| 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
Jan-
Your question is philosophically deep, but my group isn't.The other two are cheapskate skeptics who agreed to a social Sunday afternoon with the wives to listen to music. They were just humoring me, and I was looking for any confirmation of what I had heard on my system.They had a very negative attitude going in.So much for pre conceived notions.
No, I never froze any CD's, but I do demagnetize [and I'm not joining the debate on that issue].
LOL!
Check the link I provided mrlowry.
Awesome, yes, please share.
will do. I Still email Sonny West(Elvis' bodyguard) and DJ Fontana regularly. Both of those guys are cool, real cool.
Ronnie Tutt(also played with Gram Parsons), also cool, as is Glen Harding(played with the hollies). James Burton is the man too.
Jan, parts of this particular 'thread' have referred to Jonathan Scull's, Brian Willis's, John Atkinson's and Martin Colloms's experiences with the Shun Mook and Harmonix devices to which Ethan replies :-
>>> "Anyone who intentionally sticks a bunch of resonating objects in their listening room suffers from bad musical taste. Unrefined. Or at least uneducated." <<<
Absolutely unbelievable - There is 'free speech' and then there is 'sheer arrogance' !!!!!!!!!
It would be very nice if the 'luxury of free speech' did not mean that 'anything goes'.
Obviously Ethan, with the remark he made, is inferring that people like Jonathan Scull, Brian Willis, John Atkinson and Martin Colloms (and many others) suffer from "bad musical taste" are "Unrefined Or at least uneducated", whilst, on another thread, Ethan plays the INNOCENT with the comment "It's always others who are insulting first to me."
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many people, over how many years have to be reporting similar (listening) experiences to give other people the reason to ask the question "What on earth is going on ?"
Back in 1992, John Atkinson wrote a short report on the 1991 Audio Engineering Society Convention's Workshop. Basically it was John's appeal for a more 'coming together' of the different factions.
To quote John :-
>>> "Neither Bob Harley nor I would say that ALL subjective reporting is beyond criticism..... But it is important for both sides in this debate to realise that there is much common ground, and where there is common ground, there can be both communication and forward motion. Though apparently in 'opposition', the Robert Harleys and the Stanley Lipshitzes, the Bob Stuarts and the Floyd Tooles of the audio world can agree to disagree because they share a goal: making reproduced sound better through improved technology and improved understanding........... And the sooner those of us in the broad middle ground - those of us who believe in rationality, causality and the Scientific Method yet preserve a cautiously open mind - reject what the dinosaurs believe and believe what our ears tell us, the sooner that which is now little understood will become explainable." <<<
Regards,
May Belt.
May, I have no doubt Winer would object to a statement which reads, "Anyone who intentionally kills off a bunch of signals that are vital to the life of the music in their listening room suffers from bad musical taste. Unrefined. Or at least uneducated."
Yet that is exactly what he promotes and how he has made his living - by killling everything that comes within reflective distance to his panels in a broadband death march throughout the rooms he has overstuffed with his refrigerator doors until he gets a measurement he deems acceptable. Then he tells his clients what they will hear in a room that is now acceptable to him - not to them, just to satisfy Winer and his test equipment. To treat one issue his solution is to kill everything that wanders into his sights.
Caribou Winer!
The hope is people learn and change. How many people have you known who have overstuffed their rooms thinking this will be "great" and then, a few months or a few years later, removed a few panels here and there, adjusted their thinking only to find the signals returning to life, blosoming and filling a once dead space? And they discovered all the beautiful music they had been squashing for months or years. When they finally open their ears and their minds, paying attention to the end result and not the treatment, they appreciate what has been provided them.
This "kill it all" approach is the same mindset that uses chemical herbicides and pesticides in a misguided attempt at ridding a domestic backyard of one problem - a problem that is very well likely to have been caused by the overuse of chemicals and the resulting poor health of the living organisms within the soil as a result of overused chemicals. Winer decries alternative medicine practitioners as "charlatans" so I suspect he also finds organic land management techniques to be "bullshit" since they go hand in glove with sound thinking.
It has been well documented how much damage the abusive reliance on the "silver bullet" broadspectrum chemicals have done to our environment and to our health as a population. I see this as nothing less than, as you say, looking at the result and working backwards. However, if your head is buried in your measurements, or your living depends on repeating only what you already know, and you cannot look up to see the actual results, then you will repeat the deadly gambit of over reliance on killing innocent signal reflections and beneficial soil micro-organisms.
And, yes, "It's always others who are insulting first to me", would have been a spit take moment if I hadn't learned long ago not to read Winer's posts with coffee anywhere around.
Just curious...
Can you hear if someone is turning it on or off during a listening session?
I also wonder if, when you turn it on, there is a sort of 'warm up' period before you start to notice a difference. (Not 'warm up,' per se, but sort of an adjustment or latency period.)
One of the other things I was thinking about with this thread is what we might notice if we had a change to look at pics of people's listening rooms (people who are happy with their sound) and look for some aesthetic things they may have done - a sort of audio Feng Shui - just to see how, as their rooms have evolved, where different things end up and how they get arranged.
I bet there are still some tweaks we havn't considered that people might be implementing at a not quite intentional level, but trend toward better sonic experience. Actually, I think alot of that sort of thing happens in things non-audio, as well!
(This reply has zero flame intent.)
*Edited to spell Feng Shui better!
Buddha
I did blind tests where the other two listeners didn't know if I turned it on or not. They got it right each time. That's when my cheapskate friend parted with $400. to order his unit. It wasn't easy for him.
The effect sets in quickly, not instantaneously. There's no mistaking it. I consider it the capper tweak which seems to bring everything together, after so much other tweaking.
When one puts Feng Shui in the context of this and other threads here, a lot of Feng Shui is involved with clearing out old newspapers, magazines, old telephone books and other clutter. OK, there's more to it than that. But getting rid of all the stuff with numbers and words on them, esp. specific ones like telephone numbers and personal names, is perhaps an unintentional result. Gee, I wonder if Feng Shui gurus are hip to the information fields theory? Naw, that would be too much to ask, they'd probably call it ying-yang force fields.
I think people often do things on a pretty subliminal level, so Feng Shui artists would probably have no big trouble with your/others' information field theories. I mean, they think certain arrangements have financial and "luck" implications, so why not add another aspect?
_____
Lots of likely visual/sonic things going on that many people don't actively consider, too.
I've always been intrigued by how so many people put things on top of speakers. I am sure there is often times an unexpressed sonic reason behind the 'decorative' aspect that many people just fold in to their more apparent visual aethestic reasoning.
Just making the room more pleasing visually may make for better listening, too. (Not trying to be controversial or adversarial, here.)
My own aesthetic is more minimal, which made the pic you posted of the Mpingo disc room and the pic I posted of the related room kind of boggle me - the rooms are not visually harmonious, to me. It's hard to imagine their sound based on their appearance - they look a little 'bright' or 'smeared.'
Trying to think of the best sound systems I've heard, there has most frequently been a visually calming and harmonious environment accompanying the sound. Even the pictures of JA's room don't 'sound good' to me - and I do not mean that as a pejorative, just a personal taste. Same with Ethan's room.
But, Ethan may look at pics of my space and freak out about the lack of giant fiberglass panels!
As for the pics of REG's Harbeth room, don't even get me started!
Well, anyway, Feng Shui seems to 'sort of' include information field thinking!
Cheers.
(This is meant for chatting purposes only. I do not mean to imply I can hear the sound of anyone's room just by looking.)
According to my sources - Wikipedia, for one - heh, Feng Shui masters are concerned with alignment of magnetic fields, especially Earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity and some other, uh, more mysterious forces or polarities - the yin and yang, if you will. Not that those aren't interesting things to ponder. Alas, no information fields. One wonders if Feng Shui masters are an open minded bunch...hmmmmm
Yes, well, if Wikipedia fails to mentiion it, done deal.
From www.aafenshui.com's Master of Feng Shui:
"Qi is an information field that gives energy its impetus to move and change."
Not quite identical concepts, but some linguistic overlap.
He goes on to add:
"The idea that there is a holistic and interactive force of nature is not just an exclusive Chinese concept. Western scientists also have a name for this connective force.
I just might be on board with this dude. Now we're getting somewhere.
"What does
If only Sheldrake were doing science!
Oh, well.
Hey, isn't the phone book merely a collection of ink until it's actually used?
It's merely a source of information. It doesn't turn into information until we decipher it.
A CD doesn't contain music until we play it, either.
You have an excellent grasp of Randi's arguments.
Sheldrake is sub-Randi. No, he is Randi behind the looking glass! Bullshit artists, both. If there is anomosity between them, it is the repulson of similars.
Randi is Kreskin the technician, Sheldrake is Kreskin the performer.
Sheldrake is the Amazing Randi.
Master of MSU.
Apologies if you are an acolyte, but there are other people with actual insight and ideas you would be far better served by.
Quote by Buddha 05/03/09
>>> "If only Sheldrake were doing science!" <<<
This is one of those 'dismissive, throwaway' sentences like Ethan uses which dismays me so much !!
Already you are exhibiting disdain for Sheldrake, so how can you learn anything from him ?
Of course Sheldrake is a scientist and I would suggest that he has struggled (along with many other scientists) far more than you (or I) have to try to explain how Nature MUST function. I repeat the word 'struggle' as the 'struggle' will continue, because there is no definitive answer yet !!
The disdain you show for Sheldrake (or rather Sheldrake's concept) means that THAT door has been closed deliberately by you.
Peter and I came across Sheldrake's concept whilst we were searching for who might be working on the subject of 'linkage'. We already knew of James Lovelock's concept of a form of 'linkage' (his Gaia concept) but Lovelock's 'linkage' concept did not fit our discoveries because Lovelock's concept of 'linkage' is about "THIS affecting THAT, which in turn affects THAT, which in turn affects THAT and so on." Whereas we were finding that things which were identical were directly 'linked' !!!! Which can be better explained by Sheldrake's 'linkage by morphic resonance fields'.
Ethan shows disdain for such as Jonathan Scull, Brian Willis, John Atkinson and Martin Colloms with HIS sentence -
"Anyone who intentionally sticks a bunch of resonating objects in their listening room suffers from bad musical taste. Unrefined. Or at least uneducated."
And, on the subject of demagnetising CDs, disdain for such as the 'heads of Furutech when Ethan states
"Unless the heads of Furutech are idiots, which I doubt, all that's left is dishonesty."
Yet more closing of doors to learning anything further.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hey, May.
Bullshit is bullshit. The last refuge of the bullshitter is to call those who don't buy his/her bullshit "closed minded."
Tell me more about the Mocking Birds who change their eggshells overnight.
Franz Joseph Gall had his pie eyed followers, too.
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann had 'believers.'
Dr. Johann Beringer was very very Sheldrake-like. Read Lithographia Wirceburgensis.
Bernard Kettlewell was even a fellow countryman of Sheldrake's.
Sheldrake is the chief of the pseudo-scientific (faux-scientific) equivalent of the Tasady Tribe.
There, is that less 'toss away?'
What is it with the one trick ponies of this hobby who care nothing for the undertaking of audio except for their own narrow market niche?
I have mentioned before, you only appear when it's time for BS. No music, no examples of your own gear or rooms, you guys can't even talk about the tweaks you try that don't work!
Utter. Complete. Bullshit.
I hope I'm getting less toss away.
Rupert Sheldrake has as much to offer science and audio as this guy...
On the other hand, I knew in advance you'd come storming in to defend Sheldrake...with 100% certainty. Maybe he's right! I'm telepathic!
>>> "On the other hand, I knew in advance you'd come storming in to defend Sheldrake...with 100% certainty. Maybe he's right! I'm telepathic!" <<<
OF COURSE you knew in advance I would come in to defend Sheldrake. Nothing to do with being telepathic - you already know I have defended Sheldrake on Audio Asylum !!!!
I also know, in advance, that you will respond to any reference to our techniques with
"Oh, they only work because people NEED them as "props", as "talismans", as "rituals", as "potions" as "elixirs" etc. Whereas any 'tweak' or 'technique' YOU find works, works from a purely and fully understood scientific point of view, NO ??
As in YOUR :-
>>> "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." <<<
******************
If there IS a scientific explanation for the crystals 'affecting the sound', then the words "seems to be a crystal size factor" is a tinsy, winsy bit uncertain, in scientific terms, NO ??
Regards,
May Belt.
Hey, May, do you guys get money like with Amway from Sheldrake?
Do you haunt food, wine, or photography websites with your Krishna-style Sheldrake-isms?
You really seem to have been thoroughly programmed by this guy.
How large is the Sheldrake zombie army?
You get upset when we compare his bullshit to religion, but the two differ how?
Hey, have you tried the crystals in oil?
They come in handy for fishing, too.
Putting Sheldrake in the category of science is like putting Ethan in the religous column.
Fascinating, though. The only subject you seem to be able to make a keyboard work for is Sheldrake related marketing.
Very monomaniacal.
The Seldrake-Tasady are a remarkably pugnacious, pernicious, presistent lot. I picture Night of the Living Dead, only with the zombies saying "Sheldrake" instead of brains. At least the movie zombies are in search of something viable.
Buddha, at least you're not shy about embracing the prince of con artists and dismissing the real scientist, Sheldrake. One's a PhD Biology from Cambridge, what's Randi, an ex juggler and clown from Vegas??
LOL! I'm surprised Randi doesn't have "Colonel" in front of his name.
Clown juggler, abandoned PhD, different paths to bullshit ends.
If it's the degree you worship, then look at all the PhD's who find Sheldrake full of crap. If you want to use PhD as an appeal for validation, then you should line up with all the other PhD's.
Hey, Geoff, why the Sheldrake worship?
Your critical faculties abandoned you at what point?
Is there a Sheldrake camp where they feed you only carbs?
Any issues at all, ever, where you are capable of not agreeing with your lord and master?
"Sheldrake has a PhD."
LOL!
Here's a PhD, too:
Christof Koch (born November 13, 1956, Kansas City) is an American neuroscientist working on the neural basis of consciousness. He currently holds the position of Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, California Institute of Technology...
Says Sheldrake is "a waste of time."
I guess it must be true, he's a PhD!
Robert Todd Carroll is a PhD. also likes pointing out how Sheldrakes is a charlatan.
"Although Sheldrake commands some respect as a scientist because of his education and degree, he has clearly abandoned conventional science in favor of magical thinking."
Can't argue with a PhD.
Does Sheldrake tell you how to dress?
Buddha, did you, like, recently stop taking Viagra or something? They warn you not to do that too suddenly, ya know. :-) You're wound up tighter than Charlie Watts' drum kit. Of course there are PhDs out there who don't take kindly to the good Dr. Sheldrake's notions about reality and information fields and such, you silly goose. So, what else is new? But what are they afraid of?
>>> "Hey, May, do you guys get money like with Amway from Sheldrake?" <<<
You seem to be obsessed with the idea of people getting paid by someone because they might show support for their ideas !!
We made many of our discoveries FIRST, struggled to find an explanation for their effect, then found that many of Sheldrake's concepts actually began to give an explanation for what we had discovered.
IF conventional theories fit what people experience, then no one looks any further for any other explanation. It is WHEN conventional theories do not explain what has been observed that people begin searching for what others might be considering !!! Exactly as Sheldrake and other biologists have been doing when confronted with anomalies which cannot be explained from within existing conventional theories.
I am not paid by Darwin either, but I support Darwin's concept of 'changes governed by necessity and environment' being the 'spur' for evolutionary changes.
>>> "Fascinating, though. The only subject you seem to be able to make a keyboard work for is Sheldrake related marketing." <<<
Methinks you exaggerate here !!!!! Add them all up Buddha, and I think you will find pages and pages and pages on audio and audio related matters and just a few pages (when asked directly) about Sheldrake !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
See below for Abstract of an article by PEAR group at Princeton University; the entire article is downloadable as a pdf file from PEAR web site along with many other articles. The mission of the PEAR group, active for 28 years until last year and headed by dean of the Princeton Engineering School, was to investigate "anomalous phenomena," especially mind-matter interactions.
PEAR Publications
But first this tidbit from Publication 65, "Change the Rules." "Naive Public Sector" is a nice way to put it. :-)
1) Dialogue with the Skeptical Community
The long and tedious controversy between CCPP proponents and the various components of the skeptical and critical communities, including the scientific, religious, and na
>>> "that the phenomena should adhere to the conventional scientific rules if they are to be regarded as real." <<<
Geoff, I just love THAT part from your posting !!! Now, where have I seen that attitude before ?? Oh, yes, I remember now !
Thomas S Kuhn is brilliant on 'anomalies' !!
>>> "The characteristics that lead to discoveries are:-
1) The previous awareness of anomaly.
2) The gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition.
3) The consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.
In the development of any science, the first received paradigm is usually felt to account quite successfully for most of the observations and experiments easily accessible to that science's practitioners. Further development, therefore, ordinarily calls for the construction of elaborate equipment, the development of an esoteric vocabulary and skills.......... That professionalism, however, can lead to an immense restriction of the scientist's vision and to a considerable resistance to change. The scientist has become increasingly rigid. " <<<
******************
The problem, as I see it Geoff, is that many people are just not aware that there are anomalies !!! And, if they are not aware, then how can they understand when others struggle to solve such anomalies they are not even aware of ??
Regards.
May Belt.
May, those guys and gals at PEAR are SO quotable. Here's another one from the article, Change the Rules:
"In short, the manifestation of these anomalous physical effects does not conform well to prevailing scientific criteria. Specifically, they appear to challenge such honored requisites as causal determinism, falsifiability, reductionism, objectivity, and quantifiability of the salient correlates. In some respects, they more resemble the category of human experience that Carl Jung labeled
Yeah, they must use one of those random scientific word generators!
In fact, here's one that you, May, and I wrote!
New scientific paper by the three of us.
I have had some experience similar to theirs.
I flipped a coin tens times for several hundred sets of trials.
I saved all the ones where heads came up 7 or more times, and put together a set of data that shows to a p value of 0.0000000000000001 that those results could not have happened by chance.
I can do the same thing with tails.
Amazing.
The Journal of Scientific Exploration loves that kind of stuff. Loves!
Have you read: "The Common Elements of Parapsychology and UFO Experiences:
Lessons for Physics."
Straight from JSE!
On the down side, I ran the PEAR group's data through my Bible tranlsator and it must not be real, because the Bible translator didn't include it.
"The Journal of Scientific Exploration loves that kind of stuff. Loves!
Have you read: "The Common Elements of Parapsychology and UFO Experiences: Lessons for Physics." Straight from JSE!"
Parapsychology. Oooooooo!
UFOs. Oooooooo!
Metaphysics. Ooooooo!
Quantum Physics of the mind. Oooooo!
Information fields. Oooooo!
Extra Sensory Perception. Ooooooo!
Mind-matter interaction. Oooooo!
I'm betting there's lots of subjects you don't like to see discussed rationally. Randi. You're just like him!
Discussing is fun. Claiming as fact that a phone book consitutes an "information field" that can permeate your hi fi system is bullshitting.
Which is it Geoff, Amway, Scientology, or both?
If anybody doesn't buy your lies, it's "Randi this, Randi that."
Skillfully played, but not accurate.
For a supposedly open minded guy, you are more loaded down with dogma than any of us here!
That's exactly what Randi would say!
Having had the dubious honor of being the subject of five (count 'em) of Randi's weekly screed, the Swift Report, I feel like I kinda know the old curmudgeon. He's such a reactionary. You're just like him.
Jeez, get a new act.
You are Randi obsessed.
Did your UFO mentors teach you to just keep tossing out the Randi BS, or did you get that from and earthbound source?
Having been the focus of more than five of your "you're just like Randi" screeds, I can tell you you sound just like L Ron Hubbard.
We are getting a better and better picture of you, though. Did the UFO's contact you while you were working at NASA?
Easy for you to say.
When you're as schizophrenic as Buddha appears to be every day is a new act - or at least an old act you don't remember.
Just to get back to the original, good-spirited nature of this thread, I actually found a HiFi unit that simply cannot be tweaked!?!?!!!
I'm sorry folks, my crack team of carnival barkers, Nobel nominees, physicists, psychics, spiritualists, tweekers, geekers, freakers, fakirs, Quakers, takers, complainers, repliers, suppliers, deniers, contortionists,
colon-hydrotherapists, percussionists, cosmetologists, crackpots, pot-smokers, and massage therapists FAILED.
I guess we'll have to just go on an listen to music.
...and enjoy what we have.
Mike
"Just to get back to the original, good-spirited nature of this thread..."
Now, that's funny!
Hey, Geoff, the topic was about ways people alter their listening rooms in ways they might not have paid direct attention to, yet had a beneficial effect on the sound.
Is their a possibility of a thread without you promoting your own goods, ever?
It's rather monomaniacal. Not to say, OBVIOUS.
Buddha, is there a possibility of a thread without you insulting everyone in your path? Ever?
It's rather monotonous.
But that should be OBVIOUS to everyone except you.
Hey Pot, this is Kettle.
Talk about monotony ... Christ Almighty, Jan... half the forum has you on ignore and you preach to Buddha about insulting?? really? are you serious?
You bet I'm serious. Look at the individuals who have me on ignore. What a bunch they are! Do you need me to go through their stellar individual qualities? Personality types such as morally challenged, ethically challenged, hypocritical to the extreme, can only repeat the same three topics over and over, schizophrenic, a bit too reliant on the bottle, way too insulting when he's been at the bottle, can't exit the same sentence he entered, can't exit the same sentence he started to post, somehow thinks he can design a DBT by eliminating all the factors that would be of value and using $2 CD's then claims his results are conclusive against a half dozen others that disagree... etc, etc, etc. ... not to mention just plain not that bright.
I can go on if you'd like me to, there's plenty of material to work with in this bunch. And you want me to kowtwow to them?!
Get real, ncdrawl!
They've found the perfect forum where they get to hang out all of their problems on a constant display. Nobody's going to stop them and they can say whatever pops into their weird little heads. They can continue to repeat the same thing over and over.
And then there's you, ncdrawl, you spend every post bitching that half the forum has me on ignore. How friggin' constructive is that?
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
"Jan, people have you on ignore."
LOL!
What do you do for an encore, ncdrawl? Clap your front fins and catch a fish in your mouth?
If Groucho Marks didn't want to belong to any club that was so low down and dirty it would accept him, I'm certain the people on this forum who don't want to hear an opposing thought are not the most productive bunch on this forum. The most prolific of the bunch is Buddha and these are the sort of threads he repeatedly starts, the ones that always end up with pages of insults in every post - the kind you tried to start yesterday. For what reason? Just for another opportunity to get your sick little jollies by having another thread full of insults?
Geez!
So don't preach to me, ncdrawl, you're just another one of the bunch from where I sit. What have you contributed lately to this forum other than a "Look at me, tell me how wonderful I am" thread? You have to come to an audio forum to get that?
I come here to discuss audio, you all come here to have your own voice rattle around inside your head with a constant echo of, "Yeah, yeah, what he said."
ncdrawl, if you ain't listening, you ain't learning. If all you're doing is flapping your gums to hear them flap, you ain't even teaching!
What are you doing, ncdrawl?
This group should have more in common than not but if all you want to do is shout down or ignore anything you don't wat to hear, this is what you get. A great discussion forum, eh? The group that has me on ignore stopped discussing stuff a long time ago, they just want their own opinion fed back to them now.
The group that has me on ignore had decided before they ever read my posts that they already know everything and they aren't interested in anyone else's opinion.
They've said so.
You can agree with them if you care to but, what's that make you?
It's a multiple choice question, ncdrawl, and "smart" isn't one of the options.
Now think about it, ncdrawl, I wouldn't have posted this if you had had anything of value to say.
Another try:
Can't decide if this room 'looks' like it sounds good. But, as we see so oftern, something rather small, right in the middle of the imaging area.
This next one is another favorite pic. Primordial tweaking, maybe unrelated to an intention to change the sound, but we could identify factors that look as though a modern audiophile would plave those objects to intentionally improve the sound of the room!
Tweaks of the future in there, just waiting for us to hang out at our non-audiophile friends' houses and listen for them!
I dont think that the first one would sound particularly good, with all the paralell walls, square shape...looks sorta small too. I had a room that shape in Germany...7 years of Aural Hell.
I figure it can't sound that good, or they'd want to sit facing the music!
I don't know if it's a visual reference point, or people put things where the Crucifix is becase the imaging of the sound draws their attention there, so they fill the space visually, or what; but it's a very common theme. Even the controversial bowls have a recommendation for a center point bowl.
I bet that system can sure fill that room!
As seen with many Klipsch speakers, they either decided to mass load the top of the cabinet, or Klipcsh's just scream out aesthetically as 'shelves!'
Check the Heinz tweak in the second pick.
Couldn't be bothered to read the 9 1/2 pages of bickering so I don't know if this has been mentioned but the most obvious tweak in the original post is the upgraded power cords because as far as I can tell there aren't any! Cool topic Buddha certainly original if a little unorthodox
PS to Jan: In the past few months I've been reading this forum I've noticed you do have some constructive contributions but with all due respect (which in my opinion isn't much) you can be a little over the edge.
My 2 cents (Not particularly directed at you Jan): I know from experience that its really very easy to avoid arguing on an internet forum. Sure, its entertaining but its really very counter productive, ya know?
Since I got online in '98 I've belong to quite a few forums and have probably logged over 10,000 or so posts and have NEVER engaged in a "flame war" such as I see every single day on here.
My advice is this: stay calm! If you disagree with someone, state your case methodically after you've reasoned your argument. People tend to jump on the reply button faster than their synapses can fire. But you know it takes 2 (or 3 or a dozen) to tango.
Sorry that I've offended so many people on my very first post but this is the WORST forum I've ever followed for silly arguments and certainly has the highest percentage of people who are completely insane. Just thought I'd let you all know what I'm thinking.
Brah, you listen to the grateful dead and you say this forum has the highest percentage of insane folk? no way!!.
phishook? deadhook? Theres no way on earth that this forum is worse!! Arguments, blatant drug references, permatrips....pretty much all of those people are certifiable!, and I aint just saying that cuz I hate hippies.
seriously man.. total whack jobs. this place is like the Crystal Cathedral in comparison!
Actually my southern friend, other than perhaps Casey Jones I think the grateful dead are shams. My name is a pun which I shall now explain to you. Dedicated to music till the day I die. Get it?
And BTW I've never so much as thought of browsing a grateful dead forum in fact I had to reread your post to figure out what you were talking about.
my mistake.
did not mean to insult you by associating you with those terrible bands and the legion of burned out sycophant hippie hordes that follow them..
as for the forum///
audiophiles, by nature, are esoteric, interesting folks.
passion comes with the territory! sometimes the passion is in form of positive energy, sometimes not.... noone crazy here, really, (well to normal folks we audio types are) but none criminally crazy anyway..
I used to go to Dead shows 'cause I had friends who liked going.
We'd get there hours early and have picnics and meet chicks in tie dye who had hairy armpits, and try lentil hot dogs...and I hated the shows....then we'd find a caravan to a party and hang out all night and listen to the tapes the people were allowed to make.
One year, they toured using a BF wall of Jensen Triax car speakers and it sounded pretty damn good...except for the music.
Now I really miss the Dead.
(I'm being too harsh, they had many fine songs...that they turned into 25 minutes to two hours of stew. But sometimes, they'd hit a groove and live in it for an evening and that was really something.)
nc, no problemo my friend. Nothing wrong with passion either but wtf is the point of going so over the top like you see everyday on internet forums? Ever hear this one: Arguing on the internet is like competing in the... nevermind. Just saying that two days of competiton is about 1% as productive as half an hour of conversation.
Buddha, sounds like a good time, if youre ever hanking for some good "jam band" music check out Phish if you've never heard them some of their stuff is really rather good. Particularly a song called "You Enjoy Myself."
Pages