear what you cannot is no proof the change has not ocurred. The proof should, IMO, be your's to provide for why you cannot hear what others can preceive with a simple blind test and 100% accuracy.
100% of those responding to the stimulus accurately identified what you cannot. That doesn't speak well for what you can and cannot preceive. It would make any logical person believe there is something that should be explored when they are so out of step with everyone else.
A lie is still a lie - and you and Buddha are telling a lie.
Here's the question of the post;
Why?
Pages