Sorry Geoff I do not understand the point of the question.
But if you mean what happens if the listener perceives an improvement or none with both the placebo/duplicate and wotsit and no measurement differences, then its fair to say there was no improvement.
If it turns out there is an improvement with both the placebo/duplicate and wotsit we have a cognition skew result.

My point that I think your now going to argue on semantic is this; there is no guarantee a listener will respond to any of what I outlined in previous post but you must have checks in place.
Therefore it is plausible and still acceptable for a listener to not perceive an improvement with both the placebo and the real product.
For that listener adding the products or a false product has no effect on them.
The next step could be argued you need a larger listener pool to validate the initial result/s.

What you really want for the product to be deemed a success is as follows;
- Preferential improvement with only the genuine product and not also placebo/duplicate, if both it is a fail for that listener.
- Both product and placebo/duplicate not improving preference over original room but maybe measurement differences are identified and then this may come down to sensitivity of the listener for the product effect.
- At least one listener who passes the above (so if it is a fail X more listeners are required to create a small but acceptable amount of listeners for the test).
- Aside from the listeners there are the measurement/modelling that also may provide insights and may show some effects, but ideally you need both measurement and modelling to align.

This is really oversimplifying it, but it is pretty obvious how using real product/duplicate-placebo/monitor listener/measurement and modelling all work together to provide accurate positive or negative test result.

You do understand also my point where without this you can have the argument cycle where the measurements do not change and yet the listener says they have an improvement if only using the real product?
Those against the product will state measurements prove a product fail is happening and improvement is psychoacoustic/cognition related, while others will state that we do not know yet how to measure everything and the product works because the listeners perceived an improvement.

If the test is done blind without using placebo/duplicates then again those supporting the product will argue it is an unfair listener situation because the listener is put into an awkward situation (blindfolded or whatever due to no placebo) possibly comparable to the ABX that nearly everyone fails.
Bear in mind regarding the placebo/duplicate test the listener is made aware that what they see added could be either a real or fake product, this then makes the listener more comfortable on a dbt/sbt and also balance out skewing we possibly would had seen otherwise for reasons mentioned.
mOFC can also be monitored to see if adding the products even with the listener aware of placebo is boosting a product expectation that would also skew results.

Again I am oversimplifying but the cycle of argument/caveat must be removed if this test is to have any true value.
Again this comes back to then using real product/duplicate-placebo/monitor listener/measurement and modelling all working together.

What would be your proposal to overcome the argumentative scenario?
Edit:
I just noticed you mentioning other products such as cables, can we please take that to a seperate thread or PM as it has no relevance to this specific test, unless you are looking to make a case on semantics and or process.
The unfortunate side effect is to draw attention away from the specifics associated with the actual test for the bowls that we were discussing recently.

Thanks
Orb

Quote:

Quote:
"The Belt devices do nothing for me. Perhaps I already perceive my environment as completely safe."

I think you have answered where you are in this discussion. I.e that you already perceive your environment as 'completely safe', as no problem, nothing to cause you to 'go under tension' !!

This is a reasonable explanation from your theories of the operation of Belt devices.

Additionally, to be fair, I only have experience with the suggested free/inexpensive tweaks and some of the foils. As you explain that the affects of the various devices are idiosyncratic, it is certainly possible that other Belt devices with which I have no experience would have an impact.

OTOH, I am one of those people that remains calm, even in emergencies. I teach race car driving (numerous high speed
crashes with students driving), fly aerobatic planes, etc. I happily speak in front of large groups, take exams, perform musically. It's hard to find something that even makes me nervous, much less concerned.

Quote:
What other technique or techniques (this time NOT a Belt technique) have YOU tried Elk, which was effective for YOU ? If you have found one (or more) which were effective then ask YOURSELF the question "Is the technique I (and others) have found an effective one which can be regarded as "of universal application based on my experiences" ?

I'm not sure these are techniques as you are using the term, but I have had great success with placing equipment on a good solid rack, and with Aurios vibration control devices. Both of these I would recommend others try.

The universality of these tweaks are a great question. Many theories are thrown around as to why and whether vibration control works. It may or may not work for others in their environment, but in my experience it appears to allows improve the sound.

I also found one set of speaker cables that I prefer over others. They happen to be of the huge, anaconda variety. Most others either sound the same or exhibit differences but are not "better." I think cables are very system dependent.

I would not readily recommend that people play much with wire - I find that overall the differences are not even vaguely worth the cost. I also accept that the differences I perceive may well be placebo - but as they are consistent for me I stick with them.

Quote:
Since the Belt items are not operating at the conscious level, the effect (on the subconscious) is inevitible. Since the "Belt mechanisms" are (primarily) associated with man's evolution, all human brains are affected by the Belt tweaks, whether they realize it or not. And they can't be blocked.

This makes sense only if one accepts, a priori, that the hypothesis is correct.

However, there is nothing from the standpoint of evolutionary biology that backs up this hypothesis of unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices.

I would be vastly more impressed if the argument was "they work, at least on some people, and we have absolutely no idea why."

What do you mean when you say "the "Belt mechanisms" are (primarily) associated with man's evolution?" What else are they associated with?

Quote:
For a DBT (let's say a very careful one, performed by an expert) when the result is No Difference, what does that really mean, if anything? I'm referring to tests of audio cables, amps, speakers, power cords, tweaks, etc.

It means that either there is in fact no difference, or any difference was not perceived by the subject group, or any difference is not perceivable.

There is always the difficulty of designing a DBT so that it is the device and not the subjects that are being tested. In audiophile testing, the subject must know, understand and be able to perceive minute differences.

Quote:
You display a remarkable ability to not understand what I am saying while proceeding to tell me what I am and what I am not saying in my posts. Not at all unlike B/Beck's ability to "know" what I am thinking.

I will readily admit that I often have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to express nor its relevance to the topic under discussion. I still attempt to engage you; I like to believe everyone can make a positive contribution if given a chance.

I find it unfortunate that with the myriad of opportunities you have to contribute to discussions of ideas, you insist on focusing on personalities and your unhappiness with others.

Please engage in the topics at hand. There are lots to choose from.

Quote:

Quote:
Since the Belt items are not operating at the conscious level, the effect (on the subconscious) is inevitible. Since the "Belt mechanisms" are (primarily) associated with man's evolution, all human brains are affected by the Belt tweaks, whether they realize it or not. And they can't be blocked.

This makes sense only if one accepts, a priori, that the hypothesis is correct.{/quote]

You know, there's a fine line between scepticism and _________. (fill in the blank)

Quote:
However, there is nothing from the standpoint of evolutionary biology that backs up this hypothesis of unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices.

Ah, so you consider yourself an expert on evolutionary biology? Fascinating.

Quote:
I would be vastly more impressed if the argument was "they work, at least on some people, and we have absolutely no idea why."

What would be vastly more impressive at all about that, pray tell, much less vastly more impressive? Because someone can't develop a theory that fits into your (I'm guessing here) limited experience/knowledge. Simply because you find an explanation outrageous or nonsensical doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. Note" If you have a better hypothesis, I would like to hear it, uh, I mean other than placebo effect.

Quote:
What do you mean when you say "the "Belt mechanisms" are (primarily) associated with man's evolution?" What else are they associated with?

Well, let's see, there's also morphic resonance (Sheldrake's theory of biological evolution, memory and information fields) and there's also mind-matter interaction.

Quote:
I find it unfortunate that with the myriad of opportunities you have to contribute to discussions of ideas, you insist on focusing on personalities and your unhappiness with others.

See? There you go again telling me what I am saying and thinking. It's like your innate bigotry towards unconventional thinking, you express it even when you try to say you have nothing against it. Just look at geoff's post above for proof! Give it a rest for godssake, Elk!

Quote:
Please engage in the topics at hand. There are lots to choose from.

OK, here's one of your's from another thread ...

Quote:
Sound is cool stuff.

Actually, I prefer mine with a dollop of warmth.

Quote:
Ah, so you consider yourself an expert on evolutionary biology? Fascinating.

Nope. Not personally.

However I am a board member of the National Center for Science Education and thus have ready access to many who are. I get to ask a lot of fascinating people neat questions.

Quote:
What would be vastly more impressive at all about that, pray tell, much less vastly more impressive?

Because it would be honest and based upon our knowledge of the world without relying upon supernatural forces.

Quote:
Because someone can't develop a theory that fits into your (I'm guessing here) limited experience/knowledge.

Why is it that when there is a disagreement so many rely upon negative inferences as to the other's knowledge, ego, ability to understand, intelligence, etc?

Quote:
Simply because you find an explanation outrageous or nonsensical doesn't necessarily mean it's not true.

Of course not, nor do I assert this to be the case.

Similarly, just making a claim does not make it true.

Quote:
If you have a better hypothesis, I would like to hear it, uh, I mean other than placebo effect.

I have yet to experience any positive affect from a Belt device or similar. Thus, I have nothing to explain other than to simply state they doen't work.

I don't deny that others have an experience of a positive effect. If it is worth to them the money paid or effort expended all is well.

As to why others have this experience, the best explanation remains placebo.

Quote:
Well, let's see, there's also morphic resonance (Sheldrake's theory of biological evolution, memory and information fields) and there's also mind-matter interaction.

I see. Not only are the laws of physics mere aspirational guidelines, we're making our way through the other sciences as well.

Jan, let it go.

Please contribute.

Quote:
However, there is nothing from the standpoint of evolutionary biology that backs up this hypothesis of unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices.

Does evolutionary biology cover the human reaction to petro-chemicals? They've only been around for the last hundred or so years. How about asbestos? It seems to be responsible for some rather severe reactions in humans no matter how advanced we have become. Even natural ingredients found in water suplies after the mining industry tops a mountain cause issues despite our evolution, no? So how do you suppose we as humans have evolved to protect ourself from, say, the microwave radiation that surrounds us virtually everywhere we go due to the emergence of modern communications systems? How about to the constant presence of non-organic materials in our environment? Isn't the transport of your digital player non-organic? When you opened the packaging do you remember the smell of plastic packaging? Why would that not affect your perception? Have you evolved that far beyond the rest of us? Have you evolved to the point you are not subconsciously aware of the electronic devices surrounding you? How abut that remote sitting on the arm of the chair alongside you?

Quote:
I would be vastly more impressed if the argument was "they work, at least on some people, and we have absolutely no idea why."

But haven't you for years now on this forum complained about "tweaks" that have no logical explanation? If you are not for an explanation per se, then I assume you do not support the repeated calls for measurements of the ART devices?

OK, Elk, you wanted me to discuss the topic at hand. I would appreciate if this time you did likewise and actually answered my questions. I tend to drift away from the topic when all the questions I ask get ignored by those individuals I am asking to explain.

How did you put it? "This is your chance"?

Quote:
Jan, let it go.

Please contribute.

You complain about personal attacks and then you turn around and personally attack me!!! WTF!!!

Elk, you're the one who brought the subject back up. How many times have I said, "Since you won't let this go ... "? Just stop with this BS of yours that only those you approve of are contributing, OK? And really, really try to follow what I say so you don't have to tell me what I am not saying. How can you be taken seriously when you repeat the same childish games over and over?

What is it you want me to say, Elk?

"Oooh, that's cool."

"Sound is cool."

"That's neat."

"Sound is neat."

"I like sound because it's neat and cool."

"That's neat and cool."

"I don't have to answer questions if I didn't think of them and that's cool - and neat!"

How's that, Elk?

I have engaged in the various threads here expecting you to behave as an adult and to have a reasonable discussion and it always ends with your resorting to this childish BS. If you came here to discuss audio, Elk, say so and answer my questions instead of always ignoring them. If you came here to play stupid games, just stop.

Now, answer my questions or just say you're not interested in discussing audio - that'd be neat!

Quote:

Quote:
Ah, so you consider yourself an expert on evolutionary biology? Fascinating.

Nope. Not personally.

However I am a board member of the National Center for Science Education and thus have ready access to many who are. I get to ask a lot of fascinating people neat questions.

Ha ha! So you're not an expert, you only pretend to be one.

Neat questions? I can't imagine, but if you say so.

Quote:

Quote:
What would be vastly more impressive at all about that, pray tell, much less vastly more impressive?

Because it would be honest and based upon our knowledge of the world without relying upon supernatural forces.

You do know what a strawman argument is, don't you? You know, like your statement above. Supernatural forces, hahahaha. Time to dig out the ol' Zen and the Art of Debunkery and familiarize yourself with the terminolgy if you wish to be a successful troll.

Quote:
Why is it that when there is a disagreement so many rely upon negative inferences as to the other's knowledge, ego, ability to understand, intelligence, etc?

Gosh, do ya think maybe it's because you're only pretending to have any relevant knowledge and steadfastly refuse to accept the explanation of those who obviously are in the position to know a helluva lot more than you do on the subject?

Quote:
I have yet to experience any positive affect from a Belt device or similar. Thus, I have nothing to explain other than to simply state they doen't work.

Gee, whiz, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I had high hopes for you, too. Ha Ha I think you mean they don't work for you. Let's not get too carried away.

Quote:
I don't deny that others have an experience of a positive effect.

Well that's mighty white of you.

Quote:
If it is worth to them the money paid or effort expended all is well.

That awful decent of ya. I'm sure we all appreciate it. Yuk, yuk

Quote:
As to why others have this experience, the best explanation remains placebo.

That's what all the trolls say. I was hoping for something more, uh, original from a Member of the Board.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, let's see, there's also morphic resonance (Sheldrake's theory of biological evolution, memory and information fields) and there's also mind-matter interaction.

I see. Not only are the laws of physics mere aspirational guidelines, we're making our way through the other sciences as well.

Ah, you're also an expert in the Laws of Physics? Surprise, surprise!

Let me guess, you're also an expert in ALL fields of science, right? Am I close?

Oh! Haha! I get it! Whoopdeedoo!

Quote:

Quote:

However, there is nothing from the standpoint of evolutionary biology that backs up this hypothesis of unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices.

Haha! Does evolutionary biology cover the human reaction to petro-chemicals? HooHoo! They've only been around for the last hundred or so years. How about asbestos? What a hoot! It seems to be responsible for some rather severe reactions in humans no matter how advanced we have become. Even natural ingredients found in water suplies after the mining industry tops a mountain cause issues despite our evolution, no? They're a riot! So how do you suppose we as humans have evolved to protect ourself from, say, the microwave radiation (Hahahaha) that surrounds us virtually everywhere we go due to the emergence of modern communications systems? How about to the constant presence of non-organic materials in our environment? Yukyuk! Isn't the transport of your digital player non-organic? When you opened the packaging do you remember the smell of plastic packaging? Why would that not affect your perception? Have you evolved that far beyond the rest of us? Just a joke! Have you evolved to the point you are not subconsciously aware of the electronic devices surrounding you? How abut that remote sitting on the arm of the chair alongside you? Hahahahaha!

Quote:
I would be vastly more impressed if the argument was "they work, at least on some people, and we have absolutely no idea why."

But haven't you for years now on this forum complained about "tweaks" that have no logical explanation? Yukyuk! If you are not for an explanation per se, then I assume you do not support the repeated calls for measurements of the ART devices? Haha!

OK, Elk, Haha, you wanted me to discuss the topic at hand. I would appreciate if this time you did likewise and actually answered my questions. I tend to drift away from the topic when all the questions I ask get ignored by those individuals I am asking to explain. Yuk, yuk yuk!

How did you put it? "This is your chance"? Really, no joke. Haha!

Quote:
Oh! Haha! I get it! Whoopdeedoo!

Tell it, sister! You go, girl!

Oh, brother, now May has swiped "evolution" to try to hide behind.

Utter bullshit.

Geoff, what are you bonafides as an expert on evolutionary biology?

Elk, when you see beltists run into their church and start screaming, "Troll, skeptic, Amazing Randi, etc..." you know they have tacitly surrendered.

The melt in intellectual daylight.

beltism is an invented pile of steaming dung that despreately grasps at legitimate terms in order to try and establish marketing credibility.

The Star Wars Force has more credibility than beltism. Apologies to George Lucas for mentioning his Firce in the same lowly context as May's "evolutionary force."

___________
___________

On the plus side, their "it's evolution!" line of crap fits nicely with evolution providing a diversity of responders; once again demonstrating that some people may require remediation to catch up with those who are genetically ahead of them. belt resonders might be like a deaf child getting a cohclear implant, of a hypertensive taking medication....the examples favoring remediation are almost endless.

Poor beltists, even their most fundamental claims cannot supercede the theory of remediation.

They can't even make shit up that fully supports their line of nonsense!

The beltist gang ....if there ever was one...

Quote:
Oh, brother, now May has swiped "evolution" to try to hide behind.

Utter bullshit.

Geoff, what are you bonafides as an expert on evolutionary biology?

Elk, when you see beltists run into their church and start screaming, "Troll, skeptic, Amazing Randi, etc..." you know they have tacitly surrendered.

The melt in intellectual daylight.

beltism is an invented pile of steaming dung that despreately grasps at legitimate terms in order to try and establish marketing credibility.

The Star Wars Force has more credibility than beltism. Apologies to George Lucas for mentioning his Firce in the same lowly context as May's "evolutionary force."

___________
___________

On the plus side, their "it's evolution!" line of crap fits nicely with evolution providing a diversity of responders; once again demonstrating that some people may require remediation to catch up with those who are genetically ahead of them. belt resonders might be like a deaf child getting a cohclear implant, of a hypertensive taking medication....the examples favoring remediation are almost endless.

Poor beltists, even their most fundamental claims cannot supercede the theory of remediation.

They can't even make shit up that fully supports their line of nonsense!

The beltist gang ....if there ever was one...

Better check you gun, pardner. I'm afraid someone has put blanks in it again.

That's your evolutionary biology bonafides, eh?

Perhaps it's time for the beltists to bastardize another credible field....

How about creating a new particle? Instead of a photon, you could sneak into quantum mechanics and create a "soundon?"

Then you could start quoting Max Planck.

Just substitute "soundon" and give it a dual nature and...presto! More crazy bullshit for you guys to appeal to!

Elk, I forgot "straw man." When they start mewling about "straw man," you've knocked them solidly.

Quote:
That's your evolutionary biology bonafides, eh?

Perhaps it's time for the beltists to bastardize another credible field....

How about creating a new particle? Instead of a photon, you could sneak into quantum mechanics and create a "soundon?"

Then you could start quoting Max Planck.

Just substitute "soundon" and give it a dual nature and...presto! More crazy bullshit for you guys to appeal to!

Elk, I forgot "straw man." When they start mewling about "straw man," you've knocked them solidly.

Have you been sitting on your face again?

So, those are your evolutionary bonafides, Geoff?

May has evoltuionary biology expertise?

I think you painted yourself and May into a corner by discounting Elk's ideas. If you wanna challenge him, then it's up to you to show you have better credentials.

Oh, no!

About biolology expertise (or not) I might be able to contribute to the matter, as I have received a small sample of electret creme and rainbow foil from May. In the coming weekend I will introduce these things in my system, and do a thorough test.

Just being curious Buddha: Have you ever tried some of the Belt tweaks? If yes, which? Would you be kind enough to try and explain why a possible disappointment over them not working has turned into obvious hostility towards May?

Now, don't believe I am on my knees because I have received free samples. I am just the type who gives people the benefit of the doubt, and try not to show hostility towards those in the other camp. As usual, I prefer to stay out of the fight. Still, I am curious about your motives.

Quote:
About biolology expertise (or not) I might be able to contribute to the matter, as I have received a small sample of electret creme and rainbow foil from May. In the coming weekend I will introduce these things in my system, and do a thorough test.

Just being curious Buddha: Have you ever tried some of the Belt tweaks? If yes, which?

Yes, in past years. I have experimented with them with audio buddies and run across them at shows. I go back to the first days of the 'clips to the curtain' and other tweaks.

More recently, with another audiophile here who has now decamped, we tried the 'freezer trick' and the 'message tricks.'

I have also auditioned belt tweaks as made by a different true believer I am friendly with.

Would you be kind enough to try and explain why a possible disappointment over them not working has turned into obvious hostility towards May?

My hostility is not that I do not believe some people may claim to hear this tricks work for them, it is the fallacious cloaking of herself with stolen legitimate terms and the claims of universality. It is charlatan style religion, no different than Scientology of the cult of your choice.

In May's world, Keld, if you do not hear the effects of her tweak, you have failed, not the tweak. That is pure, unadulterated tripe.

May's evasions include circular reasoning, an inability to produce data from claims of data generation, an obvious lack of any grasp of the scientific terms she bandies about, two-bit "suggestion" marketing, claims of universal non-existent forces, a lack of ability to look at her own claims and take the next step with regard to their implications, etc...

Now, don't believe I am on my knees because I have received free samples. I am just the type who gives people the benefit of the doubt, and try not to show hostility towards those in the other camp. As usual, I prefer to stay out of the fight. Still, I am curious about your motives.

My motives are to try to get beltists to think for themselves, to think clearly, to move from darkness into light, to stand up for truth, to illuminate the egocentric pop psychology elitism of May's cult claims, to open their eyes to possibilities other than their pope espouses, to fight the tyranny of May's faux universality, to oppose the acolytes' insistence on the infallibility of their cult beliefs, to stand up for the forums they pollute with the same jargon and parroting ad nauseum, to try and fight off the invasion of the brain snatchers, the pod thinkers, the un-illuminati. To ask them to differentiate themselves at some level from fake fakirs and shiftless shaman. To end the oppression of the Unblinking Universalist Church of beltism, an independently owned subisdiary of the heathen shrine of Sheldrakism. Or something like that.

Good luck with those tweaks! If they help, I will welcome you to what the rest of us have been enjoying!

Thanks for answering so fast and honest. At least you have made your points absolutely clear, and my respect for that.

Quote:

Quote:
About biolology expertise (or not) I might be able to contribute to the matter, as I have received a small sample of electret creme and rainbow foil from May. In the coming weekend I will introduce these things in my system, and do a thorough test.

Just being curious Buddha: Have you ever tried some of the Belt tweaks? If yes, which?

Yes, in past years. I have experimented with them with audio buddies and run across them at shows. I go back to the first days of the 'clips to the curtain' and other tweaks.

More recently, with another audiophile here who has now decamped, we tried the 'freezer trick' and the 'message tricks.'

I have also auditioned belt tweaks as made by a different true believer I am friendly with.

Would you be kind enough to try and explain why a possible disappointment over them not working has turned into obvious hostility towards May?

My hostility is not that I do not believe some people may claim to hear this tricks work for them, it is the fallacious cloaking of herself with stolen legitimate terms and the claims of universality. It is charlatan style religion, no different than Scientology of the cult of your choice.

In May's world, Keld, if you do not hear the effects of her tweak, you have failed, not the tweak. That is pure, unadulterated tripe.

May's evasions include circular reasoning, an inability to produce data from claims of data generation, an obvious lack of any grasp of the scientific terms she bandies about, two-bit "suggestion" marketing, claims of universal non-existent forces, a lack of ability to look at her own claims and take the next step with regard to their implications, etc...

Now, don't believe I am on my knees because I have received free samples. I am just the type who gives people the benefit of the doubt, and try not to show hostility towards those in the other camp. As usual, I prefer to stay out of the fight. Still, I am curious about your motives.

My motives are to try to get beltists to think for themselves, to think clearly, to move from darkness into light, to stand up for truth, to illuminate the egocentric pop psychology elitism of May's cult claims, to open their eyes to possibilities other than their pope espouses, to fight the tyranny of May's faux universality, to oppose the acolytes' insistence on the infallibility of their cult beliefs, to stand up for the forums they pollute with the same jargon and parroting ad nauseum, to try and fight off the invasion of the brain snatchers, the pod thinkers, the un-illuminati. To ask them to differentiate themselves at some level from fake fakirs and shiftless shaman. To end the oppression of the Unblinking Universalist Church of beltism, an independently owned subisdiary of the heathen shrine of Sheldrakism. Or something like that.

Good luck with those tweaks! If they help, I will welcome you to what the rest of us have been enjoying!

Better send over another exorcist. The problem is much more serious than we thought.

Quote:
" Oh, brother, now May has swiped "evolution" to try to hide behind.

Utter bullshit.

Geoff, what are you bonafides as an expert on evolutionary biology?

Elk, when you see beltists run into their church and start screaming, "Troll, skeptic, Amazing Randi, etc..." you know they have tacitly surrendered.

The melt in intellectual daylight.

beltism is an invented pile of steaming dung that despreately grasps at legitimate terms in order to try and establish marketing credibility.

The Star Wars Force has more credibility than beltism. Apologies to George Lucas for mentioning his Firce in the same lowly context as May's "evolutionary force."

___________
___________

On the plus side, their "it's evolution!" line of crap fits nicely with evolution providing a diversity of responders; once again demonstrating that some people may require remediation to catch up with those who are genetically ahead of them. belt resonders might be like a deaf child getting a cohclear implant, of a hypertensive taking medication....the examples favoring remediation are almost endless.

Poor beltists, even their most fundamental claims cannot supercede the theory of remediation.

They can't even make shit up that fully supports their line of nonsense!

The beltist gang ....if there ever was one..."

I didn't think you could surpass yourself with your attacks and mockery, but you really ARE pushing the boundaries now !!!!

I know you aim accusations of 'snake oil' at us but I think it is from your mouth where the actual venom is coming from !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
More recently, with another audiophile here who has now decamped, we tried the 'freezer trick' and the 'message tricks.'

I have also auditioned belt tweaks as made by a different true believer I am friendly with.

"Decamped"? "True believer"? This is sounding more like Glenn Beck than ever before. A "true believer" in what? Your religion?

Quote:
My hostility is ... blah, blah ... the next step with regard to their implications, etc...

Defender of all that is right, protector of the "small people". More like Beck, you didn't say why you have such vehement hostility towards May, you fabricated accusations for which you have no proof - we've already established that - then you pin your lies to May and claim you are the saviour of all who cannot see how evil she is.

Where's your chalkboard?

Quote:
My motives are to try to get beltists to think for themselves ...

Is that what's imprinted on your Glenn Beck fan club pin?

All of that and it simply boils down to, "I want people to believe me and not her." And I do mean

Quote:
"Because it would be honest and based upon our knowledge of the world without relying upon supernatural forces."

Why do you need to introduce the term "supernatural forces" into the discussion ????

Why can't the discussion be about "OUR present knowledge of the world" ????

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
"OTOH, I am one of those people that remains calm, even in emergencies. I teach race car driving (numerous high speed crashes with students driving), fly aerobatic planes, etc. I happily speak in front of large groups, take exams, perform musically. It's hard to find something that even makes me nervous, much less concerned."

Let me see if I can take this one small stage further.

Take the descriptions of the different circumstances you have outlined. I would accept when you say that you remain calm under those circumstances.
However, would you say that under those circumstances described you may be using more energy in achieving this 'calmness' in comparison to being in different circumstances - such as relaxing, on the beach, on holiday ?

I am not doubting that you may be calm under those circumstances described, I am suggesting that the 'calmness' you achieve will be 'at a cost' - more energy used then than at other times and in other circumstances!!

THIS is what I mean by evolution !! I am seriously suggesting that you cannot "buck" evolution !! You can cope, yes, and you can probably cope better than many others in certain circumstances, but again I ask - at what cost ?

Quote:
"Perhaps I already perceive my environment as completely safe."

Is it really that, Elk, that you can perceive the environments you described earlier as 'safe' or is it that they are NOT 'really' all that SAFE but you are attempting to 'cope' with them better than many other people ? There is really a large but subtle difference !!

Quote:
"I'm not sure these are techniques as you are using the term, but I have had great success with placing equipment on a good solid rack, and with Aurios vibration control devices. Both of these I would recommend others try.

The universality of these tweaks are a great question. Many theories are thrown around as to why and whether vibration control works. It may or may not work for others in their environment, but in my experience it appears to allows improve the sound."

Yes, I WAS meaning such techniques. I was expecting you would give exactly the answer you did. You answered "The universality of these tweaks are a great question".

In other words, one can NEVER declare that ANY 'tweak' would be UNIVERSAL. And, so that is why I challenged your earlier question to ME.

Quote:
"does not answer the question I asked of May - one of universal application based upon her experiences and research."

I repeat. YOU answered "The universality of these tweaks are a great question", meaning that one can never declare something UNIVERSAL. So, if that is the case, then why ask ME that same question, when the answer is obvious ??

Let me take it out of audio and look in another direction for the moment in order for me to explain what I mean by "in my opinion you cannot "buck" evolution".

Let us first look at Concept No. 1 - Temperature.

Concept No. 1.

The human body is programmed, by evolution, to read/sense the temperature of it's environment every millisecond, of every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of it's life. To compare each millisecond 'reading' with the reading taken the millisecond before and with the reading taken the millisecond before that in order for it to maintain a constant body temperature of 37 degrees C.

That the body already has to have a reference memory within it of that temperature of 37 C in order for it to know what actual temperature it has to keep maintaining !!

That this is happening completely automatically, whether you are aware of it doing so or whether you want it to or not !!

What I suggest is that if the temperature of the body's environment changes (say hypothetically) one point (up or down) then (say hypothetically) the body has to use one point of energy to do what it is programmed to do.
If the temperature of it's environment changes (say) 10 points (up or down) then (say) the body has to use 10 points of energy to do what it is programmed to do.

Now, Elk, looking at Concept 1, can you go along with that concept or not ? Have you your OWN opinion, or do you need to consult the 'experts' you say you have access to (your quote below) before you can answer my question ?

Quote:
"Ah, so you consider yourself an expert on evolutionary biology? Fascinating.

Nope. Not personally.

However I am a board member of the National Center for Science Education and thus have ready access to many who are. I get to ask a lot of fascinating people neat questions."

You and I would need to have some common understanding (some common denominator) before we can go much further.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
Tell it, sister! You go, girl!

OK! rt bak at U, grl! ths is fn! R U werng yr pnk skrt to scul? wht fn!

Quote:
Isn't the transport of your digital player non-organic? When you opened the packaging do you remember the smell of plastic packaging? Why would that not affect your perception? Have you evolved that far beyond the rest of us? Have you evolved to the point you are not subconsciously aware of the electronic devices surrounding you?

A CD transport and plastic packaging are organic; plastics are from oil. Both oil and plastics are by definition organic.

Keep in mind however that my criticism is of the Belt theory that their devices work because they sooth unconscious evolutionarily created fears by unsensed devices placed in the environment.

There is nothing in the science of evolution that supports this hypothesis. It is created from whole cloth.

For example, what "unconscious evolutionarily created fears" do we have? Of what? How were they selectivly favored in evolutionary terms and for what benefit?

Babies/toddlers do not have inborn fears. Rather, they are fearless and will happily toddle off to meet a lion for lunch. Fears are consciously learned.

In addition, while one may have a spider phobia it is triggered by the knowledge of a spider in the room.

While there are technologically produced chemicals which can annoy some people, they are so new in evolutionary terms that humans have not evolved to address them. Moreoever, there needs to be a selective favoring of the trait of avoiding the chemicals. Neither of these pre-conditions for evolutionary change are met.

Quote:
But haven't you for years now on this forum complained about "tweaks" that have no logical explanation?

No, I have not "complained" about such tweaks. Rather I find it fascinating that such tweaks exist, that there are those that strongly believe they make significant improvements and I enjoy discussing them with those who are willing to do so. I have also repeatedly stated that if they work for the buyer and he feels they offer sufficient value for the money all is well.

For example, Eric has done a magnificent job explaining his experiences with the Acoustic ART products. I don't think he feels threatened or insulted by my questions and I have found his answers wonderful in understanding his experience. He also unflinchingly addressed the value question.

Quote:
If you are not for an explanation per se, then I assume you do not support the repeated calls for measurements of the ART devices?

I'd love a credible explanation of any type.

I would however also like to see measurments of the Acoustic ART devices. Synergistics claim they directly affect the physical sound in the room before they reach the ear drum. Synergistics claims these effects can be measured. I'd love to see such measurements by either the manufacturer or by others. In the meantime we have a few anecdotal reports of using the devices.

Quote:
OK, Elk, you wanted me to discuss the topic at hand. I would appreciate if this time you did likewise and actually answered my questions.

I happily do so when you ask questions on topic.

Similarly it would be great if you would take this opportunity to provide your thoughts as to how the Acoustic ART products function.

Quote:
Ha ha! So you're not an expert, you only pretend to be one.

I have never claimed to be an expert in evolutionary biology. My science background is primarily in organic chemistry and radiation biology - but I have a nice smattering of physics, acoustics, etc. as well.

However, through my work and avocations I have regular contact with people who are experts in evolutionary biology, anthropology, etc.. We regularly get together in national meetings.

I have discussed the Belt hypothesis of "unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices" and the potential impact of such devices on human perception. There is nothing to support such an idea.

Sorry.

If you have evidence of the contrary I, and others, would love to see it. In fact, I would enjoy bringing it to the attention of my colleagues.

Quote:
You do know what a strawman argument is, don't you? You know, like your statement above. Supernatural forces, hahahaha. Time to dig out the ol' Zen and the Art of Debunkery and familiarize yourself with the terminolgy if you wish to be a successful troll.[/quiote]
Of course I have knowledge of strawman arguments and readily recognize them.

A great example is your repeated reference to anyone that disagrees with you as a "troll."

Another is your continued assertion that those that disagree are without sufficient knowledge to discuss the topic. Etc.

All of these efforts are strawmen - a blatant and fruitless effort to discredit others' statements with ad hominem attacks - while ignoring the content of the statements.

Why is it that so many of those that seek acceptance of controversial tweaks must resort to personal disparagement?

Even though IMO I really do not see if any of this has part of the discussions (appreciate this is ongoing discussion between few).

But just to clarify the comment:

Quote:
Babies/toddlers do not have inborn fears. Rather, they are fearless and will happily toddle off to meet a lion for lunch. Fears are consciously learned.

Ages ago it was shown that toddlers do have inborn fears/warning alarms.
I remember a study done relating to children that have no warning instinct (dangerous as the concept of burning hot-cold/heights/etc do not exist for them), part of the study involved using glass as a bridge over a deep gap.
The toddlers would not crawl over the glass when they reached the gap, apart from those rare few with medical condition where danger really has no meaning to them.
For the rest the height held them back from crawling across the glass "bridge" even though they had not experienced falling from a height.

Of course you may decide to differentiate this instinct to what you define as fear, but TBH in that case you would need to explain how the mechanisms work differently for a baby's instinct.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
Now, don't believe I am on my knees because I have received free samples. I am just the type who gives people the benefit of the doubt, and try not to show hostility towards those in the other camp.

I find it very gracious that May offers free samples. I, like you, have experimented with the free tweaks and have requested samples. I tried them all. It's great fun to explore.

While they didn't do anything for me, others report success. It will be interesting to learn what you hear after you have had a chance to try the devices.

I also whole-heartedly agree that one should not be personally hostile nor disparage others. Discussing ideas and thoughts is fair game. Making fun of others and insulting their intelligence is not.

Quote:
However, would you say that under those circumstances described you may be using more energy in achieving this 'calmness' in comparison to being in different circumstances - such as relaxing, on the beach, on holiday ?

I have no sensation or perception of using any energy being calm. I find it to be my natural state, even in situations that most find exceedingly stressful. I am in no way tired by exposure to such situations.

There is nothing superior about this. Rather we are all different and respond differently to our conscious environment based upon who we are and out life experience.

Quote:
I am suggesting that the 'calmness' you achieve will be 'at a cost' - more energy used then than at other times and in other circumstances!!

THIS is what I mean by evolution !!

I understand the argument. I also readily accept that you believe this. However, there is nothing in evolutionary science to suggest that we live in a constant state of unconscious fear of unknown, unrealized, unperceived things, fear which can be resolved through unsensed soothing devices which operate through wholly unknown mechanisms.

I am not stating that it is impossible for Belt devices to work for others. I am only saying that the evolutionary explanation is without foundation.

Quote:
Is it really that, Elk, that you can perceive the environments you described earlier as 'safe' or is it that they are NOT 'really' all that SAFE but you are attempting to 'cope' with them better than many other people ? There is really a large but subtle difference !!

Most people fear flying upside down. I find it amusing.

I both perceive and know it is safe. The plane is made to do this. I have the training and experience to do it safely. This knowledge and experience allows me to know I am safe and to perceive it as safe. There is no "coping" involved. To the contrary, it's fun!

Others that fear flying, and who do not have my knowledge and experience find the concept alone terrifying.

This is not evolutionary theory. This is learned behavior.

Quote:
YOU answered "The universality of these tweaks are a great question", meaning that one can never declare something UNIVERSAL. So, if that is the case, then why ask ME that same question, when the answer is obvious ??

While I may find it obvious, this doesn't mean everybody does.

In fact, many have argued that interconnects sound different and if you can't hear the difference there is something wrong with you and/or your system. This is bunk. (I don't mean to suggest at all that you support such statements.)

Quote:
If the temperature of it's environment changes (say) 10 points (up or down) then (say) the body has to use 10 points of energy to do what it is programmed to do.

Yes, we possess an autonomic nervous system. It controls perspiration, respiration and the like. Basic physical processes, easily testable, repeatable and universal.

Quote:
Ages ago it was shown that toddlers do have inborn fears/warning alarms.
I remember a study done relating to children that have no warning instinct (dangerous as the concept of burning hot-cold/heights/etc do not exist for them), part of the study involved using glass as a bridge over a deep gap.

The glass bridge study was just a couple of years ago. There are a variety of arguments as to the cause of the crawling babies' hesitation.

One is the claim of instinct to avoid falling.

Another is that they don't yet understand that the glass will support them and, thus, the behavior is completely reasonable. Similarly, animals do they same until they have experience with the glass.

One problem with the "fear" theory is that the same young crawling baby will happily and unhesitatingly crawl off a table and fall to the floor. They will also crawl off a roof.

Thus, no parent trusts a baby's "inherent fears" to keep them from danger.

"I have discussed the Belt hypothesis of "unknown, unrealized, unperceived fears and their resolution through unsensed soothing devices" and the potential impact of such devices on human perception. There is nothing to support such an idea."

It's no wonder you haven't had much luck discussing Belt theories with your "collegues" as your interpretation is bass ackwards. The devices ARE sensed, they are not UNSENSED - that's the whole point. Quite hilarious when you think about, a Member of the Board, and all, you can't even articulate the very theory you enjoy bashing so much.

Quote:
It's no wonder you haven't had much luck discussing Belt theories with your "collegues" as your interpretation is bass ackwards. The devices ARE sensed, they are not UNSENSED - that's the whole point.

Your working too hard to parse the language.

In this context "unsensed" means consciously unaware and not sensed by our five senses.

The claim, as I understand it, is 1) they work even if the listener is unaware of their existence in the room, and 2)are "sensed" by the body in a way different from conventional sensation.

Quote:
Quite hilarious when you think about, a Member of the Board, and all, you can't even articulate the very theory you enjoy bashing so much.

Come on, Geoff. You're better than this.

Quote:

Quote:
It's no wonder you haven't had much luck discussing Belt theories with your "collegues" as your interpretation is bass ackwards. The devices ARE sensed, they are not UNSENSED - that's the whole point.

Your working too hard to parse the language.

In this context "unsensed" means consciously unaware and not sensed by our five senses.

>>>>>>>>I had a sixth sense you would say that.

The claim, as I understand it, is 1) they work even if the listener is unaware of their existence in the room, and 2)are "sensed" by the body in a way different from conventional sensation.

>>>>>>Nope. They are sensed by the mind. Is that too much parsing for you? Besides, there are lots of things the existence of which the listener doesn't have to be aware that work - e.g., new cables, CD treatments, recently cleaned connectors, new speaker binding posts, a quartz or tourmaline crystal placed inside the preamp, tube dampers, etc.

>>>>>>Are you familiar with the term, mind-matter interaction?

Quote:
Quite hilarious when you think about, a Member of the Board, and all, you can't even articulate the very theory you enjoy bashing so much.

Come on, Geoff. You're better than this.

>>>>>>Well, I haven't exactly been bowled over by your grasp of the Belt stuff yet. I hope you are better than that.

To move further on in this - difficult - debate, I think we need to pay attention to both the conscious and the unconscious mind.

Which part(-s) are involved in listening?
- to our favourite music?
- to unknown music?
- to music we basically don't like?
- in general?

Is the unconscious mind involved or not when we perceive music and sound? Does it make a difference?

Quote:

Quote:
Ages ago it was shown that toddlers do have inborn fears/warning alarms.
I remember a study done relating to children that have no warning instinct (dangerous as the concept of burning hot-cold/heights/etc do not exist for them), part of the study involved using glass as a bridge over a deep gap.

The glass bridge study was just a couple of years ago. There are a variety of arguments as to the cause of the crawling babies' hesitation.

One is the claim of instinct to avoid falling.

Another is that they don't yet understand that the glass will support them and, thus, the behavior is completely reasonable. Similarly, animals do they same until they have experience with the glass.

One problem with the "fear" theory is that the same young crawling baby will happily and unhesitatingly crawl off a table and fall to the floor. They will also crawl off a roof.

Thus, no parent trusts a baby's "inherent fears" to keep them from danger.

Hmm, the study I am thinking of was a long time ago, not as long ago as the original study in the 60s though
You sure the study you are thinking of involved the study of a rare condition where some people are immune to fear/instinctive warnings?

But more detail, the original study showed that after around 9months of age infants develop both the ability to perceive depth and combined with discrepancy of sitting on a solid object while also seeing the bottom some distance below.
Before 9months of age studies show an infant will happily crawl across it.
However those studies I am talking about will cross the shallow section but will not cross the deep part, apart from those with the medical condition or quite probably those who have not developed as mentioned (hence too young).
All of this was using visual cliff concept.

The problem though comes down to the argument/case comes down to several factors complicating any study.
Specifically; Learning depth perception, learning discrepancy of a see through "bridge" object to cross on (proved by some infants bashing it to see it is solid but discrepancy that seems nothing there), experiencing falling and whether this fits in at time of depth perception skills being learnt.

So these factors can create many diverse visual cliff studies.
The challenge is to investigate ingrained instinct would be using babies that have not fallen while also having developed the relevant perceptions.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
I had a sixth sense you would say that.

Quote:
Nope. They are sensed by the mind.

Everything is "sensed" in the mind.

As I understand May, the hypothesis is that the body has an unconscious physiological reaction to the devices to which the mind responds, affecting listener perception.

In the past, May analogized this to a plant's response to the presence of ethylene gas.

Is this incorrect?

We might be going into the "cellular memory" debate...???

Quote:

Quote:
I had a sixth sense you would say that.

Quote:
Nope. They are sensed by the mind.

Everything is "sensed" in the mind.

As I understand May, the hypothesis is that the body has an unconscious physiological reaction to the devices to which the mind responds, affecting listener perception.

In the past, May analogized this to a plant's response to the presence of ethylene gas.

Is this incorrect?

Let's ask May....

Quote:
But more detail, the original study showed that after around 9months of age infants develop both the ability to perceive depth and combined with discrepancy of sitting on a solid object while also seeing the bottom some distance below.

Before 9months of age studies show an infant will happily crawl across it.

However those studies I am talking about will cross the shallow section but will not cross the deep part, apart from those with the medical condition or quite probably those who have not developed as mentioned (hence too young).

This sounds much more interesting than what I am aware.

Amazing that this is learned at such a young age.

Is the "deep part" made to appear without a bottom - so that the infant is reacting to the unknown?

Quote:

Quote:
But more detail, the original study showed that after around 9months of age infants develop both the ability to perceive depth and combined with discrepancy of sitting on a solid object while also seeing the bottom some distance below.

Before 9months of age studies show an infant will happily crawl across it.

However those studies I am talking about will cross the shallow section but will not cross the deep part, apart from those with the medical condition or quite probably those who have not developed as mentioned (hence too young).

This sounds much more interesting than what I am aware.

Amazing that this is learned at such a young age.

Is the "deep part" made to appear without a bottom - so that the infant is reacting to the unknown?

No, its just a height scenario, in some of the studies the infant has a wide bridge with the illusion of half the width is deep and half shallow.
TBH from the technical aspect this is not the trickiest aspect, it is the factors I mentioned.

Anyway I have not followed all studies showing predisposed behaviour related to age but it does seem to exist.
Another example but one I have not read much on, there is also noise.
Kal is the best person on this subject TBH on this forum I would say.
Potential other example, but point focusing on age related predisposition just like some of the studies relating to fear of height (perception height and discrepancy as mentioned earlier).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-girls-are-primed-to-fear-spiders.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13607-genes-trigger-phobias-in-kids-and-teens.html

In a rush so sorry.
Cheers
Orb

Edit:
I really wish I could remember the name of the rare condition those who are immune to fear and pain (they can take physical damage without realising it is very bad for them and potentially lethal), that is where the test with comparable infants relating to this were really interesting IMO.

Quote:
A CD transport and plastic packaging are organic; plastics are from oil. Both oil and plastics are by definition organic.

I see ... as you say ...

Quote:
Your[sic] working too hard to parse the language.

I said "non-organic" not "inorganic". Plastics are "non-organic" in that they are not to be found in nature in their present state. The herbicide RoundUp is considered through a parsing of terms to be an "organic" compound by its manufacturers. Yet it is a compound which is unnatural to the microbacteria in the soil, does not break down in the soil and has been tied to health problems in humans when it enters the water supply through run off. So much so that many communities have banned its use in non-agricultural areas. Nicotine is a completely organic material, as is arsenic, yet both are completely harmful to humans even in small doses. Are we then in agreement that "organic" does not necessarily mean "natural" or "not harmful"?

If so, then we can go back to my original questions and not parse words to get to the answer you care to give.

Quote:
Does evolutionary biology cover the human reaction to petro-chemicals? They've only been around for the last hundred or so years. How about asbestos? It seems to be responsible for some rather severe reactions in humans no matter how advanced we have become. Even natural ingredients found in water suplies after the mining industry tops a mountain cause issues despite our evolution, no? So how do you suppose we as humans have evolved to protect ourself from, say, the microwave radiation that surrounds us virtually everywhere we go due to the emergence of modern communications systems? How about to the constant presence of non-organic materials in our environment? Isn't the transport of your digital player non-organic? When you opened the packaging do you remember the smell of plastic packaging? Why would that not affect your perception? Have you evolved that far beyond the rest of us? Have you evolved to the point you are not subconsciously aware of the electronic devices surrounding you? How about that remote sitting on the arm of the chair alongside you?

Quote:
Keep in mind however that my criticism is of the Belt theory that their devices work because they sooth unconscious evolutionarily created fears by unsensed devices placed in the environment.

I'm not the expert on the Belt system but I do believe you have once again misinterpreted how the system operates. "Fear" is not what the system works on per se. Are you afraid of 2.4gHz radiation? Are you afraid of bar codes? Are you afraid of certain colors? How about the "Compact Disc" emblem on a CD?

I do believe you're not understanding much about the Belt system.

Quote:
In addition, while one may have a spider phobia it is triggered by the knowledge of a spider in the room.

Not necessarily, if you are overly afraid of spiders you are always aware there "might" be at least one spider in the room. There doesn't have to be a real spider anywhere in the county. The reaction is the same no matter whether a spider exists or not.

Quote:
I have also repeatedly stated that if they work for the buyer and he feels they offer sufficient value for the money all is well.

Having read your posts over the last five years I would say to this "" You have an innate bias against anything you do not understand and it is present even when you are claiming to be open minded.

Quote:
I'd love a credible explanation of any type.

Oh, look! there's your bias at the door now!

Quote:
I would however also like to see measurments of the Acoustic ART devices. Synergistics claim they directly affect the physical sound in the room before they reach the ear drum. Synergistics claims these effects can be measured. I'd love to see such measurements by either the manufacturer or by others. In the meantime we have a few anecdotal reports of using the devices.

What exactly should we be measuring? Is it possible we don't yet know how or what to measure in a new system? I would think a "neat" question to ask your friends is whether thay can think of a new system that required new measurement techniques. What do you suppose their answer might be? How would you propose we measure for a reaction to the "Compact Disc" emblem?

Quote:
"I have no sensation or perception of using any energy being calm. I find it to be my natural state, even in situations that most find exceedingly stressful. I am in no way tired by exposure to such situations."

THAT is why I used the example of 'temperature'. You will have NO SENSATION either of using energy when your body attempts to maintain a constant body temperature - it will happen automatically. Yes, it will appear to be your natural state. THAT is what I am trying to point out. Things happen automatically. The point I am trying to make is that it all takes place without you being aware of it !!!

Quote:
"I understand the argument. I also readily accept that you believe this. However, there is nothing in evolutionary science to suggest that we live in a constant state of unconscious fear of unknown, unrealized, unperceived things, fear which can be resolved through unsensed soothing devices which operate through wholly unknown mechanisms."

I didn't say that "we live in a constant state of unconscious fear". I said (with Concept 1) that our body is CONSTANTLY reading/sensing the temperature of our environment. It is programmed to do so. If it senses NO change in the temperature of the environment, then there is no energy used and there is no 'stress or tension'. If it senses something changing, then it will act.

Quote:
"I am only saying that the evolutionary explanation is without foundation."

No, Elk, there is an evolutionary explanation.

Quote:
"Yes, we possess an autonomic nervous system. It controls perspiration, respiration and the like."

We are getting somewhere !!!!!!!!!! We have a YES !!!!! Can we go to Stage 2 i.e further into Concept 1 ?

Quote:
"As I understand May, the hypothesis is that the body has an unconscious physiological reaction to the devices to which the mind responds, affecting listener perception.

In the past, May analogized this to a plant's response to the presence of ethylene gas.

Is this incorrect?"

My understanding is somewhat different from the words you have used, although we are travelling the same road.

You have to distinguish between your "the body has an unconscious physiological reaction to the devices to which the mind responds, affecting listener perception." way of describing it and mine. I can go into more detail of my thinking but basically it is similar to the temperature model of Concept 1. Our devices are not reacting within a vacuum, within an inert environment. If you could SEE the modern environment, it would be like a cauldron, churning and bubbling away with noxious gases. I think, Elk, you are seeing the modern environment as a sea of tranquility !! That our devices are supposedly acting in your sea of tranquility and that is why you think it is all "the placebo effect".

Can I use Stage 2 to take you further ?

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Thanks for the additional info!

Quote:
I really wish I could remember the name of the rare condition those who are immune to fear and pain (they can take physical damage without realising it is very bad for them and potentially lethal), that is where the test with comparable infants relating to this were really interesting IMO.

I know there are genetic conditions that prevents neurons from properly firing, preventing the person from feeling pain, temperature, etc.

I am not aware of this causing inability to feel fear - although I can see a relation in that one would not necessarily learn from experience that a bee sting or hot stove causes damage - unless the injury was severe. There wouldn't be pain to warn.

Jan, if you meant that plastic is a man-made material you should have simply so said. "Nonorganic" does not equal manmade.

Now that you have clarified, I understand that you are referring to man-made materials. Your specific question related to plastic packaging: "Why would that not affect your perception?"

More importantly Why would it?

Is it your position that all man-made materials affect our perception of sound?

Quote:
I'm not the expert on the Belt system but I do believe you have once again misinterpreted how the system operates. "Fear" is not what the system works on per se.

May refers to "signing off on the environment as safe." That is, no concern, no fear, no worry regarding safety. That is, perceiving the environment as safe = no fear.

Quote:
Are you afraid of 2.4gHz radiation?

Nope. Nor is this related to Belt devices; this is Mr. Atkinsons's ad hoc creative hypothesis of possible operation of the Acoustic ART products, affecting microwaves.

Quote:
Are you afraid of bar codes? Are you afraid of certain colors? How about the "Compact Disc" emblem on a CD?

Nope. You?

Quote:
. . . if you are overly afraid of spiders you are always aware there "might" be at least one spider in the room. There doesn't have to be a real spider anywhere in the county. The reaction is the same no matter whether a spider exists or not.

Perhaps. I have no experience with anyone with such a highly developed pathological fear of anything that he exists in a constant state of anxiety of the merely possible. That is, "always aware" of what "might be."

This would be dreadful way to live.

Quote:
You have an innate bias against anything you do not understand and it is present even when you are claiming to be open minded.

I am completely comfortable with someone buying any tweak if they have an opportunity to try it and determine whether it works for them, and they find it is worth the money they spent.

While there is a claim I don't "understand", it's striking that no explanations are forthcoming as to what the Acoustic ART products do, how they work, how they affect the sound. Only Eric has offered reviews and observations and some idea of how he understands they work.

Others have productively offered their ideas of what may be happening. I complied a list as you may recall and others added to it. Good stuff.

So far, no one here understands. Thus, I have plenty of company.

OTOH, Eric's efforts have been wonderful. He describes his experience, their context, and how they impact his enjoyment of reproduced sound.

I have learned a lot from him. I also find exciting that his observations of what makes reproduced sound interesting are similar to mine and that the Acoustic ART products bring out these characteristics.

Quote:
What exactly should we be measuring? Is it possible we don't yet know how or what to measure in a new system?

Synergistics claims the Acoustic ART products directly affect the physical sound in the room. They also claimed these affects can be measured by conventional means, but failed. Thus, I would like to see them, or anyone else, take an additional shot at measuring the system.

Remember, Synergistics is not asserting that its products affect the listener, but rather the sound itself.

You have claimed you have a hypothesis as to how they work but we refuse to share. Odd as everyone else has weighed in.

Why not test the waters yourself? Add to the list!

Quote:
Yes, it will appear to be your natural state. THAT is what I am trying to point out. Things happen automatically. The point I am trying to make is that it all takes place without you being aware of it !!!

Then how can we conclude I am expending more energy to maintain a sense of calm? Perhaps it just is.

Quote:

Quote:
"Yes, we possess an autonomic nervous system. It controls perspiration, respiration and the like."

We are getting somewhere !!!!!!!!!! We have a YES !!!!! Can we go to Stage 2 i.e further into Concept 1 ?

You bet!

Quote:

Quote:
"As I understand May, the hypothesis is that the body has an unconscious physiological reaction to the devices to which the mind responds, affecting listener perception.

In the past, May analogized this to a plant's response to the presence of ethylene gas.

Is this incorrect?"

My understanding is somewhat different from the words you have used, although we are travelling the same road.

Excellent. Good to hear.

Quote:
You have to distinguish between your "the body has an unconscious physiological reaction to the devices to which the mind responds, affecting listener perception." way of describing it and mine.

Ok, I am happy to take a shot at making this distinction. I may not agree but I would like to comprehend and appreciate your ideas.

Quote:
Our devices are not reacting within a vacuum, within an inert environment. If you could SEE the modern environment, it would be like a cauldron, churning and bubbling away with noxious gases.

Perhaps. But would not any animal see its environment as scary? For example, all creatures in a natural state are surrounded by danger of not having enough to eat and of being eaten.

Do we need to restrict the environment to "modern" to ahve this? I bet our ancient ancestors were at least as stressed by their environment, probably more.

Or is this effect casued only by gases, not by other stressors?

Quote:
Jan, if you meant that plastic is a man-made material you should have simply so said. "Nonorganic" does not equal manmade.

I see .. as you say ...

Quote:
Your[sic] working too hard to parse the language.

Still. And you're telling me what I meant without understanding what I said. Still.

Arsenic is not a man made product, it is an element. Yet is is extremely harmful to humans. Nicotine is not "man made". It too is one of the most powerful of agents.

Quote:
Your specific question related to plastic packaging: "Why would that not affect your perception?"

More importantly Why would it?

You ignored a lot of other questions to get to the one you chose not to answer. My "specific" question had multiple parts, all of which you didn't care to answer. Try again, here they are - again ...

Quote:
Does evolutionary biology cover the human reaction to petro-chemicals? They've only been around for the last hundred or so years. How about asbestos? It seems to be responsible for some rather severe reactions in humans no matter how advanced we have become. Even natural ingredients found in water suplies after the mining industry tops a mountain cause issues despite our evolution, no? So how do you suppose we as humans have evolved to protect ourself from, say, the microwave radiation that surrounds us virtually everywhere we go due to the emergence of modern communications systems? How about to the constant presence of non-organic materials in our environment? Isn't the transport of your digital player non-organic? When you opened the packaging do you remember the smell of plastic packaging? Why would that not affect your perception? Have you evolved that far beyond the rest of us? Have you evolved to the point you are not subconsciously aware of the electronic devices surrounding you? How abut that remote sitting on the arm of the chair alongside you?

Quote:
Is it your position that all man-made materials affect our perception of sound?

Pasta is man made, does it affect my perception of sound? Does Sinatra sound better after a large plate of carbonara? Am I saying all man made products affect my preception of sound? What gave you that idea? Why is that what you want to tell me I said when you don't understand what I meant?

I believe you are now telling May what she thinks. That's a nasty habit you have of doing that. Why don't you ask May exactly what she meant? You are certain the Belt system doesn't have anything to do with 2.4gHz radiation but you claim not to know what the Belt system does or how it operates. You confuse me, Elk. You have a propensity for telling people what they think and what they mean while not undertanding at all what they are saying.

Quote:

Quote:
Are you afraid of bar codes? Are you afraid of certain colors? How about the "Compact Disc" emblem on a CD?

Nope. You?

I see you misinterpreted my questions. Care to try again?

Quote:
I have no experience with anyone with such a highly developed pathological fear of anything that he exists in a constant state of anxiety of the merely possible. That is, "always aware" of what "might be."

There's an easy political joke there but this isn't the time for it. So, if you have "no experience" with something, that means it isn't a valid point? You make up stuff all the time, like the spider thing you just made up trying to make a non-existent point about fear. Why do you get to be the one who makes stuff up?

Why do you feel Ted owes you an explanation of his design? I've covered this with DL and you can certainly see my arguments if you take the time. Assuming, that is, you didn't bother to read them the first time 'round. Ted owes you, or DL or B/Beck nothing other than a product which performs as suggested. To find out whether Ted's product performs as suggested you would have to audition them in person rather than talking about them on a forum. Haven't we been down this same road several times now?

Quote:
Synergistics claims the Acoustic ART products directly affect the physical sound in the room. They also claimed these affects can be measured by conventional means, but failed. Thus, I would like to see them, or anyone else, take an additional shot at measuring the system.

Gosh! you can do a whole page and not answer one question! Here they are again ...

Quote:
What exactly should we be measuring? Is it possible we don't yet know how or what to measure in a new system? I would think a "neat" question to ask your friends is whether thay can think of a new system that required new measurement techniques. What do you suppose their answer might be? How would you propose we measure for a reaction to the "Compact Disc" emblem?

Why not give it another try? As to my own ideas about the ART system? I've posted them several times on this forum, Elk, all you've managed is to glom on to suggestions from others while having none of your own to express. If you don't know anything, that's fine, it's not a sign of true ingorance but my ideas are here for you to see. You only need look and not harass me about their whereabouts.