You are here

Log in or register to post comments
michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I now wonder how anyone can look at the machina dynamica website and think that it is anything but s spoof.

I'll let KBK answer that, because I think he put it best, even though his explanation, along with most of what people keep trying to explain to you, went right over your head:

KBK wrote: Identifying high end audio designers with people who are killers and homicidal maniacs**, simply illustrates your personal lack of capacity for discernment or correct thought that is required for balanced thinking.

To venture into similar labeling as are you, Scott, I'd venture that there is a strong possibility that you secure your place in the world (internal mental stability) via linear thinking & negative labeling as form of externalized control. ie, negative labeled projection as a form of world stabilization and control.

This is not 'good human' behavior, rather -- it is the opposite. To me, this is very sick. Often, (OK, all I've seen so far) this appears to be the center of your arguments. I am sorry Scott, but after many viewings of your posts in argumentative subjects, this is always what seems to be coming up on the forum, with regard to your corner of expression.

(**let's add: "and satirists")

Xenophanes
Xenophanes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 7 2005 - 2:48pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

JJ, guys like you often forget many of the things they know and think of as very very basic that are not common knowledge. I have tried the tact of explaining to biblical literalists how we know the universe is much older than 6K and change by things as simple as starlight( I know the whole evolution thing is very sensitive "I didn't evolve from no munky!") I explain how we use paralax to triangulate the distance from the earth to the nearest stars as the earth travels around the sun. I explain how we have determined the material content of stars by the energy level of the spectrum of their radiation. I explain how we use these two bits of info to deduct the distance of other stars. I then explain how we know the speed of light is a constant. I then try to show how that and the known distance of stars shows the universe is far far older than they think. I usually then get the question "what is paralax?"

I agree it's not a very effective tack to take against creationists, taken alone. I also take them on on the actual meaning of the relevant biblical texts, using some of the best modern biblical scholarship. How did the ancient Hebrews picture the universe? How many creation stories are there in the Bible? (5 main ones) How many other creation texts are there in the Bible? (dozens) What is the cultural and political context of each one?

I often wonder how anyone can look at the grand canyon and believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old. at the same time I now wonder how anyone can look at the machina dynamica website and think that it is anything but s spoof.

It's a mystery.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

I often wonder how anyone can look at the grand canyon and believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old. at the same time I now wonder how anyone can look at the machina dynamica website and think that it is anything but s spoof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a mystery."

Gee, is it real or is it a spoof? Ah, sweet mystery of life.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Now there's a man who looks like he's seen a 6,000 year old something!

Either that or he's been on a forum with a bunch of audio objectivists and can't believe they want him to engage in yet another DBT thread.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 23 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Scott. Let me see if I can condense most of the thread down.

I had made two suggestions, two techniques which I think are worth trying, particularly (although not exclusively) by people involved in research and development of hearing aids.

1) Based on our work with Electrets (permanently polarised plastics), our work with magnets, our work with batteries, our work with different chemicals (some of them with a significant polarisation such as Fluorine which has high electronegativity), I suggested having another look at the effect of applying a demagnetiser to plastic discs. I asked "Could a temporary polarisation pattern be induced into (onto) the plastic material by being spun in an electromagnetic field ? Could applying a polarised device such as a magnet (or demagnetiser) alter that temporary polarisation sufficiently to alter the 'sound' ?" If it might turn out not be prior magnetisation but 'an effect on the actual plastic material', then I suggested that it might be worth experimenting with applying a demagnetiser to hearing aids to see (hear) if there are any changes in their sound.

I suggested that this is quite an easy, simple technique to try - no big deal, just easy enough to "suck it and see what happens" !! And, after all, it is a technique which numerous people have tried on some audio components and found it gave improvements in the sound for them !!

Let me now put it in context. In the real world. !!
In the world of audio (design and manufacture) if some engineers are told, (say), from someone with a good engineering reputation, that they have found that a certain fuse sounds better when inserted a particular way round, or that a particular cable sounds better when inserted a particular way round, other audio equipment design engineers will check that out, to see if there is anything in what is being described. They won't 'throw a wobbly', saying they don't have the time or the funds to organise complicated double blind trials etc. Etc. No, they just quietly and quickly check it out. Yes, they may do that in the secrecy of their own homes but if they find that they too can also hear what had been described, then they will get other engineers who they can rely on to also check it out !! Simply, easily, no big deal. They are doing such things constantly !!!!! They may never tell anyone else, may just go ahead and fit the fuse or the wire in the 'best' sounding direction at all times, without telling anyone else what they are doing !!!

But, Scott, you responded dismissively to my suggestion of what would be a simple, easy demagnetising trial by implying that if the effect of demagnetising was to do with something other than prior magnetisation "we would also have to dismiss a great deal of empirical evidence on the nature of plastics". NOT you saying, "Why not ? It might be worth trying." Oh no, that would mean agreeing that it MIGHT, at least, be worth trying !!

Researchers into hearing aids SHOULD really be no different to engineers in the audio industry, providing they knew, from people of substance, of good reputation in the audio community, of what was being experienced by quite a few people. Researchers COULD carry out simple initial tests, no big deal. They should also have, to hand, a group of people who use hearing aids and who are willing to be the 'guinea pigs' in research - to try out (listen to) what the researchers are working on. Initially, it should really be as easy as making a soup and getting the family to taste it and give their opinion !!

The point I am trying to make and HAVE BEEN trying to make all along is that it is NOT lack of time and NOT lack of funds which prevents the researchers trying such things !!!!!!!!!!!!! So, if it is not lack of time and not lack of funds, then what could it be ????

Also, such as the designers and engineers making audio equipment do not usually, initially, NEED an explanation as to why a fuse or a cable could sound better connected a particular way round, they can just check it out, simply and easily, to see if there is anything in what others are describing !! If they DO concur with other people's experiences, THEN they will look for an explanation, but initially, they usually don't need one.

2) Again, based on our work with Electrets (permanently polarised plastics), our work with magnets, our work with batteries, our work with different chemicals (some of them with a significant polarisation such as Fluorine which has high electronegativity), our extensive work with the freezing/slow defrost technique, the results of early blind trials on 'treating' hearing aid batteries, as well as numerous other people's experiences with cryogenically freezing just about everything and gaining improvements in the sound from so doing !!, I suggested that researchers into hearing aids should try the Simple and Easy technique of putting the hearing aid battery through the freezing/slow defrost process.

Your response, Scott, was :-
>>> "IOW I got better things to do when it comes to audio than freezing pictures of president Obama or my dog." <<<

NO ONE, to my knowledge has suggested 'freezing' pictures of president Obama or your dog !! But, you have to resort to mockery and deflection tactics, don't you Scott.

In the middle of the following paragraph I asked a quite sensible question (which again followed from numerous other people's experiences using the freezing process in audio):-

>>> "You HAVE to ignore all the quite normal things which people have been doing don't you Scott ? Things such as freezing components (all manner of components), CDs, cables, and instead chose something which you can use as a 'dismissive' tactic. As a weapon. So that you don't have to think about the 'freezing' process !! I ask the question again. "Is THIS what the 'scientists' who could be working on such things as hearing aids are also thinking ?" That they won't even try the technique of freezing simple things because it sounds nonsensical, even though members of the audio industry are using that technique (and have been using it for quite some time) successfully ?" <<<

To which you answered (as though I had suggested something SO outrageous) :-.
>>> "God I hope so! While as hobbyists there is no harm done with playing with tweeks in the world of science such endeavours would be a tragic waste of time and funds." <<<

This was after I had described such a simple and easy experiment for researchers to try (the freezing/slow defrost of a hearing aid battery) - which would NOT require a "tragic waste of time and funds" - in fact it would not require ANY time or funds because the researchers would be going into their deep freezer to put the bag of frozen peas in and going into their deep freezer again to lift out the bag of frozen peas when they wanted to cook them, SO, just where would be this "tragic waste of time and funds" ??????????

You actually followed that simple and easy suggestion by an even more ridiculous and 'over the top' reaction. You obviously try the tactic of exaggeration in order to try to make me look foolish but, in fact, it just ends up with you looking foolish by using such tactics :-

>>> "Should they also try freezing photos of their dog? There is a near infinite number of possible options if we are going to ignore known mechanisms of cause and effect. where should one draw the line? Have you tried freezing photos? If it works then what? Freeze couch pillows? News articles? charcoal sketches? Dead animals? Ears of corn? maybe we should try leaving photos out in the sun? maybe we should tie them to the backs of domesticated animals? Where do you draw the line? you are hardly in a position to call any of these options absurd." <<<

WHY ??????????

Can't you cope with suggestions for experiments for people to try which are as simple and easy to do as making a sandwich ?? Many engineers involved in making products to do with SOUND are constantly trying this QUICKLY, trying that QUICKLY, to check to see if there is anything in the various things that people (people of good reputation and standing in the audio industry) are reporting !!

Many of OUR early and major discoveries came about some 28 years ago when we were checking out whether different wires could sound different and also checking out Ivor Teifenbrum's claim that any passive speakers which were present in the listening room had an adverse effect on the sound from the speakers which were actually being played.

Some 20 years ago such as Bob Stuart of Meridian and Julian Vereker of Naim were both checking out and confirming that some cables can be directional, after others had suggested such !

It is what some audio engineers are doing all the time. No big deal. No "tragic waste of time and funds". Just getting on with the job of making the best sounding equipment they can by quickly checking out this, by quickly checking out that. No vast time allotted, no vast funds allotted, just checking as quickly and as easily as they can what others are reporting - however unusual.

Now, Scott, you asked me some questions which I will try to answer in my next posting because I suspect that the answers will be lengthy.

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

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

The point I am trying to make and HAVE BEEN trying to make all along is that it is NOT lack of time and NOT lack of funds which prevents the researchers trying such things !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then go ahead and do the research May!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:
So, if it is not lack of time and not lack of funds, then what could it be ????

Perhaps you can't find a legitimate research scientist that thinks your "concepts" have any credibility? You tell me May? Why aren't research scientists lining up to explore the inner mechanisms of Belt tweeks? Oh Yeah, fear of ridicule. Tell you what May, find me a research scientist with actual published research that will testify to this fact and I will concede the point.


Quote:
2) Again, based on our work with Electrets (permanently polarised plastics), our work with magnets, our work with batteries, our work with different chemicals (some of them with a significant polarisation such as Fluorine which has high electronegativity), our extensive work with the freezing/slow defrost technique, the results of early blind trials on 'treating' hearing aid batteries, as well as numerous other people's experiences with cryogenically freezing just about everything and gaining improvements in the sound from so doing !!, I suggested that researchers into hearing aids should try the Simple and Easy technique of putting the hearing aid battery through the freezing/slow defrost process.

Your response, Scott, was :-
>>> "IOW I got better things to do when it comes to audio than freezing pictures of president Obama or my dog." <<<

NO ONE, to my knowledge has suggested 'freezing' pictures of president Obama or your dog !! But, you have to resort to mockery and deflection tactics, don't you Scott.

1. I am not researcher so when you "suggest" that researchers do some research on that you might want to direct that suggestion toward some actual research scientists.

2.There was no mockery or deflection tactics May. Over on audio Asylum and advocate of Peter Belt tweeks was also claiming that freezing pictures of various people actually made improvements in the sound of his system. I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP. Now how do I distinguish your claims from his claims? This leads to the issue of where to draw the line on all this experimentation. I_have_tried_some_Belt_tweeks. Didn't hear a difference. So why should I continue to try other such tweeks when I have a long list of things to do that actually have a positive track record in my experience?


Quote:
In the middle of the following paragraph I asked a quite sensible question (which again followed from numerous other people's experiences using the freezing process in audio):-

>>> "You HAVE to ignore all the quite normal things which people have been doing don't you Scott ? Things such as freezing components (all manner of components), CDs, cables, and instead chose something which you can use as a 'dismissive' tactic. As a weapon. So that you don't have to think about the 'freezing' process !! I ask the question again. "Is THIS what the 'scientists' who could be working on such things as hearing aids are also thinking ?" That they won't even try the technique of freezing simple things because it sounds nonsensical, even though members of the audio industry are using that technique (and have been using it for quite some time) successfully ?" <<<

To which you answered (as though I had suggested something SO outrageous) :-.
>>> "God I hope so! While as hobbyists there is no harm done with playing with tweeks in the world of science such endeavours would be a tragic waste of time and funds." <<<

I think you did propose something quite outrageous. But don't take my word for it May. You want scientists to do research on your discoveries contact them and see what they say.


Quote:
This was after I had described such a simple and easy experiment for researchers to try (the freezing/slow defrost of a hearing aid battery) - which would NOT require a "tragic waste of time and funds" - in fact it would not require ANY time or funds because the researchers would be going into their deep freezer to put the bag of frozen peas in and going into their deep freezer again to lift out the bag of frozen peas when they wanted to cook them, SO, just where would be this "tragic waste of time and funds" ??????????

Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science.


Quote:
You actually followed that simple and easy suggestion by an even more ridiculous and 'over the top' reaction. You obviously try the tactic of exaggeration in order to try to make me look foolish but, in fact, it just ends up with you looking foolish by using such tactics :-

No May. No exaggeration but I do find it ironic that *you* would be so quick to dismiss the "research" of one of your devoted customers. I suppose what they have done is outrageous while what you have done is ::cough:: normal.....


Quote:
>>> "Should they also try freezing photos of their dog? There is a near infinite number of possible options if we are going to ignore known mechanisms of cause and effect. where should one draw the line? Have you tried freezing photos? If it works then what? Freeze couch pillows? News articles? charcoal sketches? Dead animals? Ears of corn? maybe we should try leaving photos out in the sun? maybe we should tie them to the backs of domesticated animals? Where do you draw the line? you are hardly in a position to call any of these options absurd." <<<

WHY ??????????

Why not? Please tell me what is the difference between your claims and the claims about freezing photos improving the sound? And May, I didn't make that up. That was a real claim made by one of your customers.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"Please tell me what is the difference between your claims and the claims about freezing photos improving the sound? And May, I didn't make that up. That was a real claim made by one of your customers."

Ah, the old photos in the freezer ploy. The Strawman Argument of choice of the True Skeptic. Good move, Scott.

Just keep telling yourself, "This can't be happening!"

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Over on audio Asylum and advocate of Peter Belt tweeks was also claiming that freezing pictures of various people actually made improvements in the sound of his system. I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP. Now how do I distinguish your claims from his claims?

LOL, Scott, LOL. You don't even realize and have no desire to.

LOL!

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

I'd think you'd be selling something along these lines by now Geoff. How about it? A frozen picture of a clock sitting in pebbles? What a great tie in. maybe if you faxed it to customers it could be a an alternate teleportation tweek. C'mon Geoff, pearls......

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:


Quote:
Over on audio Asylum and advocate of Peter Belt tweeks was also claiming that freezing pictures of various people actually made improvements in the sound of his system. I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP. Now how do I distinguish your claims from his claims?

LOL, Scott, LOL. You don't even realize and have no desire to.

LOL!

OK how do *you* distinguish them being the bright boy that you are? While we are on that subject. Do you know how to distiguish Belt tweeks from machina dynamica tweeks?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 19 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"I'd think you'd be selling something along these lines by now Geoff. How about it? A frozen picture of a clock sitting in pebbles? What a great tie in. maybe if you faxed it to customers it could be a an alternate teleportation tweek. C'mon Geoff, pearls......"

Something better than the Teleportation Tweak?! You think these things grow on trees?

How would you test the photos in the freezer tweak? Speaking hypothetically of course.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
OK how do *you* distinguish them being the bright boy that you are? While we are on that subject. Do you know how to distiguish Belt tweeks from machina dynamica tweeks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KK3FlVC2w&feature=related

ROTFL, Scotty, ROTFL!

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 23 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "Over on audio Asylum and advocate of Peter Belt tweeks was also claiming that freezing pictures of various people actually made improvements in the sound of his system. I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP." <<<

I still cannot believe that one of our customers would suggest placing a photograph of a stranger in your's or anyone else's deep freezer !! I feel sure you have extrapolated from something they said to end up with your comment of "freezing pictures of president Obama"

I would repeat my sentence. I cannot believe that anyone has suggested 'freezing pictures of president Obama' to you!!

>>> "I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP." <<<

It would depend on how one defines "making things up" !! I repeat again. I cannot believe that anyone has suggested 'freezing pictures of president Obama' to you!!

If someone HAD suggested freezing a photograph of anyone OTHER than themselves, it would be to put a photograph of a close relative or a photograph of such as their listening buddy friend in the deep freezer IF EITHER OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE PRESENT IN THE ROOM LISTENING TO MUSIC WITH THEM !!!!!!!!

>>> "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science." <<<

Are you seriously telling everyone, Scott, that research scientists won't make ONE MOVE in their research work without following "these little things called protocols" ???????????

I have just watched a TV programme on the development of Penicillin. One of the senior scientists suggested that they try a certain technique to increase the yield of the fungus. Another colleague (an equally senior scientist) replied that "It could not work". Professor Florey said "Let's just try it". WOW. A REAL scientist saying "Let's just try it" !!! And you, Scott, are telling us that "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things." !!! I beg to differ !!

Are you really suggesting, Scott, that such as Professor Florey (or any other research scientist)
HAVE/HAD to do it the way you suggest or they would not be able to call their work 'science' ??? Eventually, yes, they WOULD have to "have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error" but I would strongly argue NOT at the very beginning. I would strongly argue that at the very beginning of any research they would TRY IT and see what happens !!!!!!!!!!

That is all I am asking people working with hearing aids to do. To TRY putting the hearing aid battery through the Simple and Easy freezing/slow defrost process and see (hear) if it gives an improvement in the sound versus using a non treated battery !! The first Blind trials which took place in the mid 1980s showed that over 75% of the people taking part in those trials registered an improvement in the sound from the hearing aids using a 'so treated' battery..

Many of the audio people in the UK know this story well. Unfortunately quite a number of them who DID seriously investigate this technique with batteries (all batteries including batteries used in hearing aids) were reluctant to publish (in the audio magazines) what they had found out (again for fear of being ridiculed or of having their professional reputation damaged) and many of them are now dead !! It was, after all, some 24 years ago !! So, unfortunately, I cannot now ask them to confirm.

You are so intent on 'having a go at me, Peter and P.W.B techniques (and now it seems Geoff Kait)' that you keep sidestepping my simple suggestion of an experiment to try with such as :-

>>> "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science." <<<

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

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 23 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

The questions you asked, Scott, are within the following paragraph.
.
>>> "So freezing an ear of corn for better sound is an extreme but putting a bag of pollished rocks in the room as an acoustic treatment is...what? What exactly is the difference between freezing a photo and a clever clock? That is an honest question. Just tell me the difference. try not to go on some irrelevant rant about me and my state of mind. Just tell me what makes the clever clock different from the freezing of the photo. How is one an extreme and not the other?" <<<

I will ignore the 'snide' bit about freezing an ear of corn. Both the freezing of an individual's photo and the clever little clock can give fairly similar improvements in the sound. So, one is no more extreme than the other. Geoff Kait's Clever Little Clock is based on a similar device we ourselves introduced some years back !! What YOU are not understanding, Scott, is just WHAT can have an effect on the 'sound information' we are all trying to resolve. You are not understanding it because you have obviously not YET experienced what so many others HAVE experienced.

We have been down that path (at considerable length) in 2008, in the Stereophile Chat Forum (Tweakers section), during the thread "Acoustic effects and size matters" where, because there are some devices which are regarded as TOO SMALL to be having any effect on the sound (acoustics), the same 'jousting' (to put it mildly) took place !!

What you refer to as "pebbles" and the 'clever clock' - and I might add to those, various crystals, tiny discs, tiny devices etc which come within the category of things in the room which cannot be 'having an effect on the audio signal', are so small that they cannot be 'having an effect on the acoustics of the room', but ARE affecting how we resolve the sound information in the room !!

Extracts from an article by Martin Colloms on the Harmonix (Combak room tuning devices) Stereophile August 1993.

>>> "In contrast to other room-acoustic control systems, no sound absorbing action is claimed for these devices. Combak intends the discs to be attached to major room surfaces, particularly the ceiling etc.
Despite my former positive experience with Combak tuning devices, I was skeptical that these discs could improve my listening room, which is known to have good, well-balanced acoustics. Evaluating component or loudspeaker improvements is my field of expertise.

The Harmonix Room Tuning Devices were fascinating in that they had zero effect on the primary room acoustics, the room's low-frequency model resonances, or the early reverberation pattern. Yet something WAS significantly different. The room seemed to allow a wider dynamic range, sounding strangely "quieter" and allowing for darker, deeper silences between musical notes. The decay structure of individual notes was cleaner and clearer, while, in many cases, the definition of note values was substantially improved.

Freeing the end points of notes from a previously unsuspected straight-jacket of blurring, muddle and obfuscation. Moreover, stereo focus and image uniformity were surprisingly improved. Some stereo image distortion that I had assumed to be due to reflections from local boundaries was lifted away.
Singing voice became more natural and articulate, with a surprising improvement in intimacy and presence. Complex material was definitely clearer, while massed choir showed better definition and clarity with less hardness and "clogging up". Even more remarkably, the music's dynamics, rhythm, and timing were significantly improved, to the extent that I just sat back and ignored the details, the subjective analysis and the attempt to describe how it works. You just relax and enjoy the greater swing in the music, the flow, the clarity, the easy dynamics and the control.
Another fascinating aspect is that the room tuning device treatment not only makes the Hi Fi sound better, it also improves the sound of the radio, TV, piano." <<<

****************
And, from another review of Harmonix Tuning Devices, (Stereophile July 1993) Martin comments
>>> "(Peter) Belt has experimented in many areas. With his "lead tubes" of over a decade ago, he was one of the first to demonstrate the different effects of different conductors on sound quality" <<<

****************

Quote from a reply which John Atkinson did to a reader's letter - Stereophile May 1994.

>>> "Barry Willis examines issues raised by the Shun Mook devices elsewhwre in this issue. The Shun Mook Mpingo discs divide me straight down the middle: I can't see why they have any effect; yet I have heard them make an improvement. But while I can think of no mechanism by which the Mpingo discs can work their magic, that doesn't mean any effect must be non-existent. I am not so arrogant as to suppose that the only things that can happen are those that I can imagine (Those who declare that, unless they can think of a mechanism for something happening, it can't happen, are presuming knowledge of all that was known, is known, and is still to be known. That they actually possess such knowledge seems unlikely). I will not allow my skepticism to interfere with the joy I get from my music." <<<

***************

Quote by Ethan 03/03/09 (during that long debate on the "Acoustic effects and size matters" thread) :-
>>> "Anyone who intentionally sticks a bunch of resonating objects in their listening room suffers from bad musical taste. Unrefined. Or at least uneducated." <<<

John Atkinson's posting in Stereophile Chat Forum 20/04/08:-

>>> "It was the Harmonix discs that I attached to my B&Ws, not the Shun Mooks. But this doesn't affect my conjecture.

I have still have them glued to the centers of the panels of my B&W Silver Signature speakers, where they made an audible improvement. Assuming they affect the speakers and not the listener's state of mind, I believe they shift (very slightly) the frequency and change the Q (very slightly) of panel resonances. Because, to be maximally excited, a resonance has to be stimulated with the number of cycles of a tone at its center frequency equal to the Q number, small changes like this can have a disproportional effect on sound quality.

The problem I have with Ethan's point of view is that it assumes that all is known and all is understood. In which there is no point in exposing oneself to new experiences. In which case, what is the point in doing anything at all?

I continue to be surprised by things I think should matter having little effect on what I perceive and by things my preconceptions would lead me to dismiss apparently having a significant effect (positive or negative) on perceived sound quality. So when presented with something that appears to defy logic or my understanding of how the world works, I try not to dismiss it, instead filing it away under "things to return to if there's time."

I do accept that some things affect the listener, not the soundwaves. But if they do so consistently for more than listener, surely that means the effect is "real"?" <<<

************************

Then there is the latest 'snippet' from Paul Messenger in the July 2009 issue of Stereophile:-

>>> "The intriguing bit was the placing in and removal from the room of various Acoustic Art treatments from Synergistic Research. A small voice in one ear warned me that this way lay madness, because BOTH ears were making it quite clear that these little steel cups placed in strategic locations were indeed affecting the sound " <<<

Paul's is just the latest in the saga of one reviewer after another reviewer, over decades, "hearing" tiny seemingly inconsequential devices, in the listening room, having an effect on the sound !!! KNOWING that they shouldn't be affecting the sound, but that they ARE !!!

Add to the list, one of the latest - the Schumann Resonance device. !!!

Most of them (if not all) giving identical descriptions of the improvements in the sound of :-

Notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements.

So, we have - to list just some - of the controversial techniques:-

P.W.B. Foils and Creams etc.
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Crystals and/or Brilliant pebbles.
Clever clocks.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.

I repeat, Scott, "You are not understanding it because you have not yet experienced what so many others HAVE experienced."

I can best use the description used by the famous scientist Michio Kaku where he refers to what he calls the Flatlanders (the people who live in the two dimensional world). When some of the Flatlanders suddenly find themselves in the world of three dimensions and they go back to the two dimensional world and try to tell the others what wonders they have seen, what they have experienced, the other Flatlanders just cannot understand what is being described to them.

When faced with all those descriptions of people's experiences Scott, you have the simplistic answer to them of - "Oh, it is bias at work".
Others say "Oh, can't you all understand, it is autosuggestion". Yet others say "It is the placebo effect, why don't you understand, there have been numerous studies showing how effective the placebo effect can be". Yet others dismiss people's experiences with "It is just people's imagination." Others in a similar way but with "It must be audio faith healing." Yet others with "It is effective marketing at work, people will believe anything because they want to."

And Buddha with his "People must be needing those techniques as a 'prop', as a 'talisman', as a 'ritual', or as a 'potion', as an 'elixir', as a 'remedial aid'" !!!!

So, let us have a look at what experiences we have in front of us to consider.
If such devices are not having an effect on the audio signal and are not having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room, then that means that there is information there, already in the room, which we are not resolving correctly - until we use ................whatever !! (choose one, more or all from my list).

Let me use my favourite technique of using letters of the alphabet to denote information - exactly as we do in algebra. We can use letters to denote information, providing we all understand what those letters mean!!
So, using the letters of the alphabet, we have presented into the room, by the loudspeakers, musical information ABC through to XYZ. Anyone who has done any room treatments at all will know that we are not resolving correctly all that information ABC through to XYZ - which is already in the room - because of the peaks and nulls of the acoustics of the room.
So, let us hypothetically consider that, prior to doing any room treatment, we were only correctly resolving information ABC + DEF + GHI. - the rest of the information was not being resolved correctly. After carrying out some room treatments (dealing with such as unwanted reflections from rear walls, side walls, ceiling and floor, corners etc) we can now resolve more of the information available in the room, correctly i.e we can now resolve further information + JKL. The people who have done and the people who advocate room treatments will, I am sure, agree with me up to this point - i.e that there has been information available, in the room, prior to doing room treatments, which we have not been able to resolve correctly.

Where I think Peter and I (and others) will part company with some of the 'room ACOUSTIC treatment' people is that they will believe that they are able (acoustically) to enable people to resolve all the rest of the information up to XYZ whereas, Peter and I and many others, because of our experiences with all the other previously listed techniques and devices, are aware that even AFTER the room ACOUSTIC treatments, there is STILL a wealth of unresolved information remaining - i.e there is still the remaining information MNO to XYZ not being resolved correctly. Hence the things I have listed - however weird they appear to be - being described as able to "give improvements in the sound" when applied !!!

THAT is the point where one should be starting to think !!!! Why ?? How ?? What is going on ??

The way the majority of the people describe the improvements they can hear fits well into a description of being able to resolve more of the information available !!

It is NOT as simple as "bias", Scott, it really isn't !!!!!!!!!!!
Nor is it as simple as "Sheesh, you folks will believe anything."
Nor is it as simple as "People needing such devices and techniques as 'Remedial aids'."
Nor it is as simple as "People being 'Unrefined. Or at least uneducated'."

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

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

>>> "Over on audio Asylum and advocate of Peter Belt tweeks was also claiming that freezing pictures of various people actually made improvements in the sound of his system. I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP." <<<

I still cannot believe that one of our customers would suggest placing a photograph of a stranger in your's or anyone else's deep freezer !! I feel sure you have extrapolated from something they said to end up with your comment of "freezing pictures of president Obama"

I would repeat my sentence. I cannot believe that anyone has suggested 'freezing pictures of president Obama' to you!!

OK let me get this straight. You are now saying that the claim is outrageous because the person in the photo is a stranger rather than someone familiar? Please fill me in on this one. Are you asserting that one can freeze a picture of someone familiar and this will manifest some physical change in the listening "envirement" so as to lead to an improvement in the sound heard from the system but the same assertion only with a photo of a stranger is absurd and outrageous and unbelievable?


Quote:
>>> "I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP." <<<

It would depend on how one defines "making things up" !! I repeat again. I cannot believe that anyone has suggested 'freezing pictures of president Obama' to you!!

I would suggest you read what I just asserted more carefully. When I actually told you what one of your customers claimed he did to improve the sound of his system I said photos of "various people." I don't remember exactly who was in his photos. I think he reported an improvement with a photo of himself but also reported improvements with photos of others as well. But seriously May, are you going to say the person in the photo is critical for this claim to be true or untrue?


Quote:
If someone HAD suggested freezing a photograph of anyone OTHER than themselves, it would be to put a photograph of a close relative or a photograph of such as their listening buddy friend in the deep freezer IF EITHER OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE PRESENT IN THE ROOM LISTENING TO MUSIC WITH THEM !!!!!!!!


Quote:
>>> "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science." <<<

Are you seriously telling everyone, Scott, that research scientists won't make ONE MOVE in their research work without following "these little things called protocols" ???????????

May what do you mean by "one move?" I'm sure they go to the bathroom just like anyone else when they go to work. But when it comes to acually_doing_the_work_of_the _research_itself? ***The_actual_implimentation_of_experiments*** Yup. That is what I am saying. Of course there is the occaisonal lazy or even dishonest person that doesn't adhere to the protocols but if they get caught they certainly don't get published and worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_control


Quote:
I have just watched a TV programme on the development of Penicillin. One of the senior scientists suggested that they try a certain technique to increase the yield of the fungus. Another colleague (an equally senior scientist) replied that "It could not work". Professor Florey said "Let's just try it". WOW. A REAL scientist saying "Let's just try it" !!! And you, Scott, are telling us that "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things." !!! I beg to differ !!

Are you suggesting that the effectiveness of penicillin has not endured the rigors of propper clinical trials because someone suggested that they "try" something May? What can I say? This demonstrates such a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method that it kind of ends the conversation almost. And you whined when I posted the wiki description of the scientific method. lets review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
You see there is no conflict with your example and the rigors of the protocols of the actual experiments. Of course scientists "try" things in constructing their experiements but they don't *JUST* try things. They always build in contorls to the actual experiments that reduce human error. There in lies the difference between what you do and what research scientists do and that is why it takes time and money.


Quote:
Are you really suggesting, Scott, that such as Professor Florey (or any other research scientist)
HAVE/HAD to do it the way you suggest or they would not be able to call their work 'science' ??? Eventually, yes, they WOULD have to "have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error" but I would strongly argue NOT at the very beginning. I would strongly argue that at the very beginning of any research they would TRY IT and see what happens !!!!!!!!!!

Where did I say otherwise May? But May, you've been at this for forty years and you are still "at the very begining?" What is stopping you from taking the next step? why not do the actual nuts and bolts of the research and construct some rigorously controlled tests of your "ideas?"


Quote:
That is all I am asking people working with hearing aids to do. To TRY putting the hearing aid battery through the Simple and Easy freezing/slow defrost process and see (hear) if it gives an improvement in the sound versus using a non treated battery !! The first Blind trials which took place in the mid 1980s showed that over 75% of the people taking part in those trials registered an improvement in the sound from the hearing aids using a 'so treated' battery..

So you are asking people to stop at the point where the evidence is purely anecdotal and worthless for the purposes of drawing any conclusions. Why stop there May? If it bothers you that your conclusions are unsupported why do you draw the line at the actual act of supporting your conclusions?


Quote:
Many of the audio people in the UK know this story well. Unfortunately quite a number of them who DID seriously investigate this technique with batteries (all batteries including batteries used in hearing aids) were reluctant to publish (in the audio magazines) what they had found out (again for fear of being ridiculed or of having their professional reputation damaged) and many of them are now dead !! It was, after all, some 24 years ago !! So, unfortunately, I cannot now ask them to confirm.

OK May. Bring us one such person who actually has been published as a research scientist that will actually testify to this assertion of yours that they have chosen not to publish scientifically valid research results relating to your work because of fear of ridicule.


Quote:
You are so intent on 'having a go at me, Peter and P.W.B techniques (and now it seems Geoff Kait)' that you keep sidestepping my simple suggestion of an experiment to try with such as :-

>>> "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science." <<<

Oh those pesky protocols of science. Why bother? I mean it's not like the absence of such protocols will lead to things like assertions that frozen photos of familiar people will wrought physical changes in the envirement of a listening room that will lead to improved sound but frozen pictures of strangers will do nothing. Have you fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you can't see the absurdity of this?

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 23 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "but the same assertion only with a photo of a stranger is absurd and outrageous and unbelievable?" <<<

I didn't say that the assertion with a photo of a stranger is absurd and outrageous and unbelievable. I would say that it is not effective !!!!!!!!!!!!!! And THAT is why someone on Audio Asylum, who might have been a customer of ours, would not have suggested using a stranger's photo !!!

It was YOU who introduced 'a photo of president Obama' into the discussion !! And, because you do not have any understanding is why you have extrapolated something from what someone said and continued in that vein with your misinformation:-

>>> "If it works then what? Freeze couch pillows? News articles? charcoal sketches? Dead animals? Ears of corn? maybe we should try leaving photos out in the sun? maybe we should tie them to the backs of domesticated animals?" <<<

We do not sell/market the freezing technique. We just described to people what we had discovered and said 'try it for yourself'. In exactly the same way as we discovered that tying a Reef knot (ONE Reef knot !!!) in a cable gives an improvement in the sound and told people about that technique !!! But, Scott, if YOU are not aware that there is some sort of odd and even rule which can occur and someone told you on Audio Asylum about our technique of tying a Reef knot in a cable and you tried tying even numbers of Reef Knots in ONE cable and found no improvement or found that the sound was worse, you could so easily spread misinformation again !!!! From not having a basic understanding of there being some peculiar odd and even rule !!!

>>> "Are you asserting that one can freeze a picture of someone familiar and this will manifest some physical change in the listening "envirement" so as to lead to an improvement in the sound heard from the system." <<<

READ what I said, Scott. The familiar person has to be in the same room, at the same time as the person listening !!!! It is something we discovered quite by chance.

It affects a change in the person whose photo is in the deep freezer, and we (human beings) are sensitive to (can 'pick up/sense/detect') the changed 'vibes' (for want of a better word) of that person in the room. The only two people (audio journalists) who I can think of quickly who have actually written about their experiences with this 'photo technique' is Carol and Dave Clark of audioMUSINGS.

I have lost count of who else is actually DOING that technique, all I know is they are all keeping silent about it !!! Which is hardly surprising when one can see just how much misinformation someone like you can spread !!

Dave Clark has referred to some of his experiences with Belt techniques in an article called "Audio Ramblings - Faith and Belief in Audio"
and it can be found at the link below
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue21/audioramblings1.htm

An Extract :-
>>> "Peter Belt is not about changing the sound coming from a system, but changing how the listener perceives or internalizes the sound. How the listener reacts or responds to the environment and/or "system" at a particular place and time

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
As I say, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Because, Scott, I give YOU the benefit of the doubt - that you know all this already !!!!

I think you're giving Scott waaaaaaaay too much credit here, May.

He appears to have far more bad information than he has good information. And he doesn't quite seem to know how to use either.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Something better than the Teleportation Tweak?! You think these things grow on trees?

Yes. DADA Trees

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
ROFL

Jan..why do you always jump in to politick for the fringe dwellers?? they do not need your help. hell, you hurt their case.

so much more pleasant when you are not actively posting...

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

do you and your husband have a tweak that will filter your posts and spit out that which is relevant? you and Jan Vigne have increased the forum's bandwidth needs....


Quote:

>>> "Over on audio Asylum and advocate of Peter Belt tweeks was also claiming that freezing pictures of various people actually made improvements in the sound of his system. I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP." <<<

I still cannot believe that one of our customers would suggest placing a photograph of a stranger in your's or anyone else's deep freezer !! I feel sure you have extrapolated from something they said to end up with your comment of "freezing pictures of president Obama"

I would repeat my sentence. I cannot believe that anyone has suggested 'freezing pictures of president Obama' to you!!

>>> "I_AM_NOT_MAKING_THIS_UP." <<<

It would depend on how one defines "making things up" !! I repeat again. I cannot believe that anyone has suggested 'freezing pictures of president Obama' to you!!

If someone HAD suggested freezing a photograph of anyone OTHER than themselves, it would be to put a photograph of a close relative or a photograph of such as their listening buddy friend in the deep freezer IF EITHER OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE PRESENT IN THE ROOM LISTENING TO MUSIC WITH THEM !!!!!!!!

>>> "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science." <<<

Are you seriously telling everyone, Scott, that research scientists won't make ONE MOVE in their research work without following "these little things called protocols" ???????????

I have just watched a TV programme on the development of Penicillin. One of the senior scientists suggested that they try a certain technique to increase the yield of the fungus. Another colleague (an equally senior scientist) replied that "It could not work". Professor Florey said "Let's just try it". WOW. A REAL scientist saying "Let's just try it" !!! And you, Scott, are telling us that "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things." !!! I beg to differ !!

Are you really suggesting, Scott, that such as Professor Florey (or any other research scientist)
HAVE/HAD to do it the way you suggest or they would not be able to call their work 'science' ??? Eventually, yes, they WOULD have to "have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error" but I would strongly argue NOT at the very beginning. I would strongly argue that at the very beginning of any research they would TRY IT and see what happens !!!!!!!!!!

That is all I am asking people working with hearing aids to do. To TRY putting the hearing aid battery through the Simple and Easy freezing/slow defrost process and see (hear) if it gives an improvement in the sound versus using a non treated battery !! The first Blind trials which took place in the mid 1980s showed that over 75% of the people taking part in those trials registered an improvement in the sound from the hearing aids using a 'so treated' battery..

Many of the audio people in the UK know this story well. Unfortunately quite a number of them who DID seriously investigate this technique with batteries (all batteries including batteries used in hearing aids) were reluctant to publish (in the audio magazines) what they had found out (again for fear of being ridiculed or of having their professional reputation damaged) and many of them are now dead !! It was, after all, some 24 years ago !! So, unfortunately, I cannot now ask them to confirm.

You are so intent on 'having a go at me, Peter and P.W.B techniques (and now it seems Geoff Kait)' that you keep sidestepping my simple suggestion of an experiment to try with such as :-

>>> "Um...that isn't how actual research scientists test things. They have these little things called protocols that raise the bar against human error. They kinda have to do it that way to call their work science." <<<

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

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

I have a filter for you, ncdrawl. It's called screw off, you f'ing asshole.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Jan, please control your temper.

Because this thread has gone on for so long, and because the September issue which includes Michael Lavorgna's edited essay will soon be available, I'm closing this thread. New discussion of ML's essay can continue in the September issue forum once I've opened it.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading