I suspect this is the result of being so dug in that it eventually leads to a mind set of "if you are not with us you are against us."

Terrible, isn't it? I'm not sure where you came from, but I am sure that you came in the middle of an ideological war with hostile agents from a cult of anti-audio zealots who all marched in here recently from a place called "Hydrogen Audio". So if you're getting more flack than you might be expecting in a subjective audio discussion forum ("again with the labels!"), this would be why. Although you may have stolen most of their lines, you're not nearly as annoying as the Hydrogen crew. In fact I kinda like this "devil's advocate" play of yours (and FWIW, some of your responses here to others were excellent!). So if any of our men gives you too much flack (or demands that you get off the fence and take a clear stand or risk getting hit by "friendly fire"), you tell me and I'll fix 'em good for ya.

I challenge you to find one instance of me actually not liking the reported perceptions of another and then screaming bias effects.

Ummm.... me? Is "me" a good example? You might not be "screaming", ok, but after me reporting my perceptions, you're insisting they are colored by bias effects. Not merely "suggesting" this is possible mind you, but "insisting". I try to tell you that I progress in my research all the time, and although this is what matters to me, it doesn't seem to matter to you at all, since apparently nothing overrules your favoured "bias theory" regarding my perceptions.

MJF: What if I told you there is no way to guarantee complete freedom from bias ? Not much to discuss thereafter, is there?

Actually there is a great deal to discuss *thereafter* but so long as you cling to the misinformed belief that you can will away your biases, so long as you can't get past your need for a belief in objective certitude of your perceptions we will never get to "thereafter"

I know you're never going to understand this (as I do), but I have to speak for myself and say I really don't have a "need" for "a belief in objective certitude of my perceptions". If I have any "need", it's simply a need to see if I can improve my sound, and how that can be done. 99% of the time I am attempting to do this, I simply don't think about "perceptions" and "needs" and "objectivity/subjectivity" and all those ideological theories you're so wrapped up in. As you talk about it so much, I really see you as having these "needs" about how one must approach listening when attempting to improve their sound. Which is why I told you that if you wish to do audio experimentation in this frame of mind, you should do that. But understand this is your "obsession", to use a term. It does not imply one "needs" that particular belief to progress. Since 95% of audio engineers/researchers do not adhere to your belief system and audio seems to have progressed pretty well without it, I think that does a pretty good job of proving that your concern about biases is unnecessary.

I think it's a good thing for you there isn't a "thereafter". Because it there was, you would have to explain how I could continue to do what I do, as I do it, while eliminating bias. There is no practical, let alone possible way to do this, hence these "DBT/bias effect" arguments are always just academic - as I've mentioned before.

Quote:
>>> "Audiophile rituals, yes." <<<

OK. Thanks for clarifying my three questions. Now I know I can't take the discussion any further, in that particular respect, with you.

Regards,
May Belt.

Personally I think the word "ritual" in these sorts of discussions is charged with an undertone of the paranormal and religious, superstitious beliefs. Somehow I suspect the same people using the word "ritual" when it comes to *certain* audiophiles would choose words like procedure,preperation, routine, task or protocol in regards to their......what ever you want to call it.

Back in the day, an old friend of mine would do a dance in his underwear to the music of The Pogues before running the foam rubber. He swore that the rubber always worked if he did the dance. *That* is a ritual. In a "lab" no less.

Quote:
[I challenge you to find one instance of me actually not liking the reported perceptions of another and then screaming bias effects.

Ummm.... me? Is "me" a good example?

No. that is just a pronoun. A good example would be a citation of a post in which you reported some specific perceptions and I responded by "screaming" bias effects! And by screaming bias effects I mean asserting that bias effects were the certain cause.

If you break it down there are two things in audio. Sound and humans. If someone percieves a change in what they are hearing there are three broad possible causes. A change in the sound, a change in the person or a change in both. Until one does something to eliminate variables that is what we always have on the table with anecdotes. I don't have a problem with that. I'm starting to think I may be the only one around here who doesn't have a problem with that.

Quote:
I think it's a good thing for you there isn't a "thereafter". Because it there was, you would have to explain how I could continue to do what I do, as I do it, while eliminating bias. There is no practical, let alone possible way to do this, hence these "DBT/bias effect" arguments are always just academic - as I've mentioned before.

There is a "thereafter" (a simple acceptance that bias effects are in play with human perceptions). That is where I am right now. That fact does not create any need for me to explain your anecodotes. Quite the opposite really. Reported perceptions in anecdotal form need no explinations. They are what they are. Neither of us are compelled in any way to explain your anecdotes. Isn't it at least some what refreshing that I don't demand that you do it?

"Personally I think the word "ritual" in these sorts of discussions is charged with an undertone of the paranormal and religious, superstitious beliefs."

Hmmm.....

Quote:
No. that is just a pronoun. A good example would be a citation of a post in which you reported some specific perceptions and I responded by "screaming" bias effects! And by screaming bias effects I mean asserting that bias effects were the certain cause.

Well like I said, you didn't suggest I am a victim of bias effects, despite having no knowledge of my experience, you insisted I was, if I didn't worry myself about bias effects. Therefore according to you, anything I assert (and recall, this all started out of my "grains of sand" experiment), is certainly the result of bias effects.

Quote:
If you break it down there are two things in audio. Sound and humans. If someone percieves a change in what they are hearing there are three broad possible causes. A change in the sound, a change in the person or a change in both. Until one does something to eliminate variables that is what we always have on the table with anecdotes. I don't have a problem with that. I'm starting to think I may be the only one around here who doesn't have a problem with that.

Probably not. There are a number of so-called "objectivists" here that say they don't have a problem with people using biased means when evaluating audio. Of course if they claim there is any merit to this, that's when it gets fun! I guess anecdotes will rule because like I said before, you can't eliminate all variables in this kind of thing. Best you can do is fool yourself into thinking you did because you're too ignorant to know otherwise. Lunatic fringe objectivists do this sort of thing all the time. But its just trading one set of beliefs for another. Except the other doesn't do much for progress.

Quote:
There is a "thereafter" (a simple acceptance that bias effects are in play with human perceptions). That is where I am right now. That fact does not create any need for me to explain your anecodotes. Quite the opposite really. Reported perceptions in anecdotal form need no explinations. They are what they are. Neither of us are compelled in any way to explain your anecdotes. Isn't it at least some what refreshing that I don't demand that you do it?

Yes. As refreshing as it must be for me not to insist that you prove you know for a fact that bias effects, under the particular circumstances I described in my experience in earlier messages, are in play. When there is no research supporting this, and you're extrapolating from whatever research there is that has been done on bias effects in high resolution audio. So the "thereafter" would really be you accepting the simple fact that bias effects aren't what you think they are, and are not relevant to everything or everyone, equally, and all of the time. That doesn't even cover the fact that they can easily be overcome. This argument you're making on behalf of the "bias effect theories" you're intensely caught up in is much the same as the argument other "objectivists" make about placebos: thinking that if there is no valid scientific explanation for a particular observation, it's automagically, by default, a "placeboo effect!". Ooooh! And that "placebos" can "automagically" last for 25 years, over thousands of runs, and have as far as anyone can discern, ABSOLUTELY ZERO DIFFERENCE FROM A REAL VALIDATED EFFECT IN AUDIO.

Knowing that there is no way to eliminate variables, and no practical way to incorporate the kind of testing you infer into my experimentation, where I am right now is where I have always been with this: the realization that the "bias effect theory" is simply an academic excercise about audio testing, and has no real-world value in general audio research, and particularly non-commercial personal audio research.

Quote:
Well like I said, you did (presumed intent) suggest I am a victim of bias effects, despite having no knowledge of my experience, you insisted I was, if I didn't worry myself about bias effects. Therefore according to you, anything I assert (and recall, this all started out of my "grains of sand" experiment), is certainly the result of bias effects.

I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. My assertion is that bias effects are always in play not that they are always the sole cause of any particular perception. So in the case of anecdotal accounts of personal perception I am not claiming that a percieved change in sound is certainly the result of bias effects. Just consider the break down I gave. We have three possibilities. A change in sound, a change in the person or a change in both. Given that I am clearly citing three possibilities I don't know how yo can conclude that I am insisting there is only one.

Quote:

Yes. As refreshing as it must be for me not to insist that you prove you know for a fact that bias effects, under the particular circumstances I described in my experience in earlier messages, are in play. When there is no research supporting this, and you're extrapolating from whatever research there is that has been done on bias effects in high resolution audio.

Actually it is fair game to ask me to prove my assertions that bias effects are always in play when we are talking about human perceptions since I have refered to scientific research that supports the claim.

Quote:
So the "thereafter" would really be you accepting the simple fact that bias effects aren't what you think they are, and are not relevant to everything or everyone, equally, and all of the time.

it seems there is yet another misunderstanding of what "I think they are." Because I don't think that having bias effects in play always is nearly the same thing as them being "relevant to everything or everyone, equally, and all of the time." Again I have to point out that with anecodtal evidence we have the possibility that they are a cause and the possibility that they are *not* a cause.

Quote:
That doesn't even cover the fact that they can easily be overcome.

I disagree there.

Quote:
This argument you're making on behalf of the "bias effect theories" you're intensely caught up in is much the same as the argument other "objectivists" make about placebos: thinking that if there is no valid scientific explanation for a particular observation, it's automagically, by default, a "placeboo effect!".

Noooo. Quite the opposite. In the absence of science it is automatically * scientifically undetermined.* Again this leads us to three possibilities. The sound itself is affected, the person is affected or both. So please don't confuse my assertions with that kind of crap you do get from the rabid objectivists.

Quote:
Knowing that there is no way to eliminate variables, and no practical way to incorporate the kind of testing you infer into my experimentation, where I am right now is where I have always been with this: the realization that the "bias effect theory" is simply an academic excercise about audio testing, and has no real-world value in general audio research, and particularly non-commercial personal audio research.

There are ways to eliminate variables. I'm just not going to ask that of hobbyists who are merely reporting their experiences. It is an unfair burden.

Kait, how does one hook up with their local DaDa tribe?? do they have a website?

Quote:
How many times in various 'postings' have I been saying "There is something 'going on' which cannot be explained from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories." ??

Far too many for my money. It's one thing to acknowledge a lack of explination in a world of anecdotal evidence. It is an entirely different thing to proclaim things "can not" be explained. You might call this picking on "words" and "phrases" but there is such a huge difference between something that *hasn't* been explained and something that *can not* be explained. To proclaim something "can not" be explained is to disgard with out cause all known possible explinations and create a false sense of mystery.

Yup, May, ritual.

Ritual safety pin placement in the curtains, ritual creme placement, ritual nut and washer placement, ritual colors...

Nothing wrong with ritual, just call it what it is.

Some people use an herbal tea ritual, others use a yoga ritual to improve their tinnitus before a listening session...it's all good. Rituals are completely fine.

Whatever it takes to set the stage for sonic enjoyment, I say.

But why the need to insist everyone needs the same ritual or that May's idiosyncratic rituals are somehow universal? Or, that said rituals offer better somins than those appreciated by those who do not partake of her (rather rigid) rituals.

Why such a need for validation/affirmation?

As I've said before, welcome to what the rest of hear, May! You've found a hearing aid, and now you spec closer to us normals for listening enjoyment.

Some people need Prozac to feel how you do, but you probably don't believe them if they tell everyone needs Prozac.

Yoga, rituals, hearing aids, eye glasses, there are many forms of remediation - why do sellers of some of those insist everyone needs them?

Why are some purveyors of tweaks so emotionally invested such insistence?

As impossible as it seems for May to accept, I get as much listening pleasure without her tweaks as she does with hers.

Some of us can be musically refreshed without drinking the Kool Aid!

"It's one thing to acknowledge a lack of explination in a world of anecdotal evidence. To proclaim something "can not" be explained is to disgard with out cause all known possible explinations and create a false sense of mystery."

That's not what she said. She said, "...things that cannot be explained by conventional electronic and acoustic theories."

Quote:
I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. My assertion is that bias effects are always in play not that they are always the sole cause of any particular perception. So in the case of anecdotal accounts of personal perception I am not claiming that a percieved change in sound is certainly the result of bias effects. Just consider the break down I gave. We have three possibilities. A change in sound, a change in the person or a change in both. Given that I am clearly citing three possibilities I don't know how yo can conclude that I am insisting there is only one.

You are really citing only 2 possibilities. 2 and a half at best. Nevertheless, all your stated "possibilities" for hearing changes are susceptible to bias effects. A perceived change in sound could be due to bias. A change in the person could be the result of bias. A change in both... hey, "biased again!". If "bias is always in play" as you happen to believe, that means one is not hearing what they think they are hearing. Which would basically preclude any progress in audio throughout its history, as I said. We have only three possibilities here: either there has never been any progress in audio (research), or there has been despite your "hypothesis" that "bias effects are always in play", or both. Of course, if "bias effects are always in play" but in the end have no effect on perceived sound, then yours is really a moot point, and I don't know why you worry about it.

Quote:
it seems there is yet another misunderstanding of what "I think they are." Because I don't think that having bias effects in play always is nearly the same thing as them being "relevant to everything or everyone, equally, and all of the time." Again I have to point out that with anecodtal evidence we have the possibility that they are a cause and the possibility that they are *not* a cause.

Now that you're taking a less hardline stance on bias, I think I can agree with this latest permutation of your theory. They may or may not be a cause in listening tests. Just like you may or may not be affected by the transmission of signals from alien cultures across the galaxy, during your listening session. I eliminate such effects for myself, by repeating the test and ensuring the perception remains throughout repeated trials. Although this is all you've read about, when you actually have experience with doing tests and not just abstract theories to "bias your thoughts" on the issue, you may come to learn there is a lot more than "bias effects" that can color a listening test. Listening skill, which has nothing to do with bias but which differs greatly from listener to listener, is a LOT more influential on the result of a listening test than any "possibility" of bias ever could or ever will be. But you never read about that in The Audio Critic, do you?

Quote:
Quote:

That doesn't even cover the fact that they can easily be overcome.

I disagree there.

So how much testing have you done to come to this contrary conclusion, and what sort of testing have you done, and what were you testing?

Quote:
Noooo. Quite the opposite. In the absence of science it is automatically * scientifically undetermined.* Again this leads us to three possibilities. The sound itself is affected, the person is affected or both. So please don't confuse my assertions with that kind of crap you do get from the rabid objectivists.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Quote:

Knowing that there is no way to eliminate variables, and no practical way to incorporate the kind of testing you infer into my experimentation, where I am right now is where I have always been with this: the realization that the "bias effect theory" is simply an academic excercise about audio testing, and has no real-world value in general audio research, and particularly non-commercial personal audio research.

There are ways to eliminate variables. I'm just not going to ask that of hobbyists who are merely reporting their experiences. It is an unfair burden.

Again, I am disagreeing with you on this. You have to know what all the variables are, before you can even hope to eliminate them. You don't. (Hint: they're not in the books and articles you read on bias theory). Even I don't, and I know a lot more about what they could be than you. Once again from the top: the best you can do following these beliefs of yours is to fool yourself into thinking you have controlled all variables in a subjective listening test. But that's no better than the people you claim are fooling themselves by not controlling all variables.

Quote:
I tend to sweep my records of dust before playing them. It's neither a means of "relaxation" for me, or a cue for "expectation". But it is a ritual and can ehance the sound. Seems your hypothesis on "audiophile rituals" needs to ferment a bit more.

So, Michigan, why do you perform the record sweep?

Can you explain what occurs when you do this sweep?

Now, try that with Belt Tweaks.

Not all rituals are created equal, contrary to your Tweakers Declaration of Interdependence.

___

As to the cuckoo example, it is not that they lay eggs that mimic the look of other species, May claimed that they can look into a nest one day, and then produce matching egg patterns on demand within 24 hours.

There is a difference between looking for a suitable nest vs. being an egg-Xerox machine that can, over night, produce any desired egg pattern.

Good work, Michigan, "Sweeping my LP's before playing them is a ritual, therefore all rituals are equally valid."

Quote:
With Buddha's response, he is actually dismissing as "ritual" what Robert Harley (and others) 'heard', i.e.

That's fine. I can accept that Buddha doesn't require what he calls "rituals"; which he describes as any deliberate attempt by an audiophile to try to improve the sound quality of their music reproduction. Most consumers don't, after all. They're perfectly satisfied with "mp3 delivery systems", as they were with the Philips "compact cassette". Because it allowed them to play music in their cars with the needle skipping on every bump they drive over. They don't have much use for the "rituals" that audiophiles engage in to improve their sound. Like cleaning their records before each play, fooling with the position of their speakers, screwing spikes to the bottom of their stands, using stands in the first place (when a cardboard box is perfectly adequate), buying and hooking up special quality "cables" when a mini-component system doesn't even require these ridiculous, costly "cables". Or buying "separates" when an iPod dock station from Wally-Mart takes care of all your audio "needs".

In fact, most consumers are like Buddha. They laugh at us audiophiles, and the silly "audiophile rituals" that people who are crazy enough to think that sound quality matters might go through. They may not know what they're missing out on by not bothering to improve or even maintain their quality of sound, but being ignorant of that, at least they have nothing to "miss".

We know from past experience that Buddha is all-knowing, all-seeing and all-hearing. So if he says his level of hearing is far beyond that of Robert Harley, Keith Howard, Michael Fremer, Arnis Balgalvis, David Clark, Gregg Weaver, John Atkinson, Stephen Mejias... I can accept that. If you look at what they all have in common, well besides being professional audio reviewers, the one flaw they all share is that they're all human. Thus all susceptible to a virus known as "human bias". Buddha is more than human. Although born as such, he has transcended his humaness, and lives on an existential plane where he is truly one with the universe. Would that we could all be Buddha's. Not only would we hear and know more than anyone else could imagine, we'd be saving a heck of a lot of money in the process. Whatever mere mortals got out of a $250,000 hifi system, we would get from an iPod. And what we got from playing a CD on a $250k hifi system, would be infinitely better than what the actual musicians in the recording studio were playing and could have hoped to hear.

Quote:
Also dismissing as "ritual" what Ed Meitner 'heard' (discovered),

What, Ed Meitner?? NO!! That's where I draw the line! BUDDHA, sorry buddy but you're FULL OF IT!!!!

Ed Meitner's a GENIUS! A freakin' GENIUS, man!

He pioneered jitter reduction!

He pioneered amplifier topology!

He pioneered platerless turntables!

He pioneered cryogenic freezing of cd's, cables etc. (after stealing the idea from Peter Belt... ).

Heck, he even pioneered pioneering!!!

And you claim to be eons beyond the genius Ed Meitner's ability to hear, so far beyond that you get the same sound that he gets from his Museatex gear, without having even heard any of it?? At this point, I'm gonna have to see some credentials, if you expect to get by with this!

Quote:
That's fine. I can accept that Buddha doesn't require what he calls "rituals"; which he describes as any deliberate attempt by an audiophile to try to improve the sound quality of their music reproduction.

Michigan, I give you more credit than that.

Not "any deliberate attempt."

Come now. The little language trick you played is beneath you.

I'm merely pointing out that some rituals are just that, ritualistic behaviors.

I don't even go so far as to dismiss them as being "all in your head." There is a neurologic basis for some people's need for rituals. Again, no problem, just don't extrapolate them to universal applicatibility.

Your Kool Aid, May's Hearing Aids...it's amazing how angry y'all get when the remedial nature of some things are pointed out.

Quote:
They're perfectly satisfied with "mp3 delivery systems", as they were with the Philips "compact cassette". Because it allowed them to play music in their cars with the needle skipping on every bump they drive over. They don't have much use for the "rituals" that audiophiles engage in to improve their sound. Like cleaning their records before each play, fooling with the position of their speakers, screwing spikes to the bottom of their stands, using stands in the first place (when a cardboard box is perfectly adequate), buying and hooking up special quality "cables" when a mini-component system doesn't even require these ridiculous, costly "cables". Or buying "separates" when an iPod dock station from Wally-Mart takes care of all your audio "needs".

Yeah, if only those people had some sub-grain sized tweaks to make it all better!

Michigan, don't forget, you and May point out that your style tweaks work on all of the above, so why put them down?

Of course, anyone who doesn't toe the line with vasline under the coffee table must be an MP3 loving troglodyte.

You got really revved up on this one!

Maybe placing some colored foil under your seat cushion will act as a talisman to make you feel better.

Quote:
In fact, most consumers are like Buddha. They laugh at us audiophiles, and the silly "audiophile rituals" that people who are crazy enough to think that sound quality matters might go through. They may not know what they're missing out on by not bothering to improve or even maintain their quality of sound, but being ignorant of that, at least they have nothing to "miss".

No, most consumers are too busy enjoying their music without the need of LP, vinyl brushes, dedicated listening areas, or any of the paraphernalia we audiophiles seem to require.

We are fetishists, and "normal consumers" are enjoying their tunes just as much as we are - without the need for spendy gear and additional rituals to make them feel special.

Quote:
We know from past experience that Buddha is all-knowing and blah blah blah.

What Buddha knows is bullshit when some safety pin peddling secret creme rubbing colored foil foisting all knowing guru feels compelled to try to outcompete the tangerine robe set at the airport.

Look, if you need those rituals, fine. Party on, Michigan. Like I said, welcome to what others hear anyway!

My ability to hear is my ability to hear, if Ed Meitner or you or May need some creme in the corner to get the job done, then good for you. Please don't insist it is you who transcend normal experience by placing your picture in the ice box or buying a specially treated pen to write numbers on affirmation notes to get beyond 'normal.'

I've already congratulated you for catching up with the rest of us, now you want to stand proud and proclaim your victory!

Sorry.

Hey, why not ask your God, Ed, if he can hear grains of sand changing place in his room and get back to me. Since he mentioned cryo'd CD's, he must be down with all that stuff, eh?

You guys seem to grab "ice box CD's" and take it large to the whole kettle of BS Stew the Belts like to peddle.

Oy!

I can see you buying your first pair of eyeglasses: "I can now see better than anyone else, and all people should use the same spectacle I use, or they are MP3 loving reprobates!"

LOL!

Hey, did you just hear that?

I was reading and listening and put my book down, just so, and noticed the open soundstage and air and all the invisible musical information.

Damn!

Then I picked up the book and turned the page and....

....it sounds just as good!

"I was reading and listening and put my book down, just so, and noticed the open soundstage and air and all the invisible musical information.

Damn! Then I picked up the book and turned the page and....
....it sounds just as good!"

Sorry, Buddha, your story just doesn't ring true.

You should have said,

I was drinking a '59 Chateaux Lafite Rothschild and listening and put my bottle down, just so, and noticed the open soundstage and air and all the invisible musical information.

Damn! Then I picked up the bottle and took another swig and....
....it sounds just as good!

Quote:
"I was reading and listening and put my book down, just so, and noticed the open soundstage and air and all the invisible musical information.

Damn! Then I picked up the book and turned the page and....
....it sounds just as good!"

Sorry, Buddha, your story just doesn't ring true.

You should have said,

I was drinking a '59 Chateaux Lafite Rothschild and listening and put my bottle down, just so, and noticed the open soundstage and air and all the invisible musical information.

Damn! Then I picked up the bottle and took another swig and....
....it sounds just as good!

Pehaps then I would have said....it sounds better! But, how could I 'prove' that?

Sorry, Buddha, your story just doesn't ring true.
You should have said,
I was drinking a '59 Chateaux Lafite Rothschild and listening and put my bottle down, just so, and noticed the open soundstage and air and all the invisible musical information.
Damn! Then I picked up the bottle and took another swig and....
....it sounds just as good!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pehaps then I would have said....it sounds better! But, how could I 'prove' that?"

You get a bye. Your proof is no good here, Mr. Torrance.

So, Michigan, why do you perform the record sweep?

I dunno. Force of habit, I guess. Oh yah, and to improve my sound. Plus, it seems to get my records cleaner, if that's anything.

Can you explain what occurs when you do this sweep?

Well, according to what I read from the manufacturer's articles on their web site, 100,000 carbon fibre bristles sweep the "bad vinyl demons" right off the record, and create a surface that makes it "unpleasant" (their word, not mine) for the vinyl demons to climb back up on to the surface of the record and continue to crap all over your record (which creates the hissing, and crackling sound that often occurs).

Now, try that with Belt Tweaks.

Oh thanks. You just made me scratch the bejeezus out of my Steel Pulse record with a treated safety pin. And it was a pristine BRITISH pressing, you SOB. What's worse is that besides ruining my record, it didn't improve my sound either. I guess you're right, Buddha. The Belt tweaks don't work. Geez, I can't believe I fell for this for some 20 odd years! (Very odd, actually...).

Not all rituals are created equal, contrary to your Tweakers Declaration of Interdependence.

I thought it was YOUR "Tweakers Declaration of Interdependence"? I don't call tweaks "rituals"!

As to the cuckoo example, it is not that they lay eggs that mimic the look of other species, May claimed that they can look into a nest one day, and then produce matching egg patterns on demand within 24 hours.

There is a difference between looking for a suitable nest vs. being an egg-Xerox machine that can, over night, produce any desired egg pattern.

Well given that you have a bad habit of distorting just about everything that May ever says, without a direct quote, I can't assume you got that right. I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. That biomimicry is entirely a fabrication of May Belt's, or that matching egg patterns take longer than 24hrs to develop? Because the Encyclopedia Brittanica link I gave you showed you that cuckoos do more than simply "look for a suitable nest", which is all you seem to be willing to accept.

Good work, Michigan, "Sweeping my LP's before playing them is a ritual, therefore all rituals are equally valid."

Thanks. I'm finally getting the recognition I deserve. And good job to you too, with that great hypothesis that says "Any audio product I never tried, don't understand, don't believe in, and am completely biased against can be casually dismissed as a 'ritual' suitable only for self-delusional freaks of the audio world". Is that an original "Buddhaism" (reg. tm.), or taken from "Zen and the Art of Debunkery"? Because I thought I once read something similar in the Debunkery manual. Something like "When you are debunking unconventional audio products, make comparisons to Scientology or other cults, New Ageisms, unicorns and rainbows, shaman witch doctors or voodoo rituals. Associating the product or idea you are arguing against with ideas that are completely unrelated but have known negative connotations will automatically trigger the correct "bunk-slash-hokum" response in your readers".

That's fine. I can accept that Buddha doesn't require what he calls "rituals"; which he describes as any deliberate attempt by an audiophile to try to improve the sound quality of their music reproduction.

Michigan, I give you more credit than that.
Not "any deliberate attempt."
Come now. The little language trick you played is beneath you.

It was tongue-in-cheek, believe it or not. I'm in a silly mood. Not "angry" at all, as you suggest! I'm in an especially silly mood, because I find it hard to take what you're saying seriously. Especially when you seem to be so convinced you're right! My point above is, you can't just call any audio product(s) you are biased against a "ritual", so you can then proceed to dismiss it's merit or value. Because if you want to do that, then Joe Q. Public on the street who does not have any understanding or appreciation for the lengths (not to mention cost) you go to to get good sound, can dismiss everything YOU do as a "ritual". Even though you may think the audiophile practices you engage in are "perfectly reasonable". They are extreme, to some who do not understand why you do what you do. Isn't our job to help them understand this better?

I'm merely pointing out that some rituals are just that, ritualistic behaviors.
I don't even go so far as to dismiss them as being "all in your head." There is a neurologic basis for some people's need for rituals. Again, no problem, just don't extrapolate them to universal applicatibility.

But "dismissing them" is exactly what you've been doing, in countless ways. Have you read your next line?!

Your Kool Aid, May's Hearing Aids...it's amazing how angry y'all get when the remedial nature of some things are pointed out.

Well I know I'm not angry, because I could hardly stop laughing throughout writing my response... but I'm not sure that you're not, because you seem pretty "revved up" yourself! These tweaks you call "rituals", I know a lot more about them than you claim to know about them yourself. So it's natural that I'm going to defend them, if you're going to insist here on knowing all about them (without putting in all the actual hours that requires). For example, claiming they are "rituals", or throwing the new buzzword at it, "remedial".

You say you are not dismissing them in one breath, and then you call them "Kool Aid" in the next! (A reference to self-delusion). So far:

"rituals"
"remedial nature"
"kool-aid"
"talisman"

You're right, I can't understand why anyone would have any problem with that!

Yeah, if only those people had some sub-grain sized tweaks to make it all better!

If only! I used the larger version of those sub-grain sized tweaks on a friend's laptop computer yesterday (Dell D610). Took about 15 of them until I was satisfied, but yes, it did make it all better! When trying to play anything that resembles music, the sound off the built in speakers was absolutely horrible! Just intolerable to him, to me, and anyone within earshot. Think Japanese transistor radio from the 50's... and then think worse than that. After my 15 "rituals", we all found the sound changed to "fine and perfectly acceptable". Where it once was "intolerable", it now was "pleasant". The monitor had improved as well, as a bonus. Not bad, considering this was the first time I had attempted to tweak a laptop. No, we're not both "freaks of nature" that were born with a sense of "impaired hearing" that can only be "corrected" by ground up sugar pills. I'm quite certain that even you would have thought the (untweaked) sound of the Dell was awful! Check the reviews if you don't believe me. No one is raving about the sound of this computer.

So who is really "correcting to the norm" here? Everyone who has heard and continues to hear a better sounding laptop, thanks to what you call my "rituals"? Or you, who doesn't believe in such "ritual tweaking", and has to live with the sound of a shitbox computer?

Michigan, don't forget, you and May point out that your style tweaks work on all of the above, so why put them down?
Of course, anyone who doesn't toe the line with vasline under the coffee table must be an MP3 loving troglodyte.

LOL! I guess these thousands of mp3's I have must make me a "troglodyte" as well! I wasn't putting anyone down per se (and certainly not any more than you're putting people down by calling them "remedial", "ritual worshippers", "talisman users", "kool-aid drinkers" or "anyone that doesn't toe the line with vaseline under the coffee table...")! I was just explaining how your argument could be understood that whatever sound quality is "good enough" for non-tweaking audiophiles, is just as good as anyone is getting. Needless to say I strongly disagree, and so do all audiophiles!

And yes, all Belt type audio tweaks work on improving sound for all the devices I mentioned; iPod docks, compact cassettes, mp3 players, laptops... even 8-track tapes! Most of the things I have improved for others couldn't be improved otherwise, and most of them aren't audiophiles in your wildest imagination! So I don't know why you think better sound can only be appreciated by what you loosely describe as "lunatic ritual-worshipping audiophiles".

Maybe placing some colored foil under your seat cushion will act as a talisman to make you feel better.

See, there you go again! I don't do anything to make me feel "special" or "better", as you might. If I go out of my way in audio, it's to get good sound. Or simply to find out how to go about that. If I feel better as a byproduct of that, great!

No, most consumers are too busy enjoying their music without the need of LP, vinyl brushes, dedicated listening areas, or any of the paraphernalia we audiophiles seem to require.

We are fetishists, and "normal consumers" are enjoying their tunes just as much as we are - without the need for spendy gear and additional rituals to make them feel special.

Can't agree that "normal consumers" enjoy their tunes just as much as audiophiles do. Nearly everyone that has been in my life for a length of time, was of the "normal consumers" group you speak of. And after me, without even any prodding on my part, took an interest in higher quality gear. Once they did, you can bet they were no longer your "normal consumers". Most "normal consumers" are simply ignorant of the benefits of good sound. Kept that way by mainstream media and the "everything sounds the same" fanatics, of the kind that have come here from Hydrogen Audio forum to embark on a crap-throwing festival against "audiophile rituals". Why do you require the spendy gear and additional rituals, if you believe that those "normal consumers" with the iPod docks are getting the same pleasure out of their sound? Isn't that a waste of time, money and room?

Quote:
What Buddha knows is bullshit when some safety pin peddling secret creme rubbing colored foil foisting all knowing guru feels compelled to try to outcompete the tangerine robe set at the airport.
Look, if you need those rituals, fine. Party on, Michigan. Like I said, welcome to what others hear anyway!
My ability to hear is my ability to hear, if Ed Meitner or you or May need some creme in the corner to get the job done, then good for you. Please don't insist it is you who transcend normal experience by placing your picture in the ice box or buying a specially treated pen to write numbers on affirmation notes to get beyond 'normal.'
I've already congratulated you for catching up with the rest of us, now you want to stand proud and proclaim your victory!
Sorry.
Hey, why not ask your God, Ed, if he can hear grains of sand changing place in his room and get back to me. Since he mentioned cryo'd CD's, he must be down with all that stuff, eh?
You guys seem to grab "ice box CD's" and take it large to the whole kettle of BS Stew the Belts like to peddle.
Oy!
I can see you buying your first pair of eyeglasses: "I can now see better than anyone else, and all people should use the same spectacle I use, or they are MP3 loving reprobates!"
LOL!

Yup. Sounds like someone is "revved up" all right! And all it took was some goofing on Ed Meitner! I like the one about "competing with the tangerine robe set" at the airport! But did you HAVE to insult my parents like that?!

Guess you're not in the same silly mood I was when I wrote the faux Meitner rant, but you're still saying silly kinds of things. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with all of that. ie. You keep talking on behalf of others having these same "supernatural powers" that you have to hear certain things that others can only hear with the addition of highly specialized audio gear. I don't know of anyone who has expressed such a belief, as yours. As far as I know, you invented this idea yourself. Correct? How far does your ability to hear the effects of audio products without requiring them to be present extend, I wonder? If say, I installed an Audio Note Ongaku to achieve better sound.... could you hear the sound of that with a Nexxtech amp, or would it at least require, say, a Denon?

I don't actually insist that I "transcend normal experience" to "get beyond normal". I'm afraid that this, along with your visions of Hare Krishna and all, are part of your stew of prejudices against this phenomenon. It is in fact a "normal" reaction (as much as anything is "normal" I suppose) when faced with a difficult to understand phenomenon, that appears to fly in the face of everything you were taught and think you understand about "science and logic". "Normal", because it seems that 99 times out of 100, whenever something like this comes along, it's every bit as ridiculous as it sounds. Well this is that 1 time out of 100, when something that looks and sounds as ridiculous as this, is actually valid. No less valid than your reaction to it.

The problem is, it doesn't come at you like a kick in the head. As you, in all your impatience, might want or even expect. You have to go to it. On top of that, it has to fight all of your many many prejudices to it, which have been on display like a buffet, in just this response. (Not the least of which include in your case, Krishna cultists, Pagan ritualists, Heaven's Gate cultists, and snake oil merchants). That's one of the hardest things to overcome, I find. But despite what you would like to think, I don't believe for a moment that you are "special", in that you are immune to hearing the effect (which has nothing to do with "rituals" of course). Although it may be difficult to ID it at first, and your psychological biases serve against identifying it, no one is immune to this phenomenon, any more than we are immune to fear; a basic instinct. If you want proof, that's possible. But generally, I feel that comes with the slow ebbing of the tide; not by a short, sharp shock.

It's not about "rituals", it's not about profiting from human idiocy, it's not about your ego either. The phenomenon doesn't know about these things. It doesn't realize either, that there shouldn't be a connection between freezing CD's in a simple home freezer, treated safety pins, green CD trays, personal photos and "as yet unnamed objects that purport to be smaller than a grain of sand". But against all "common sense" and your prejudices, there is. There is a connection between those things, and a thousand more you have never even heard of. If you understand the connections, you can improve your sound in ways you couldn't imagine before. Much more than that, even. Not that you have to. Many who hear the effect of this phenomenon don't pursue it. So unlike what you seem to have convinced yourself of, you don't have to join a cult, nor stay with a cult, in order to hear this effect. You don't have to believe in it, or even know anything about it. For decades, thousands of audiophiles and reviewers have heard these effects (whether they were aware of what they were hearing or not). But I can't say what exactly it would take for you, before you do. I don't know that you have any experience whatsoever, with everything you are dismissing in audio as "meaningless ritual", that has no real effect on the sound one is hearing, and requires that you drink "kool-aid" to get anything out of it. Until or if you ever do, please don't insist you can't!

Actually, your do deserve positive regard. You desire to delve is enviable, man!

It's really on the overy broad conclusion where you and disagree, in fact.

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to experience the tweak you sent me.

In a perfect world, we could teleport to each other's listening rooms. Platonically speaking, of course!

The cure to much of this 'argument' would be listening parties!

Another 'confession.'

In this debate, I find the 'subjectivists' to be the ones who would likely be the most fun to listent with.

Ritual or not, they seem to have more fun - which is it's own goal, eh?

An evening with Michigan, May, even Jan in the listening room is a much brighter prospect that Arnie, by about 4 wine bottles!

JJ could join us, I bet he's fun, in person.

Any takers for January?

(I apologize if Michigan detects any animosity from me, I mean this all as intense conversation. Michigan is an admirable thinker, in my world. So, Frog-man, I hope none of this all felt 'personal.' My positive regard for you is undimished; and I will keep working on the tweak you gave me.

Actually, your do deserve positive regard. You desire to delve is enviable, man!

Thanks! So is your knowledge of music and audio gear!

It's really on the overy broad conclusion where you and disagree, in fact.

Yes, and I fully understand why we disagree. We are a product of our experiences!

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the best way to experience the tweak you sent me.

PM me! I have no shortage of ideas!

In a perfect world, we could teleport to each other's listening rooms. Platonically speaking, of course!
The cure to much of this 'argument' would be listening parties!

If it really were that easy, that would be muy interesting and a mess of fun. KBK can bring the cables, Kaitt can bring the rocks, I'll bring the safety pins! "Spock, energize...".

I agree the subs are the ones to invite to the party! At least they'll bring the records and the weed! The obs will bring the SPL meters, comparator boxes, and hand out white papers for everyone to read... BTW, I didn't take anything you wrote personally, and I hope you didn't take anything from me personally! I was goofing around a lot today, so a lot of what I wrote was exaggerated, and meant to be taken humourously, in the spirit of how it was written! ie. I do respect Meitner as a pioneering audio engineer (and a Canuck no less), but not to the degree I wrote about! (I did once have a DAC he designed, and with the right cables, it was so musical you didn't want to leave the house!). I like these 'intense conversations' because it's a lot more fun for me to debate these issues than the tired old DBT debates, or whether cables matter! They matter! End of story! We figured this out 30 years ago! (Oh, if only it were that easy....).

"In a perfect world, we could teleport to each other's listening rooms. Platonically speaking, of course! The cure to much of this 'argument' would be listening parties!"

You probably don't remember but I offered you a chance for a teleportation party once at CES but you blew me off. Are you reconsidering, or is this just more trolling/jocularity? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Teleportation obviates the need for all those laborious downloads and tedious comparisons not to mention the need to travel long distances.

Anybody?

Quote:
I apologize if Michigan detects any animosity from me, I mean this all as intense conversation. Michigan is an admirable thinker, in my world. So, Frog-man, I hope none of this all felt 'personal.' My positive regard for you is undimished; and I will keep working on the tweak you gave me.

This is so nice I could cry.

Quote:
"It's one thing to acknowledge a lack of explination in a world of anecdotal evidence. To proclaim something "can not" be explained is to disgard with out cause all known possible explinations and create a false sense of mystery."

That's not what she said. She said, "...things that cannot be explained by conventional electronic and acoustic theories."

Same thing only worse. Since there are several *possible* explinations that fall within those parameters. So her assertion simply disgards those possible explinations without any reason.

I do fear some of that bad batch of brown that rvance warned about might still be going around.

RG

"Since there are several *possible* explinations that fall within those parameters."

Really? And you know this how?

"So her assertion simply disgards those possible explinations without any reason."

No they don't. You're assumptions are simply incorrect. You are late to the party, you most likely need to find a PWB tutor in a hurry.

Quote:
"Since there are several *possible* explinations that fall within those parameters."

Really? And you know this how?

Research (by that I mean actually reading up on relevant liturature on these things) experience, basic understanding of anecdotal evidence.

Quote:
"So her assertion simply disgards those possible explinations without any reason."

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Quote:
You're assumptions are simply incorrect.

No assuptions.

Quote:
You are late to the party, you most likely need to find a PWB tutor in a hurry.

I've already had a PWBian visit me and tweek (make a mess of) my system. But that is of no consequence. It would appear you are trying to make the old "if you haven't tried it you know nothing about it" argument. which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

Quote:
I've already had a PWBian visit me and tweek (make a mess of) my system. But that is of no consequence. It would appear you are trying to make the old "if you haven't tried it you know nothing about it" argument. which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

It's not necessarily a logical fallacy if certain axioms are employed - namely that all changes, including non-system changes, have an impact on sound quality, which is more or less a restatement of Beltism at its core, from what I undestand.

I must say I disagree with 99% of what is being discussed in this thread, but the logic behind these arguments is quite fascinating.

Quote:
I've already had a PWBian visit me and tweek (make a mess of) my system. But that is of no consequence. It would appear you are trying to make the old "if you haven't tried it you know nothing about it" argument. which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

So, you are saying that PWB tweaks can affect the sound of a system!

Isn't it a further logical fallacy to conclude that PWB tweaks can't affect the sound if they are capable of 'making a mess' of yours?

Quote:

Quote:
I've already had a PWBian visit me and tweek (make a mess of) my system. But that is of no consequence. It would appear you are trying to make the old "if you haven't tried it you know nothing about it" argument. which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

It's not necessarily a logical fallacy if certain axioms are employed - namely that all changes, including non-system changes, have an impact on sound quality, which is more or less a restatement of Beltism at its core, from what I undestand.

I must say I disagree with 99% of what is being discussed in this thread, but the logic behind these arguments is quite fascinating.

Please explain how that axiom negates the logical fallacy that one needs direct perceptual experience to "know something" about what is going on in the bigger picture.

Quote:

Quote:
I've already had a PWBian visit me and tweek (make a mess of) my system. But that is of no consequence. It would appear you are trying to make the old "if you haven't tried it you know nothing about it" argument. which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

So, you are saying that PWB tweaks can affect the sound of a system!

Isn't it a further logical fallacy to conclude that PWB tweaks can't affect the sound if they are capable of 'making a mess' of yours?

It was a visual mess. LOL. I made no comment on my perceptions of the sound.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I've already had a PWBian visit me and tweek (make a mess of) my system. But that is of no consequence. It would appear you are trying to make the old "if you haven't tried it you know nothing about it" argument. which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

So, you are saying that PWB tweaks can affect the sound of a system!

Isn't it a further logical fallacy to conclude that PWB tweaks can't affect the sound if they are capable of 'making a mess' of yours?

It was a visual mess. LOL. I made no comment on my perceptions of the sound.

Roger. So, if you say something made a mess of your system, we should take that as a visual reference!

As you say, you made no comment on your perceptions of the sound.

But, since this is an auditory based hobby, what were your perceptions of the sound? Was there an audible change, for better or worse? No difference?

Quote:

Roger. So, if you say something made a mess of your system, we should take that as a visual reference!

No. My bad. Sometimes you (the proverbial you) say stuff with an image in your head that makes total sense....only to you.

Quote:
As you say, you made no comment on your perceptions of the sound.

But, since this is an auditory based hobby, what were your perceptions of the sound? Was there an audible change, for better or worse? No difference?

My buddy heard a big improvement. I couldn't tell the difference. All comparisons were done sighted. (hence my memory of a big mess)

Quote:

Quote:
"Since there are several *possible* explinations that fall within those parameters."
Really? And you know this how?

Research (by that I mean actually reading up on relevant liturature on these things) experience, basic understanding of anecdotal evidence.

Must you always hoard your 'knowledge' like this, Scott? Please. Don't be shy. Give us the goods. You apparently have read a lot of, quote, "relevant literature" on a lot of unusual phenomenon in audio, that has you resolutely convinced of something quite different than those who have actual experience with the phenomenon (including those who are the sole observers of the phenomenon, oddly enough). If someone who knows what they're talking about tries to argue against you, you say they are guilty of the logical fallacy of "knowledge through expertise and experience". As opposed to say, the logical tour de force of "knowledge through passively reading irrelevant literature on sort of somewhat slightly related phenomenon, if you look at it from the right angle".

Which brings me to my question. What "relevant literature" on freezing such as CD's or DVD's in a domestic home freezer, has shown that the considerable amount of "anecdotal evidence" that suggests new information arising from the process is due to 'distortions' created by the process, that has somehow saw fit to change the information on the disc, and even create new information? I know I'm not the only one interested in seeing your study that supports your claim as to the "true nature of the freeze process". So what do you claim it says, and where is it linked to?

(Afterward, remind me to explain to you the difference between "distortion" and "information").

Quote:
My buddy heard a big improvement. I couldn't tell the difference. All comparisons were done sighted. (hence my memory of a big mess)

There's the fascinating part, and the nidus of the disagreements that take place.

Is he a gifted listener, or are you a retarded one?

Is he "imaginating" the difference, or were you "imaginating" the lack of difference?

Your experience is at the crux of the issue!

Quote:

Quote:
My buddy heard a big improvement. I couldn't tell the difference. All comparisons were done sighted. (hence my memory of a big mess)

There's the fascinating part, and the nidus of the disagreements that take place.

Is he a gifted listener, or are you a retarded one?

Is he "imaginating" the difference, or were you "imaginating" the lack of difference?

Your experience is at the crux of the issue!

Indeed. The answer to all those questions and others is a definite "I dunno." To me the important question is what do we do. I would do things a bit differently if I were to try the Belt stuff again. Buuuuuut based on *that* experience we both did what I believe to be the right thing. 1. He kept using the tweeks on his system. 2. I opted not to. 3. we didn't fight about it.

Nowadays, I generally start off with blind comparisons. Then move to sighted ones. If I had a bias of no difference the blind comparisons might have removed that bias. That can be a tricky bias to deal with though. You have to introduce something with a known audible difference into the comparisons. In practice I have found this to be tricky in some cases. IMO the point of blind comparisons isn't to eliminate biases. In the end you really can't. But IME it does seem that blind comparisons can *affect* biases in a way that is sympathetic with sonic impressions that don't carry the baggage of the added biases of seeing and knowing what one is listening to. But in the end all of my final judgements are made under sighted conditions because that is how I listen when I am just sitting down and listening for pleasure.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
"Since there are several *possible* explinations that fall within those parameters."
Really? And you know this how?

Research (by that I mean actually reading up on relevant liturature on these things) experience, basic understanding of anecdotal evidence.

Must you always hoard your 'knowledge' like this, Scott? Please. Don't be shy. Give us the goods. You apparently have read a lot of, quote, "relevant literature" on a lot of unusual phenomenon in audio, that has you resolutely convinced of something quite different than those who have actual experience with the phenomenon (including those who are the sole observers of the phenomenon, oddly enough). If someone who knows what they're talking about tries to argue against you, you say they are guilty of the logical fallacy of "knowledge through expertise and experience". As opposed to say, the logical tour de force of "knowledge through passively reading irrelevant literature on sort of somewhat slightly related phenomenon, if you look at it from the right angle".

Which brings me to my question. What "relevant literature" on freezing such as CD's or DVD's in a domestic home freezer, has shown that the considerable amount of "anecdotal evidence" that suggests new information arising from the process is due to 'distortions' created by the process, that has somehow saw fit to change the information on the disc, and even create new information? I know I'm not the only one interested in seeing your study that supports your claim as to the "true nature of the freeze process". So what do you claim it says, and where is it linked to?

(Afterward, remind me to explain to you the difference between "distortion" and "information").

The relevant liturature isn't on the nature of "freezing CDs or DVDs in a home freezer." It is on the nature of "anecdotal evidence." It just so happens that all the cited evidence falls into that catagory. are you still interested in reading up on the world of "possibile explinations" when all one has is anecdotal evidence?

You have to admit it's one thing to hear someone say that placing a tiny silver holographic foil on a CD makes it sound better, because one can also come up with some "rational explanation" for how it works as a counter to the "morphic resonance" explanation -- for example, one can say, oh, it acts like a damper, or it refracts the laser light enough to affect the laser reading, or it must be rejecting RFI, etc. But the problem becomes much more, uh, troubling when someone says that placing a tiny silver foil on a CD that is just sitting on the table will improve the sound of the CD that is playing - a CD that does NOT have a silver foil on it. Follow?

With respect to the argument that PWB tweaks "messed up" your system, can I point out that all, or nearly all, of the 70 or so PWB products are either inherently invisible, nearly invisible or can be placed out of sight? The argument that PWB tweaks are cosmetically unappealing or whatever is a little illogical. Not to mention beside the point.

You could not hear what your audio friend clearly heard? Guess that dispells one audio myth.

Quote:
Indeed. The answer to all those questions and others is a definite "I dunno."

If I may venture an educated guess.... The person who heard a big improvement was already familiar with the kind of change the tweaks effect on sound. You weren't. You might have been expecting something of a different nature, to which you were more familiar with. Something more obvious to you. It's certainly happened often enough where things that seem obvious to me are not to another listener in the same room. e.g. My friend had just bought a Target audio stand. I heard the influence of the stand within seconds, my friend standing next to me heard no change. How we test and how we listen also has a lot to do with how well we can consciously discern differences in music tests.

Quote:

Quote:
Which brings me to my question. What "relevant literature" on freezing such as CD's or DVD's in a domestic home freezer, has shown that the considerable amount of "anecdotal evidence" that suggests new information arising from the process is due to 'distortions' created by the process, that has somehow saw fit to change the information on the disc, and even create new information? I know I'm not the only one interested in seeing your study that supports your claim as to the "true nature of the freeze process". So what do you claim it says, and where is it linked to?
(Afterward, remind me to explain to you the difference between "distortion" and "information").

The relevant liturature isn't on the nature of "freezing CDs or DVDs in a home freezer." It is on the nature of "anecdotal evidence." It just so happens that all the cited evidence falls into that catagory.

Which I believe, by coincidence, also just so happens to be the very same category that everything everyone says on audio on this forum falls into. So since we simply can't know, I guess the answer is obviously not to believe anything anyone says. Ever. Which also has the added benefit of giving us free admission into the Ultimate Skeptics Klub. Less luckier guys have to pay for this sort of thing, you know.

Quote:
are you still interested in reading up on the world of "possibile explinations" when all one has is anecdotal evidence?

I don't know.... is that going to explain to me how home freezing a CD can cause it to sound distorted, and how this distortion can account for new information heard? No, I'm probably better off without it. I'm sure I can think of many more "possible explanations" for such observed phenomenon than any of those articles you read. ie. Martians on a day trip, a government-produced virus, the earth getting too close to the sun, something to do with Mexicans, the thirteen cents theory, unfettered microwaves, stale air, and a possible explanation for just about anything anyone can say that anyone else can be immediately skeptical of: eating too many cheese doodles. None of which have anything to do with the observed phenomenon, and are all just mental excercises that are about as relevant to progress in audio as is the price of tea in China.

Quote:
You have to admit it's one thing to hear someone say that placing a tiny silver holographic foil on a CD makes it sound better, because one can also come up with some "rational explanation" for how it works as a counter to the "morphic resonance" explanation -- for example, one can say, oh, it acts like a damper, or it refracts the laser light enough to affect the laser reading, or it must be rejecting RFI, etc. But the problem becomes much more, uh, troubling when someone says that placing a tiny silver foil on a CD that is just sitting on the table will improve the sound of the CD that is playing - a CD that does NOT have a silver foil on it. Follow?

Yeah a lot of speculation about the underlying mechanisms being attributed to anecdotal evidence.

Quote:
With respect to the argument that PWB tweaks "messed up" your system,

It is not an argument. It is an aesthetic opinion based on an observation.

Quote:
can I point out that all, or nearly all, of the 70 or so PWB products are either inherently invisible, nearly invisible or can be placed out of sight?

You can but it would be irrelevant to what actually was done to my system by my friend when he applied the Belt tweeks.

Quote:
The argument that PWB tweaks are cosmetically unappealing or whatever is a little illogical.

It is also a pure invention of your mind. I made no such broad argument about Belt tweeks. I made a simple aesthetic evaluation of an observation of one person's attempt to use belt tweeks on my system. *I* made no such broad assertions about the aesthetic of Belt tweeks in general or the ability for someone to hide them. That was you drawing an inference where none was made. You might want to consider that for a moment. a classic case of seeking a patern from a single event.

Quote:
Not to mention beside the point.

You could not hear what your audio friend clearly heard? Guess that dispells one audio myth.

What audio myth would that be?

Quote:

Quote:
Indeed. The answer to all those questions and others is a definite "I dunno."

If I may venture an educated guess.... The person who heard a big improvement was already familiar with the kind of change the tweaks effect on sound. You weren't. You might have been expecting something of a different nature, to which you were more familiar with. Something more obvious to you. It's certainly happened often enough where things that seem obvious to me are not to another listener in the same room. e.g. My friend had just bought a Target audio stand. I heard the influence of the stand within seconds, my friend standing next to me heard no change. How we test and how we listen also has a lot to do with how well we can consciously discern differences in music tests.

It is quite open to speculation. But I must clarify. I was quite skeptical that anything would happen. I think it is fair to say I was very *consciously* biased that the tweeks would make no difference. So technically i was not expecting something different than what I observed.

Quote:
It is quite open to speculation. But I must clarify. I was quite skeptical that anything would happen. I think it is fair to say I was very *consciously* biased that the tweeks would make no difference. So technically i was not expecting something different than what I observed.

So how would that bias be any different if you employed something more valuable to you than "anecdotal evidence", namely a blind test to try to eliminate biases?

Quote:
So since we simply can't know, I guess the answer is obviously not to believe anything anyone says. Ever.

Why does it have to be such a black and white thing? How about we accpet peoples' perceptions as their perceptions. Why do we have to decide if they are anything more?

Quote:
Which also has the added benefit of giving us free admission into the Ultimate Skeptics Klub. Less luckier guys have to pay for this sort of thing, you know.

A real skeptic understands the nature of anecdotal evidence. Real skeptics understand and accept the lack of certitude in the human experience.

Quote:

Quote:
are you still interested in reading up on the world of "possibile explinations" when all one has is anecdotal evidence?

Quote:
I don't know.... is that going to explain to me how home freezing a CD can cause it to sound distorted, and how this distortion can account for new information heard? No, I'm probably better off without it. I'm sure I can think of many more "possible explanations" for such observed phenomenon than any of those articles you read. ie. Martians on a day trip, a government-produced virus, the earth getting too close to the sun, something to do with Mexicans, the thirteen cents theory, unfettered microwaves, stale air, and a possible explanation for just about anything anyone can say that anyone else can be immediately skeptical of: eating too many cheese doodles. None of which have anything to do with the observed phenomenon, and are all just mental excercises that are about as relevant to progress in audio as is the price of tea in China.

OK so just to be clear. You are not interested in reading it. So you won't complain about not having it in the future then will you?

Quote:

Quote:
It is quite open to speculation. But I must clarify. I was quite skeptical that anything would happen. I think it is fair to say I was very *consciously* biased that the tweeks would make no difference. So technically i was not expecting something different than what I observed.

So how would that bias be any different if you employed something more valuable to you than "anecdotal evidence", namely a blind test to try to eliminate biases?

The idea of doing blind comparisons first isn't to eliminate the bias but to shape it. IMO if I heard an effect under blind conditions my "no difference" bias would probably be profoundly affected. It would also be sympathetic to the actual sound. IMO that leads to greater long term enjoyment.