Quote:
Found this quote poking around a web site that DUP had posted.

From Douglas Self -

"It has been universally recognised for many years in experimental psychology, particularly in experiments about perception, that people tend to perceive what they want to perceive. This is often called the 'experimenter expectancy' effect; it is more subtle and insidious than it sounds, and the history of science is littered with the wrecked careers of those who failed to guard against it. Such self-deception has most often occurred in fields like biology, where although the raw data may be numerical, there is no real mathematical theory to check it against.

When the only 'results' are vague subjective impressions, the danger is clearly much greater, no matter how absolute the integrity of the experimenter. Thus in psychological work great care is necessary in the use of impartial observers, double-blind techniques, and rigorous statistical tests for significance. The vast majority of Subjectivist writings wholly ignore these precautions, with predictable results. In a few cases properly controlled listening tests been done, and at the time of writing all have resulted in different amplifiers sounding indistinguishable. I believe the conclusion is inescapable that experimenter expectancy has played a dominant role in the growth of Subjectivism.

It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one. Electronics is rarely as simple as that. A major improvement is more likely to be linked with a new circuit topology or new type of semiconductor, than with mindlessly specifying more expensive components of the same type; cars do not go faster with platinum pistons."

It's something to think about. Does what we pay for an item influence our Perception of how good that item sounds?

That is undoubtedly a huge part of it, but I do not mean to dismiss listeners who may have a "keener" ear than the average civilian or even the average hobbyist.

Subjective testing can become more objective with dedicated practice.

For instance, there are wines that I can tell apart (blind, by the way, I don' fear that challenge) that a civilian could not typically discern. Yet, I can often repeatably and blindly make observations that are "accurate."

The same can occur in audio.

With many civilian friends that I help with shopping for a stereo, they can sit flummoxed by two apparently identical speakers, or whatever, and then, with a quick explanation of how something sounds and what to listen for, the lightbulb goes off and they can suddenly and easily tell the perviosly undistinguishable items apart.

There is definitely a learning curve for "subjective judgement" and, with dedicated self assessment, a good taster or good listener can become quite discerning, almost "objective" with regard to certain subjective experiences.

"Experimenter bias," peer pressure to hear something that others claim to hear, placebo effect - they all happen; but somewhere in there are the things a skilled and practised listener can honestly find.

My main problem with blind testing is that people always want it to be instantaneous. Plus, blinding is hard to do for many pieces of the equipment chain.

I think a MUCH better test is leisurely listening, "as long as it takes", to render a sonic opinion.

Then compare.

Then do it again.

A good listener or reviewer should do this once in a while, as a self-check.

If one only uses onself as a point of reference, one should have no problem with some system QA analysis once in a while. Fair?

I'm thinking the Furutech deMag would be a great place to start!

Connecting a capacitor across the mains supply tends to become more dangerous as the current being drawn approaches the current rating of what ever precedes it. In most cases this means that no more than a fuse will blow.
In the worst case, if the ripple current thro the capacitor is exceeded then the capacitor will overheat and blow its electrolyte or possibly catch fire.
If the cable connecting the equipment or behind the wall outlet plate does not have the RMS current carrying capacity then you may well have a fire on your hands.

What you should ask yourself when connecting a capacitor across the mains is why? I s it because there truly is a problem with high frequency interference? Or is it just to

I must respectably dissagree with portions of the author's article in several areas.

"Thus in psychological work great care is necessary in the use of impartial observers, double-blind techniques, and rigorous statistical tests for significance. The vast majority of Subjectivist writings wholly ignore these precautions, with predictable results. In a few cases properly controlled listening tests been done, and at the time of writing all have resulted in different amplifiers sounding indistinguishable. I believe the conclusion is inescapable that experimenter expectancy has played a dominant role in the growth of Subjectivism."

The subject of blind testing, esp dbt and abx has already been covered in previous posts but, again, if one considers just one aspect, comb filtering and head movements, one quickly comes to the conclusion that blind testing is totally worthless at best; heavily skewed toward the results of "no sonic difference".

"It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one. Electronics is rarely as simple as that."

Is this gent from another planet? I, and others, have tested many parts and components and the results most times has been the better looking, more expensive part or component has sounded worse, not better. Why? Because many manufacturers simply produce clones from other companies, maybe with a wrinkle or two included. Then simply put on a nice looking front.

However, I would say a simpler design, like no tone control stages, May sound better, depending on the design of that stage. When was the last time a stage was considered perfect? It does not exist. There are always compromises.

However, with that said, many consumers do purchase a component more on looks, convenience such as remote controls, and the wife acceptance factor etc, than sound quality. Some won't come out and state that except in private conversation, though.

Clifton,

The problem with trying to discuss this stuff with you is you do not play fair. You change the topic, avoid my direct questions, and intentionally obfuscate what I and others say. I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question, "If comb filtering is not the cause of people believing power cables can change the sound, then what is your better explanation?" I have asked at least three times in this thread now, and nobody has stepped up to the plate with anything. If you write nothing else to this thread, please at least address that.

> "Measure the amp's frequency response..." etc. Again, "Bring out number, weight, and measure in a year of dearth." <

This is a perfect example of your obfuscation.

> all of these fallacies were exposed as too narrow for reality 30 years ago <

Please show proof that two devices that measure the same do not sound the same. And please also explain how and why they can sound different if by all accounts audio is passed in exactly the same manner.

> Julian Hirsch's comment that any two amplifiers that measure the same must sound the same. We now know (yes, from science) the absurdity of that statement. <

Same as above. Please show proof.

> What, pray, are the "usual steps" that everyone follows to track down what is happening to account for differences? <

I guess you'd have to be an electronics engineer to understand that. Here's a hint - it involves test equipment and knowing how to use it. What cracks me up is when guys like you dismiss the very engineers and scientists who know how to do what you cannot - design audio gear that sounds very good.

> Your "comb filter" is either just a catch phrase to explain what you do not understand <

More empty words that say nothing except "I disagree with you strongly, but I can't articulate why."

> Why does a bassoon sound different from an English Horn? <

I know exactly why a bassoon and English horn sound different! Do you? Same for violins and cellos. Do you know why an A-440 sounds different on a violin than on a cello? Can you explain it?

--Ethan

Quote:
"Flying in the face of accepted thinking does not make something true. Most of the time, it's just the opposite!"

Excellent points Buddha. It amazes me that someone will point out one or two past mistakes by scientists, who are at least trying to learn the truth, and proclaim that all of science is thus worthless. Of course, they make those claims while drinking a refrigerated beer and talking on a cell phone while a CD plays in the background as they look over their eyeglasses to read the Chryon text crawl on the TV connected to their satellite dish.

But what the hell do scientists know?

Quote:
Just what do you mean "accepted thinking"?? By whom? Name these so called "accepted authorities".

That's easy! Put a group of people in a room and ask them to draw on paper the design for a working audio amplifier, or an algorithm for DSP code to decode an MP3 file, as proof they know what they hell they're talking about.

Quote:
if one considers just one aspect, comb filtering and head movements, one quickly comes to the conclusion that blind testing is totally worthless at best; heavily skewed toward the results of "no sonic difference".

This is a great example of trying to use one argument for two opposing points. If comb filtering makes blind testing as I promote useless, then why does it not also make sighted testing as you promote just as faulty? Can you not see the folly in your argument?

--Ethan

Having had the pleasure of listening to some of Mr. Winer's products...

http://blog.stereophile.com/he2006/060206rives/

I think he has some good ideas.

I have a question, though.

I've been in rooms with obvious standing waves, where moving my head makes for obvious changes.

With your thoughts on comb filtering, just how far apart (physically) do all your peaks and nulls get in this discussion of what we mostly hear with component changes. At some point, they seem like they would get "small enough" to become ambient - which is maybe your point?

There does seem to be a "can't step into the same listening room twice" feel to some of what you say, but I also "believe" that comb filtering happens.

It must be "Obtuse Friday," 'cause I just don't seem to have the right words to ask the question(s) I have in mind.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just can't wrap my head all the way around parts of what you are saying.

Then, to make my head spin more, I start trying to make a mental picture of the three dimensional space of my room with all the comb filtering going on in every direction, from every surface, and all those comb figures start looking like the aural equivalent of television static - which I then start to think may also be part of your point.

Anyway, I can vouch for Clifton. I kid him alot, but he is one of the coolest, finest audiophiles I've ever met. You guys would hit it off in person, I bet; and I'd sit back with a Reidel full of God's elixir and enjoy listening in.

Ya know, the very title of this thread would make a great workshop title for HE2007.

Can you imagine this thread done live?!

Your response is really quite poor.

"The problem with trying to discuss this stuff with you is you do not play fair. You change the topic, avoid my direct questions, and intentionally obfuscate what I and others say. I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question, "If comb filtering is not the cause of people believing power cables can change the sound, then what is your better explanation?" I have asked at least three times in this thread now, and nobody has stepped up to the plate with anything."

>>Not true Ethan. Maybe you just missed the post. I clearly stated that blind DBT subjective audio testing is actually no better, and probably worse than simply listening.

"all of these fallacies were exposed as too narrow for reality 30 years ago.

"Please show proof that two devices that measure the same do not sound the same."

>>You provide a "theory" and no proof, but want Clifton to provide "proof"? This is typical of what I have seen
over the years from the objectivists camp. Hypocriscy.

"And please also explain how and why they can sound different if by all accounts audio is passed in exactly the same manner."

>>By all accounts? Whose accounts? Why your accounts, right? Again this is very basic Ethan.

Take just one simple example, an electrolytic vs a polypropylene capacitor, of the same value.
If both are installed, the frequency response, distortion etc. will measure exactly the same.
Yet, the electrolytic capacitor has a DF of around 5%, DA is no better. That means not all the signal voltage ("spurious signal" if I may) is following the original source signal. In fact, the "spurious signal" presented is only around 26db down, so obviously audible. Yet the distortion measuring equipment will not measure it. And there are many in the midfi electronics one sees today.

Ok, let's discuss negative feedback. It lowers the overall distortion, yet RCA mentions that higher order harmonics will be generated. Both may have the same total HD, but the harmonic structure is different.

Then there is the time delay from input to output. A scope will not indicate any problems with global negative feedback. But there is still that delay of milliseconds that the feedback signal is delayed and mixed with the input signal. The higher the frequency, the worse the time delay affects things. Again RCA engineers discussed this decades ago, but you seem to be oblivious to it. But it looks good on the scope.

"I guess you'd have to be an electronics engineer to understand that. Here's a hint - it involves test equipment and knowing how to use it."

>>A scope, or meters really do not show much of anything but basic to moderate information.

-------------------
"Excellent points Buddha. It amazes me that someone will point out one or two past mistakes by scientists, who are at least trying to learn the truth, and proclaim that all of science is thus worthless. Of course, they make those claims while drinking a refrigerated beer and talking on a cell phone while a CD plays in the background as they look over their eyeglasses to read the Chryon text crawl on the TV connected to their satellite dish."

>>As seen above, you really do not understand medium and advanced electronics. So your sarcasm is useless.

"But what the hell do scientists know?"

>>Well, you just demonstrated that the "scientists" do not even understand that just comb filtering, alone, destroys DBT testing as being accurate. (You vehemently claim comb filtering is factual, right?)
And one must also consider WHO sponsors these DBT tests that these "scientists" perform?

"Just what do you mean "accepted thinking"?? By whom? Name these so called "accepted authorities".
"That's easy! Put a group of people in a room and ask them to draw on paper the design for a working audio amplifier, or an algorithm for DSP code to decode an MP3 file, as proof they know what they hell they're talking about."

>>What is this suppose to prove? It certainly does not prove subjective DBT testing is accurate. With all the poor sounding components out there, it does not even prove they know how to design a descent component.

"if one considers just one aspect, comb filtering and head movements, one quickly comes to the conclusion that blind testing is totally worthless at best; heavily skewed toward the results of "no sonic difference".
"This is a great example of trying to use one argument for two opposing points. If comb filtering makes blind testing as I promote useless, then why does it not also make sighted testing as you promote just as faulty? Can you not see the folly in your argument?"

>>I see you missed the point entirely. The point was to show that DBT testing is no more accurate than just listening. You were using DBT testing as the basis for stating that we are delusional, and that reports from consumers being consistent (that one cable sounded better or consistently different than another) was wrong, because DBT testing showed it so. I totally cut the foundation out from under your argument.

Here is some of your logic Ethan.

Ethan, page 23: "comb filtering. And of course self-delusion."....

"I'm sure y'all are nice people with only the best intentions. I really mean that. But contrary to Clark's claim that this stuff is not belief-based religion, I submit that is exactly what it is. Why else would obviously intelligent folks prefer to believe things that fly in the face of all that is known about the science of audio?"
Another example of what you were really talking about.

"Jeff,

I'd like to think I'm not delusional"

"Well, not intentionally anyway!"

So while you are making these assertions, it turns out you do not have a leg to stand on.

As someone who may now be accused of having a parochial view on what influences the sound of a system, I

Buddha,

> I've been in rooms with obvious standing waves, where moving my head makes for obvious changes. <

Yes, and this too is based entirely in comb filtering.

> just how far apart (physically) do all your peaks and nulls get <

It depends on the frequency in question, and how many competing reflections there are in the room. At higher frequencies you can measure a peak and a null fractions of an inch apart. I made that point in my article when I wrote:

Quote:
Peaks and deep nulls occur at predictable quarter-wavelength distances, and at higher frequencies it takes very little distance to go from a peak to a null. For example, at 7 KHz a quarter wavelength is less than half an inch!

> in this discussion of what we mostly hear with component changes. <

That's part of my point - aside from badly designed or broken components, they should sound identical. If one speaker wire really does sound different from another, then 1) one or both wires are defective, and 2) the difference can be easily measured as a change in frequency response or distortion.

> There does seem to be a "can't step into the same listening room twice" feel to some of what you say, but I also "believe" that comb filtering happens. <

Again, comb filtering is not a "belief" issue because I have proven it exists with hard data!

> I start trying to make a mental picture of the three dimensional space of my room with all the comb filtering going on in every direction, from every surface, and all those comb figures start looking like the aural equivalent of television static - which I then start to think may also be part of your point. <

Well, it's not static because static is random noise added to the signal, where comb filtering is a linear change in the level of certain frequencies. But this is easy enough to prove to yourself if you have an SPL meter or a microphone and tape recorder with a record level meter. Play a 1 KHz tone and put the microphone on a stand anywhere in the room. Now move the microphone a small amount in any direction and watch how the level varies. As you can change the frequency or mike position or both you will see the level go all over the map. The reason you don't notice this when playing music is because you have two ears and each ear receives a very different response.

> Anyway, I can vouch for Clifton. I kid him alot, but he is one of the coolest, finest audiophiles I've ever met. <

I have no reason to doubt you. I've argued vehemently about audio with nice people for years!

> Can you imagine this thread done live?! <

It already took place at last year's HES between Arny Krueger and John Atkinson.

--Ethan

Thnaks for the reply.

I have done that with a microphone in the past.

I think it's extremely interesting.

I was imprecise about that "believe" thing...the part where I said I believe in comb filtering was meant to mean that I believe it affects the sound of our gear. I saw your reply and though, "D'OH!" Of course it exists.

You know what would be a cool image is some sort of graphic of all the comb filtering happening in all the various dimensions in a room. That was the "looking like static" part I tried to describe. There's obviously alot going on.

I think of Arny mostly as a DBT zealot. Is there another dimension to him?

Okay, today we'll introduce Logical Fallacies into the discussion.

> Your response is really quite poor. <

Ad hominem.

Ethan wrote:

Quote:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question, "If comb filtering is not the cause of people believing power cables can change the sound, then what is your better explanation?" I have asked at least three times in this thread now, and nobody has stepped up to the plate with anything.

301 replied:

> I clearly stated that blind DBT subjective audio testing is actually no better, and probably worse than simply listening. <

Avoidance. It avoids the question I posed, instead merely repeating your position while offering no evidence or further explanation. So that's now four times my question has gone unanswered.

> You provide a "theory" and no proof <

Outright lie. I have proven that comb filtering changes the frequency response by huge amounts over very small distances in a room. Unless you're accusing me of fabricating those graphs, you have lost all credibility by continuing to claim I haven't proven comb filtering changes how we hear.

> This is typical of what I have seen over the years from the objectivists camp. Hypocriscy. <

Ad Hominem.

> By all accounts? Whose accounts? Why your accounts, right? <

Avoidance.

> Take just one simple example, an electrolytic vs a polypropylene capacitor, of the same value. <

Martin already did a fine job debunking that one.

> Then there is the time delay from input to output. <

Straw man. Because it's irrelevant. Where's the audible damage in a fixed time delay? Every CD or DVD or LP you play is "delayed" from the moment in time it was mixed.

> A scope will not indicate any problems with global negative feedback. <

Straw man. If an oscilloscope is not sensitive enough to measure low orders of distortion, then you should use a more appropriate tool such as a distortion analyzer.

> A scope, or meters really do not show much of anything but basic to moderate information. <

Outright lie, presumably based on ignorance. As Martin also explained, test gear can easily measure to much higher resolution than anyone can possibly hear.

> As seen above, you really do not understand medium and advanced electronics. So your sarcasm is useless. <

Ad hominem. Further, here's a number of electronic circuits I have designed and written about for audio magazines:

www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html#Audio%20Construction

You can see an entire 16-channel recording console I designed and built, plus a MiniMoog-style analog synthesizer and an automated 1/3 octave graphic equalizer here:

www.ethanwiner.com/music.html

So now it's your turn. Please post a link to something - anything! - proving your knowledge of audio circuit design or even basic audio principles.

> Well, you just demonstrated that the "scientists" do not even understand that just comb filtering, alone, destroys DBT testing as being accurate. (You vehemently claim comb filtering is factual, right?) <

Outright lie. I have proven beyond doubt that comb filtering exists using hard and repeatable data. So far you have proven nothing.

> And one must also consider WHO sponsors these DBT tests that these "scientists" perform? <

Straw man. I speak only for myself, but who sponsors a test does not necessarily invalidate the results.

> I see you missed the point entirely. The point was to show that DBT testing is no more accurate than just listening. <

You have proven no such thing. And the notion that DBT is no better than a sighted test defies all that is known by real scientists. The most interesting question here is why you are so intent on discrediting science and the scientific method.

--Ethan

More of my reply to Ethan.
Chapter Five. Numerous Tweaks.

Let me look at other 'tweaks'. Tweaks which journalists and reviewers have stated that "They improve the sound but that they (the journalists) have no idea how they are actually doing it."

I have already looked at the Shakti Stone. Let me look now at the Myrtle Wood Blocks. John Atkinson states that he himself uses these because they improve his sound but he has no idea how they work !!" The manufacturers advise that the Myrtle Wood Blocks should be used in threes. Why ? If you use three (as recommended) the sound improves, by improvement, this means that the three Myrtle Wood Blocks are 'reducing an adverse effect'. If you use four, back will come the adverse effect i.e. the sound will be perceived as worse. If you use five, the better sound will be back and if you use six, then the sound will be back being worse again. To get the better sound back you either have to remove the sixth block and go back to five or add a seventh block. Why does the sound change depending upon whether you use odd or even numbers of blocks ? If the Myrtle Wood Blocks are 'dealing with vibrations' what exactly is being affected - the audio signal travelling through the equipment ? or the vibrations affecting the acoustics ? How could having odd or even numbers of these blocks have such an effect in dealing with the audio signal or the acoustics ? The blocks are made of the SAME wood, made to the SAME 'magic' dimensions i.e. Golden-section ratio - so if the particular wood used is beneficial and the dimensions are beneficial, then, logically, the effect on the vibrations should be irrespective of whether there are odd numbers or even numbers used.

One experiment for you to try. Tie ONE Reef Knot in a cable - either an interconnect or an AC power cord. It must be a Reef Knot - not a Granny knot or any other knot. Listen. The sound will be perceived as better. Tie a second Reef Knot in the same cable and listen. The sound will be perceived as worse. You will not get the better sound back until you either tie a third Reef Knot in the same cable or remove the second Reef Knot and go back to having one Reef knot !! The odd and even rule again !!

One concept (one explanation) !! If there is an adverse energy pattern travelling along a cable (along the outside ???), the particular construction of a Reef Knot COULD be 'flipping it' (inverting it ??). Inverting it to an energy pattern which we (human beings) do not react adversely to - i.e we are OK with !!. But, adding a second Reef Knot inverts it back again to being adverse !! Adding a third Reef Knot inverts it yet again to being OK - and so on. The SAME cable, the SAME Reef knot construction but different results depending on whether it is an odd number or an even number !! Does the same principle apply with the Myrtle Wood Blocks ? Without the Myrtle Wood Blocks in position the energy pattern from the equipment is adverse. Apply three wood blocks and this adverse energy pattern is 'flipped' (inverted) to being OK. Add a fourth wood block and the energy pattern is 'flipped' back again to being adverse. And so on.

Now to the next 'tweak'. Marking the edge of a Compact Disc with a colour.

When we were developing our Cream, we knew that there was one problem. Once the Cream has been applied, that is it - it has done it's job. It cannot be removed. So you could not do before, after and back to before experiments with the Cream During the process of trying to find a technique which would allow people to do before, after and back to before experiments with the Cream, Peter discovered that colours were significant - different colours giving different sound !! Different materials liked specific colours. Confirming something he had come across three years previously whilst wiring up the 105 orthodynamic speaker drive units !!

The best colour for the edge of a CD is not Green but Purple/Violet. And, you don't have to mark the entire edge of the CD with the colour Purple, you only have to make a 1 centimetre mark to gain an improvement in the sound. But, you can make an identical mark with the Purple/Violet colour at the outer edge of a Vinyl record and at the outer edge of the plastic case of an audio tape and mark the end face of the end cap of a fuse to gain a similar improvement in the sound !! So, what is the explanation for gaining an improvement in the sound by colouring the edge of the CD, of the vinyl record, of the plastic case of an audio tape etc ?

How can you be 'having an effect on the audio signal' by doing so ? How can you be 'having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room' by doing so ? If you are not affecting either of those areas, what are you affecting ?

If the scientists are correct, then all the colours of the colour spectrum are absorbed by an object EXCEPT the one colour we can see. If the scientists are correct and each colour of the colour spectrum is of a different frequency, then all the frequencies of the colour spectrum are absorbed by an object EXCEPT the one frequency of the colour we can see. Which means that, quite probably, you do not need to have the sense of sight to be able to sense different effects from different colours !!

There were quite a few experiments conducted in the early 1990s regarding the different colours of the printing on CD labels and their effect on the sound !! As well as the work done by Peter, the next significant experimental work was carried out by Laszlo Darvas, the Editor of the Hungarian Hi Fi Magazine.

Then there are the different chemicals applied to CDs etc which are claimed to 'improve the sound' by doing so. Once you have heard a particular chemical improve the sound, when applied to a CD, then you will not be able to listen with the same pleasure to any other CD which has not been similarly 'treated'. What are these chemicals doing ?

We have had a Cream (for the past 20 years ) which we recommend should be applied to the LABEL side of a CD and to the LABELS of a vinyl record to give an improvement in the sound !! Nordost have a chemical which they recommend should be applied to the LABEL side of a CD and to the LABELS of a vinyl record to give an improvement in the sound !!

We recommend that our Cream should be applied to the outer insulation of cables - all cables - interconnects and AC power cables - to give an improvement in the sound. Nordost have a chemical which they recommend should be applied to the outer insulation of cables - all cables - interconnects and AC power cables - to give an improvement in the sound !!

What have we discovered ? What have Nordost discovered ? What have others discovered ? ?

Joining this list of Tweaks which people are not sure as to why they are effective is the Bedini Clarifier., the de-magnetisation of LPs (as recently described by Michael Fremer)., Dr. Chow's Cable Jacket., the lacquer used by Sonus Faber on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio')., the Harmonic Dots., and so on, and so on.

The cable controversy has been raging for over 25 years and now is being joined with the controversy over different AC power cords giving different sounds.

All these Tweaks have been telling the audio industry something for years !! They have been telling the audio industry that 'there is something going on which changes the 'sound' but which cannot be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories !!! AND, which cannot be measured !!!

Logically, if there WAS an explanation for all of these 'tweaks' from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories THERE WOULD BE NO CONTROVERSY !!! Everything would be understood !!

So, in answer to Ethan. I fully appreciate that you have discovered that there is a lot of information already in the room which we (human beings) are not resolving correctly. But, unfortunately, your comb filtering concept cannot explain 'treating' things in the room, things which are passive and stationary, with such things as chemicals, with colours etc and achieving improvements in the sound. But, again, your comb filtering concept cannot explain how you can 'treat' things in other rooms and gain improvements in the sound in the listening room !! Treatments such as tying a Reef Knot in the AC power cable of the washing machine, the refrigerator, the vacuum cleaner, the toaster, the food mixer, the electric kettle, the microwave, the electric iron and so on and gaining an improvement in the sound in the actual listening room with each Reef Knot !!!!!
In the late 1980s we did endless demonstrations for Retailers, and they did endless demonstrations for themselves, of such things as the following. Most Retailers had Quad Electrostatic speakers available for demonstration. But, when the Quads were not needed, they were usually kept outside the listening room, in a corridor within easy access for when required. We would tie a Reef Knot in the PASSIVE AC power cords of the Quads, listen to some music and hear an improvement in the sound in the separate listening room. We would then untie the Reef Knot and listen again. This time the sound would be perceived as worse !!! Explain that Ethan !!!

You see, Ethan, I am much further along the stepping stones of awareness than you have reached. I know that you can have your acoustic panels in exactly the same position and, without moving them, have the sound worse or better depending upon what chemical you apply to them. Or you can have the sound worse or better depending upon what colour you have them - and the measurements would in no way be any different !!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
You know what would be a cool image is some sort of graphic of all the comb filtering happening in all the various dimensions in a room.

There's a nice animation of the changes in a room at low frequencies on the Digital Video Essentials DVD. Here's another graphic that's not quite as pretty but shows the basic concept:

www.isvr.soton.ac.uk/SPCG/Tutorial/Tutorial/Tutorial_files/Web-standing-nature.htm

> I think of Arny mostly as a DBT zealot. Is there another dimension to him? <

Arny may not be a great "Internet arguer," but I think he's mostly correct on the science. For me that's what matters most, not who is nicer or more politically correct. I probably try harder than Arny to be nice, and I never intentionally lie or duck a question.

--Ethan

Quote:
I am much further along the stepping stones of awareness than you have reached.

Obviously!

--Ethan

Oh, man.

Quote:
More of my reply to Ethan.
Chapter Five. Numerous Tweaks.

"...Let me look now at the Myrtle Wood Blocks..." The manufacturers advise that the Myrtle Wood Blocks should be used in threes. Why ?
.
.
.
.

Because three objects are always co-planar. Just like a three legged stool doesn't "rock", but items with more legs will. It's geometry. We know the part about "three." We have mastered the "why of three."
.
.
.
.

If you use three (as recommended) the sound improves, by improvement, this means that the three Myrtle Wood Blocks are 'reducing an adverse effect'. If you use four, back will come the adverse effect i.e. the sound will be perceived as worse. If you use five, the better sound will be back and if you use six, then the sound will be back being worse again. To get the better sound back you either have to remove the sixth block and go back to five or add a seventh block. Why does the sound change depending upon whether you use odd or even numbers of blocks ? If the Myrtle Wood Blocks are 'dealing with vibrations' what exactly is being affected - the audio signal travelling through the equipment ? or the vibrations affecting the acoustics ? How could having odd or even numbers of these blocks have such an effect in dealing with the audio signal or the acoustics ? The blocks are made of the SAME wood, made to the SAME 'magic' dimensions i.e. Golden-section ratio - so if the particular wood used is beneficial and the dimensions are beneficial, then, logically, the effect on the vibrations should be irrespective of whether there are odd numbers or even numbers used.
.
.
.
.

I can go find a link about the basics. The number three works the way it does not by virtue of being a special number, a prime number, or a spiritual number among many that will work...three is the magic number, but for reasons that may be too mundane for some.

The stuff about "five" and "seven" and so on may make for some additional Schoolhouse Rock songs, but they will not "return you to 'good sound.'"
.
.
.
.

You see, Ethan, I am much further along the stepping stones of awareness than you have reached. I know that you can have your acoustic panels in exactly the same position and, without moving them, have the sound worse or better depending upon what chemical you apply to them. Or you can have the sound worse or better depending upon what colour you have them - and the measurements would in no way be any different !!
.
.
.
.

Holy cow! Did someone actually type that last part?

Are you channeling Tom Cruise?

Time for a nearly universally true rule of thumb:

When you hear someone claim to be "further along the stepping stones of awareness," you should do three things:

Cover your wallet.

Make sure that person isn't screwing your children.

Stop drinking whatever it is they are serving.

Holy cow.

.
.
.
Regards,
May Belt.

"As someone who may now be accused of having a parochial view on what influences the sound of a system, I

"Okay, today we'll introduce Logical Fallacies into the discussion.

> Your response is really quite poor. <

Ad hominem.

Ethan wrote:

"I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question, "If comb filtering is not the cause of people believing power cables can change the sound, then what is your better explanation?" I have asked at least three times in this thread now, and nobody has stepped up to the plate with anything."
301 replied:

> I clearly stated that blind DBT subjective audio testing is actually no better, and probably worse than simply listening. <

Avoidance. It avoids the question I posed, instead merely repeating your position while offering no evidence or further explanation. So that's now four times my question has gone unanswered.

>>I just answered it. Reread it again. Listening is just as good, if not better, than a subjective blind audio dbt.

> You provide a "theory" and no proof <

Outright lie. I have proven that comb filtering changes the frequency response by huge amounts over very small distances in a room. Unless you're accusing me of fabricating those graphs, you have lost all credibility by continuing to claim I haven't proven comb filtering changes how we hear.

>>Wrong again. I showed that DBT testing is inaccurate, nothing more. I even used your comb filtering info to show DBT audio testing as worthless.

> This is typical of what I have seen over the years from the objectivists camp. Hypocriscy. <

Ad Hominem.

>>That is the only response you can give? Typical.

> By all accounts? Whose accounts? Why your accounts, right? <

Avoidance.

>>I see you cannot answer that either. Surely you have info backing you, don't you? Or are you just "winging it" and hoping to get by.

> Take just one simple example, an electrolytic vs a polypropylene capacitor, of the same value. <

Martin already did a fine job debunking that one."

>>See my post above. I adequately explained things there, explaining what Martin wanted to learn..
See "Picking Capacitors" by Walter Jung and Richard Marsh. Actual measurements in the article. I just suggested the article again. Now are you going to read it or hide?

>>The acceptance of Martin's explanation indicates you do not understand anymore than Martin (no offense meant Martin); what a capacitor's role is in the power supply and audio stage, and how it affects the sound. This is quite revealing about you Ethan.

> Then there is the time delay from input to output. <

Straw man. Because it's irrelevant. Where's the audible damage in a fixed time delay? Every CD or DVD or LP you play is "delayed" from the moment in time it was mixed.

>>See my post above. Well, I cannot help you here if you still don't understand the problems of negative feedback in a component. You obviously don't understand basic to moderate electronics. I suggest reading a first year college electronics textbook "Semiconductor and Tube Electronics and introduction" by James G. Brazee.

> A scope or distortion analyzer will not indicate any problems with global negative feedback. <

Straw man. If an oscilloscope is not sensitive enough to measure low orders of distortion, then you should use a more appropriate tool such as a distortion analyzer.

>>Exactly, and Martin did not understand that. Plus the 'time delay' will probably not show up on the scope (depending on FR, db of feedback etc), or on the distortion analyzer. There are articles by Lynn Olson measuring what feedback does to the harmonic distortion situation.

> A scope, or meters really do not show much of anything but basic to moderate information. <

Outright lie, presumably based on ignorance. As Martin also explained, test gear can easily measure to much higher resolution than anyone can possibly hear."

>>Naughty Ethan. He only mentioned a spectrum analyzer, not everything like you just tried to foster on us. A spectrum analyzer will also not measure smear, spatial, and/or other micro dynamics etc.

> As seen above, you really do not understand medium and advanced electronics. So your sarcasm is useless. <

Ad hominem. Further, here's a number of electronic circuits I have designed and written about for audio magazines:

www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html#Audio%20Construction"

>>What am I suppose to be impressed about? Am I missing a page that shows actual audio designs, schematics, or what? If you have built something pertaining to High End Audio, how good is it? Anyone can build a basic stage. See DIY Audio. So what.

"You can see an entire 16-channel recording console I designed and built, plus a MiniMoog-style analog synthesizer and an automated 1/3 octave graphic equalizer here:"

>>So, how good is it? Might be good for colorizing music, but what about purity of sound? How is your console better than a typical 16 channel garbage consoles that are currently sold and used?? Does it use garbage OP amps, crappy sounding resistors and capacitors? You really haven't told us much.

Recording studios are one of the weak areas if one wants truly great sounding LPs/CDs. The fact that you understand only basic/moderate information in your previous posts speaks volumes. By the way, there are many helps, such as applications notes, for designing components, I suppose even consoles.

"So now it's your turn. Please post a link to something - anything! - proving your knowledge of audio circuit design or even basic audio principles."

>>Well, if you cannot understand my previous replies and suggested college approved written material above then I think all can see between you and me. I also have an extensive electronics backround, including a degree. I have also conversed, from time to time, with a former top secret government scientist and an engineer who designed and built products for NASA. Now there are some "real scientists". Is this enough?

> Well, you just demonstrated that the "scientists" do not even understand that just comb filtering, alone, destroys DBT testing as being accurate. (You vehemently claim comb filtering is factual, right?) <

Outright lie. I have proven beyond doubt that comb filtering exists using hard and repeatable data. So far you have proven nothing."

>>Well let's see who is lying and who is not Ethan. You stated comb filtering exists, and you are right. Component X and Y have the same specs, or slightly different specs. By your own conclusion, X component will not sound the same twice or more because of head movements. Y would also not sound the same twice or more because of comb filtering and head movements. You have already proven that with your comb filtering acoustic tests. So please do not lie about that in your next post.

So when doing a subjective blind audio dbt test, one would never hear X or Y the same twice or more because of mass comb filtering problem and head movements. Again, you have concluded that, so no lying. It is simple mathematical logic.

And Your own conclusion is that the results would be random. So by your own admission, choosing what you are hearing is random, a 50/50 proposition because you would not hear X or Y like the first time because of comb filtering and head movements. Again no lying Ethan.

So how do you know which is X and which is Y? A 50% change of getting it right by Your Own admission.

Every time a DBT test is performed, with same or similar specs., one has only a 50/50 chance of getting it right. That is from your own statements, so don't lie about it.

Out of 10 people doing 10 back and forths, that is 100 responses, 50 would get it right and 50 would get it wrong. Just the law of averages. Do the test again, and the same results, 50/50. Do the test a hundred times and get the same results. You will always get a false conclusion when testing similar Xs and Ys. This is the mathematical conclusion using your own data and statements.

So how does one know if there is indeed a sonic difference between X and Y? You don't. And unless there is some mass sonic, mass difference, (who knows, Ethan used 30% distortion) you never will because of the mass comb filter problem.

If this were not true, Ethan would have proudly produced and boasted, yelling at the top of his lungs that a "document" does exist concluding "fact" and showing proof. But notice he hasn't, and will not.
Instead Ethan can only use vague terms to disagree.

> And one must also consider WHO sponsors these DBT tests that these "scientists" perform? <

Straw man. I speak only for myself, but who sponsors a test does not necessarily invalidate the results."

>> One cannot serve two masters applies here. You either hold to the one or hold to the other. You cannot serve both.

> I see you missed the point entirely. The point was to show that DBT testing is no more accurate than just listening. <

"You have proven no such thing. And the notion that DBT is no better than a sighted test defies all that is known by real scientists. The most interesting question here is why you are so intent on discrediting science and the scientific method."

>>Notice Ethan has no reply other than to simply state "you have proven no such thing" and use the term "real scientists". You have no other recourse cause you have no info to provide. No tests, no nothing. you cannot even name the "real scientists".

You, yourself, have discredited the "scientific method". And it also goes back to who is sponsoring these "tests". Who is sponsoring these tests? What "real scientists" are performing them?

Here's a good piece on esoteric tweaks in general, 19 years old, and still as relevant as ever:

L'Affaire Belt, by J. Gordon Holt, Dec. 1987

Perhaps some of us need to give special permission to ourselves to listen.

If parts of my reply have come over somewhat arrogant, then I apologise. I did not mean it to read in that way. I am more used to trying to think things through logically and so my sentences will reflect that particular approach.
What I meant to imply is that there are different groups of people and one can recognise what group they are in and what state of awareness they are at by the sentences they use. Let me make myself clear.

Hypothetically and for demonstration purposes only.
Group One are the engineers, many of who think along the following lines and where many of them have not tried 'tweaking'.
They say that it is their job to extract as much of the information from the source (disc) as possible and to then nurse this information through the audio equipment. These engineers say to the 'tweakers' "You are wasting your time and energy 'tweaking' things, trying to get more information, until we (the engineers) have provided you with all the information we can get you from the source (disc)". These engineers say to 'room treatment' people "You are wasting your time and energy doing acoustic things around the room until we (the engineers) can get you as much information as possible through the audio equipment and into the actual room."

Group Two are the people who have tried various 'tweaks' (such as Jeff) and have gained surprising improvement in their sound (to quote from Jeff)
>>> "You try something, and suddenly, you're hearing music you thought you were familiar with in a new way. "Hey wait! That wasn't like that before! I can hear the wood body of the guitar now and that harmonic of the string over that note!" When I try something like an AC filter (or what have you) and hear and notice new things in music I thought I knew well, it makes me wonder how much more info can I extract?" <<<

Group Two people say to the engineers "Wait a minute, I have used the disc I have used for quite some time and I have used the equipment I have used for quite some time and I have just suddenly tried (a certain tweak !!) and heard a considerable improvement in the sound, meaning I have just heard additional information coming from the SAME disc and from the SAME equipment. So, no, contrary to what you (the engineers) believe, I am not wasting my time."

Group Two people are ahead of Group One people in awareness, because Group One people are just not aware of what 'tweaking' can achieve - or else they would not use the sentences they use !!!!!!

Group Three are the people who may have tried 'tweaks' as well but who have also been doing 'room treatments' and who are aware that there is a wealth of information ALREADY in the room, from the SAME disc, from the SAME equipment, but that there is quite a lot of this information, present in the room, which we (human beings) are not resolving correctly.

I think Ethan is one of Group Three - someone who is ahead of Group One in awareness because he knows that there has been far more information ALREADY extracted from the disc and ALREADY nursed through the equipment and ALREADY presented into the room and is ahead of Group Two in awareness because he knows that there is a wealth of information in the room which we are not resolving correctly.

Now we come to where I am - which is past Group Three.
Because I know that Ethan can take any of his acoustic panels and try different shapes - BUT different shapes which have IDENTICAL MEASUREMENTS !! I know that there will be one shape which sounds the best - even though it will not measure any different to the other shapes.
Because I know that he can try different materials for his acoustic panels - BUT different materials which have IDENTICAL MEASUREMENTS !! I know there will be one material which sounds the best - even though it will not measure any different to the other materials.
Because I know that he can try different colours of the same material - BUT different colours which will all have IDENTICAL MEASUREMENTS !! I know that there will be one colour which sounds the best - even though it will not measure any different to the other colours.

I know the sentences belonging to Group One because I have been there, done that, thought the same thoughts, said the same sentences.
I know the sentences belonging to Group Two because I have been there, done that, thought the same thoughts, said the same sentences.
For one example. Jeff says "You try something, and suddenly, you're hearing music you thought you were familiar with in a new way. "Hey wait! That wasn't like that before! I can hear the wood body of the guitar now and that harmonic of the string over that note!"

Jeff does not need to give any further information, any further description of what he has heard. I recognise immediately, from how he describes what he has experienced, the stage of awareness he has already reached.

I know the sentences belonging to Group Three because I have been there, done that, said the same sentences.

That is why I know Ethan has not gone far enough yet.
That is why I can tell Jeff, in answer to his comment - "it makes me wonder how much more info can I extract?" - "There are at least a further ten fold improvements to be made, over and above what you have already achieved."
Regards,
May Belt.

>>> Because three objects are always co-planar. Just like a three legged stool doesn't "rock", but items with more legs will. It's geometry. We know the part about "three." We have mastered the "why of three."
I can go find a link about the basics. The number three works the way it does not by virtue of being a special number, a prime number, or a spiritual number among many that will work...three is the magic number, but for reasons that may be too mundane for some. <<<

That was a classic 'knee jerk reaction'. No thought, no consideration to what I had written, what I had questioned. Straight in - knee jerk reaction.
So, Buddha - it is as simple as that is it ? Three is a 'magic number'. That is YOUR explanation as to why the Myrtle Wood Blocks work !! So absolutely simple (too mundane for some - eh ??). How could I have been so stoopid not to see something so obviously staring me in the face ?

If three is the magic number, then why would anyone go to the trouble of making something of a special wood and of a special dimension ? Why not just have three of anything ?

With the Myrtle Wood Blocks in place under a piece of equipment, and experiencing an improvement in the sound (improvement meaning hearing additional information which allows a better sound picture to be constructed), the Myrtle wood blocks cannot have ADDED information. You cannot suddenly add information which is not on the disc !! So, this, logically, means that before placing the Myrtle Wood Blocks under the equipment there must have been an adverse effect which positioning the Myrtle wood blocks under equipment then reduced, allowing more of the information to be perceived. But, what was this adverse effect and what was it affecting ? If the audio signal ? How ? If the room acoustics ? How ?

I can construct various scenarios as to what could have happened whilst these Myrtle Wood Blocks were being developed.
1) Looking at it from the point of view of the number three.
The designers were looking at different feet and asked the question "How many feet shall we have ?" They tried three, four, five, six and found that three 'sounded' the best.
If Buddha is correct that the magic number of three is well known ("three is the magic number, but for reasons that may be too mundane for some"- Buddha), then the designers really wasted their time experimenting - they should already have known !!

2) Then the designers said "What material shall we make the feet from ?" So, they tried different materials and they found that the best sounding material turned out to be Myrtle Wood.
3) Then the designers said "What shape shall we make the feet ?" So, they tried different shapes and the best sounding shape turned out to be the magic dimensions 'the Golden-section ratio'.
Or, it could have been a slightly different approach. The designers could have STARTED with the best sounding material and then asked "What shape shall we make and how many feet shall we have.?" Or, it could have been different again. The designers could have STARTED with the best sounding dimension and then asked "What material shall we use and how many feet shall we have ?"

Whatever was the approach, the designers have ended up with feet made of Myrtle wood and of a special dimension and which they recommend you use in threes.
So, the question to ask now is "What is the importance of the specific material and the specific dimension and the specific number ?" If it is the number three which is of greatest importance, then one should be able to use any material or any dimension. But, if you listen to some music with the Myrtle Wood Blocks in position under a piece of equipment, and you change the material to another material other than Myrtle Wood, then you would lose the better sound. Why? What is the significance of the myrtle wood ? Or, alternatively, if keep the same myrtle wood but change the dimension to another dimension you will lose the better sound. Why ? What is the significance of the Golden-section ratio dimension ?
And, more importantly, how are all these 'reducing an adverse effect' so that improvements in the sound can be perceived ?
So, Buddha, when John Atkinson next says that he uses the Myrtle Wood Blocks because by using them he gains improvements in his sound and when John states that "he has no idea how they are working, what they are doing," perhaps you would answer him with :-

"Just like a three legged stool doesn't "rock", but items with more legs will. It's geometry. We know the part about "three." We have mastered the "why of three."
I can go find a link about the basics. The number three works the way it does not by virtue of being a special number, a prime number, or a spiritual number among many that will work...three is the magic number, but for reasons that may be too mundane for some."

And, Buddha, your last comments in your reply to me are way out of line.
Regards,
May Belt.

As I have replied to Buddha previously. You have the luxury of free speech but with that luxury comes responsibility - the responsibility to be absolutely sure before you write (or repeat or refer to) accusations of 'charlatan', etc.
Jonathan Kettle's article "Beyond the Fringe" started the demise and J Gordon Holt's 1987 article you refer to put the final nail in the coffin of the embryonic research being conducted into very simply improving the sound of hearing aids !! J. Gordon Holt was not aware (and I hope, for his sake, he is still not aware) that the sound from hearing aids can be 'harsh, aggressive and shouty'.
Regards,
May Belt.

Now AC line cords need to have a certain twist in it? Not just use magic wire, but twist it to improve the magic!!! Anyone listen to Reily Martin on Sirius? Howard 100. hahahahahahahahaha, this is Reliley squared, in audio!!!!!! What an incredible story telling abilty and imagination!!!! 3 wood blocks, not 4, you upset the entire balance. Twist teh wire, keep away those nasty influences. WOW. Scientology has nothing on you, wow. Hope you are keeping up on your Focus Factor pills too.

May - Perhaps, based only on the information provided in this thread, you would be led to believe I fall into your Group Two. I do, however, use room treatments, and might qualify for Group Three. My only fear is that this is the kind of thinking where the next step will involve us wearing yellow stars and pink triangles (and we'll be forced to suffer the consequences of how those colours affect the sound of our systems.)

I'm no stranger to experiencing how pigment can affect the performance of objects. I used to play darts competitively, and used a special injection molded plastic flight. Black flights were heavier than the others, and caused my darts to dip in the back and drag during flight; my throw was very consistent and this would occur, even with eyes closed -- using two other colours, the black flight was the only one to dip (DBT-ers eat your hearts out.) Clear flights were the most durable, probably because their structural integrity wasn't weakened by pigment. Dark blue flights tore more easily. It's a bit easier for me to grasp how these things could alter performance because of weight & structural differences caused by the various pigments. I can almost buy into a small dash of violet ink on the edge of a CD spinning inside a transport and it absorbing light waves and improving performance (I've not tried it yet - gotta see if I've got 2 identical discs, one of which I'm willing to mar -- the collector in me might not be able to do it.) I do have trouble with writing "26" on a photo (well, my own photo) that is frozen... but, maybe that's because I haven't achieved Group Four status yet, and am still unenlightened.

In your discussion of the Myrtle blocks, you say "the Myrtle wood blocks cannot have ADDED information". I disagree -- it seems possible that the blocks could sing along and add harmonics that might be pleasing to the ear, similar to placing coins on the top edge of a speaker (Sam Tellig's $1.20 tweak.) Changing the number of blocks could alter the level of harmonics introduced (or we can toss in Ethan's patented comb filtering response.)

I don't doubt that there's more that can be done to improve the sound in my room. It's far from perfect (but, sounds awfully enjoyable.) But, like many things in life, it's a work in progress and I'm trying to enjoy the journey (and end result if we mix in the Cheapskate context.)

Quote:
I just answered it. Reread it again. Listening is just as good, if not better, than a subjective blind audio dbt.

Okay, that's now five times you have ducked the question, merely reasserting your "opinion" with nothing to back it up. So now it's crystal clear to all that you do not have a better explanation for how a replacement AC power cord can change the sound. For someone who claims to be a degreed electrical engineer that's quite appalling.

--Ethan

Well, now I really do feel bad.

"Three is a magic number" is a song lyric from a children's song about multiples of three. Hence, the additional Schoolhouse Rock reference.

Sorry, I thought those songs had been to all parts of the English speaking world, but I bet they really haven't.

I don't think three is a magic number. We already know the magic number is "26."

Please remove any interpretation that I think three is a magic.

However, May asks about how I now three is such a significant number with regard to supporting gear.

That we do know: we know that with three supports, any piece of gear will have a planar platform. That benefit is taken away but using any other additional number of objects.

But, she asked about this, so let's see - how many blocks are people using?

Maybe we can tease out some whys and wherefores. After all, it has always struck me as an odd miracle that (almost) every manufacturer thinks his/her gear sounds best with four hard rubber feet at each corner of a piece of equipment. I've had to lift gear, it's obvious that the four feet are not each supporting an identical share of the load.

But then, maybe all those golden eared designers and manufacturers find it doesn't much matter?

I'll also ask May how she "knows" five blocks will sound better than four and seven will sound better than six - without having tried the items in question.

Then I'll ask who is more likely using magical thinking.

____________________________
____________________________

Now comes the cynical part:

I think I probably know where the notion of the blocks having to be myrtle wood came from...

Apologies, but I would venture that the most likeley scenario would not be found by going to the maker's factory and finding discarded blocks of ebony, zebrawood, mahogany, cherry, oak, bristle cone pine, sequoia, cypress, mullberry, Lebanon pine, mesquite, hickory, maple, birch, fir, spruce, aspen, eucalyptus, palm, sumac, or any other of the world's vast variety of woods.

No, the most likely reason would be that, for some reason, there was a stack of unused myrtle wood sitting around from some furniture shop, or, even more likely, the maker of these blocks lives in Northern California or Oregon (where the tree grows) and a myrtlewood tree had fallen down nearby or had to be cut down and someone said, "Hey, what should we do with all this wood?"

There was likely little or no experimentation with size.

The maker probably did an "about" with his fingers and came up with the two "golden mean" versions, and that was it. They also probably had to cut them to dimensions that would be difficult for a layperson to cut at home...

Seriously, 0.618" x 1" x 1.618" or 1" x 1.618" x 2.618"...

We need to go to the thousandth of an inch?

I somehow suspect there are not a lot of blocks tossed out for failing to meet spec at 0.617" or 1.619" as a dimension; and I truly doubt they worked their way to those dimensions by trying the thousands of possible alternative dimensions.

I could be wrong, though. We can always ask the manufacturer about this sort of process.

(No offense to the manufacturer.)

I do, though, wonder if they've considered comparing this wood to California Bay Laurel. That would be most interesting.

Man, all that sounds cynical, but it wasn't meant to be - just thinking about human nature.

________________________
________________________

The bottom line here will not be arguing about the blocks now, but seeing if anyone still uses them in five years.

Any trip through past issues of any Hi FI magazine will transport you to a time of green pens, Armour All, Tice Clocks, coins on speakers, CD enhancement chips, brilliant pebbles, Harmonix discs, Mpingo discs, and any number of tweaks that have outlived the lifespan of the audio placebo effect.

They end up in people's audio boxes along with old cartridges, expired cables, and other odds and ends.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I wonder if we can look at old issues and actually calculate the lifespan of a tweak?

I'll check when Tice Clocks (or similar clocks) first appeared in reviewers' reference systems and when they finally disappeared. I know Mr. Fremer was a big proponent, to the point of having a favorite brand; and he used to list them in his reference system. I'll look at his reference system as a starting point.

(I'll guess one year.)

I don't think it's accurate to make blanket statements that everyone equates highest cost with best perceived benefits or that cost necessarily influences perceived benefits. I'm not saying that some people don't purchase gear that way (see Stephen's blog for an extreme example.)

But, I let me ears decide. I've chosen the lower priced product because it has sounded better, and I've chosen ones that cost more, and ones that cost the same. Do I sometimes spend a little more? Sure, but, only because that product gave me that nth degree of resolution that the others didn't. I've made DIY stuff that outperformed commercial products at a fraction of the cost. But, there are certain things that are made at a level that are beyond what I can produce with my limited tools, knowledge, or willingness to put in the hours necessary to make something comparable (Clifton has expressed similar feelings.)

It all depends on what is important to you. I happen to enjoy and collect and read 1st edition books. Paperbacks usually (but, not always) contain the same text. The books may have the same content, but, reading a 1st is a wholly different experience, with more levels of appreciation, whether I paid a premium or found the 1st in a bargain bin.

A blatant lie by Douglas Self, quoted by Scooter123:

Quote:
It is notable that in Subjectivist audio the 'correct' answer is always the more expensive or inconvenient one.

How many times does it take for a truthful response to penetrate the Objectivist skull?

Everyone who fine-tunes his audio system knows that cost plays no particular role in merit.

Everyone has heard a cord or an interconnect that he deems superior to a more expensive one.

Everyone has heard a cheap CD "tweak" that beats some expensive ones.

And rather than blindly accept that cost = quality, every hands-on hobbyist known to me is gladdened when the expensive item fails to make the grade.

It is an UTTER LIE, what Douglas Self says and Scooter123 quotes. Or if not a lie, WISHFUL THINKING.

clark

Quote:
Perhaps some of us need to give special permission to ourselves to listen.

Well said.

The power of putting one's mind in a state which is receptive to musical and sonic enjoyment is a powerful one: Harvey Rosenberg knew that, and went so far as to detail (in NY Audio Labs owner's manuals) his pre-listening ritual which included a hot mineral bath, candles and the wearing of a kimono! Perhaps others accomplish the same thing by installing carbon fiber coverplates over their electrical receptacles. Personally, I prefer the bath idea.

Harvey Rosenberg's book was a fun read. I'm sorry I never caught up with him to have him inscribe it to me.

How can anyone get the meaning of what I have written so wrong !!
Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
I just answered it. Reread it again. Listening is just as good, if not better, than a subjective blind audio dbt.

Okay, that's now five times you have ducked the question, merely reasserting your "opinion" with nothing to back it up. So now it's crystal clear to all that you do not have a better explanation for how a replacement AC power cord can change the sound. For someone who claims to be a degreed electrical engineer that's quite appalling.

--Ethan

"

>>Interesting. Ethan has never offered any proof himself that subjective dbt audio testing is accurate, yet condemns my answer.
Yet his comments are also opinion, yet more valid? This is the opportunity to show off and make me look silly. I would think you would have proof at your finger tips. Instead, you continue to reply in vague terms like "all scientists" etc.

Maybe that is because he is an Audioholics supporter.?

I have personally witnessed other supporters of audioholics, infiltrating, attacking others, offering no proof, and finally exposed. Does anyone know supporters of other forums secretly recruiting members?

Just the thought that you have to hide your allegiance is interesting. How many pages have you posted here and hid your allegience?

I also have to wonder why Ethan would compete for the coveted title of "village idiot" as if it is a badge to be proudly worn on ones chest.

I wonder, is DUP an overt Audioholics infiltrator?

Quote:
I wonder, is DUP an overt Audioholics infiltrator?

As I posted in another thread, I think he is Sascha Baron Cohen..................
really..............could be a new thread:
The identity of DUP

Some point in your reply, were too vague.

Quote:

]>>Not harmonic. Read the article "Picking Capacitors" by Walter Jung and Richard Marsh. This explains in more detail what happens in a capacitor. Then one needs to understand how a stage of amplification (I guess a buffer stage as well)works in association with the power supply. The last and previous caps in a power supply, for example, are also involved in an audio stage. Cathode bypass capacitor?

>>The last power supply capacitor, if perfect, would be a perfect reference, grounded signal wise, at all frequencies . However, a capacitor is not perfect and therefore, the capacitor is not perfectly referenced to ground.

I think that you

Here is the answer to your earlier question ("If comb filtering is not the cause of people believing power cables can change the sound, then what is your better explanation?"). It is badly written. It assumes "belief" is necessary to experimentation, and it assumes that all changes in the sound of one's system must be explained. I have no "beliefs" to sell, Ethan. I just make the change in my own system Then I keep it if it works, or discard it if it doesn't. That is because I have nothing to sell. The stretch from experimentation to belief covers too much ground for me to bother with. If I moved across the street, would the power cord still become an improvement factor? Belief would require it to be so. I, however, would prefer to simply move first, then try it.

You are selling acoustic treatments. You have to believe. I don't.

You have cooked up a theory (comb filtering) that is an all-inclusive panacea for improving system sound. I simply listen to each new tweak (provided it is simple, relatively cheap, and easy to try) that comes around and mentally compare it to my image of the sound of a live performance. That is the difference between you and me. You must have the theory. I must have a facsimile of my memory of live concert music.

I heard an improvement when I used the Ayre wooden footers under my DAC and under my transport. I am skeptical as to whether the type of wood had anything to do with it, or the efficacy of the "magic" 3, for that matter. I do not have the patience to try infinitely different sizes of literally thousands of different woods -- this is fine for me. I don't need the theory. I'm not selling anything.

The power of suggestion. Actually, I was quite negative about the Ayre blocks and about the power cords. The former look quite ugly on the shelf, and the latter ended up costing me around $1250 for enough of 'em (6) to equip all my components. The "suggestion" angle probably will work for me when it comes to titties and ass, but not when it comes to tweaks and wine. If you don't understand the differences already, none of my ideas will help.

I just don't give a shit about audio theories. I just listen, compare, and decide. Personally, I think differences among individual items of software will have more of a positive or negative effect on my perception of the music than all the electronic theories or psychobabble you and May could come up with in a lifetime.

Test equipment? Test equipment tests test equipment as much as it tests the components under this type of scrutiny. I want to know how it sounds. I hope you sell a million of whatever you are selling. But it's not for me.

Quote:
Here is the answer to your earlier question ("If comb filtering is not the cause of people believing power cables can change the sound, then what is your better explanation?"). It is badly written.

If I may? Rather than "badly written", I would suggest "deceptive". Mr. Winer must know full well that thousands of folks in audio, among them many well-known ones, attest to the differences among various AC-supply amelioratives, including AC cords. To reduce their observations to mere "belief" reveals his own reductionistic thinking, which seems settled on "comb-filtering".

Quote:
I keep it if it works, or discard it if it doesn't... The stretch from experimentation to belief covers too much ground for me to bother with.

Indeed. So much stuff to try, so little time...

Quote:
You have cooked up a theory (comb filtering) that is an all-inclusive panacea for improving system sound. I simply listen to each new tweak (provided it is simple, relatively cheap, and easy to try) that comes around.

And who's to stop you? I mean, besides those bullies on the boards who deride and demean the ear?

Quote:
The power of suggestion. Actually, I was quite negative about the Ayre blocks and about the power cords... The "suggestion" angle probably will work for me when it comes to titties and ass, but not when it comes to tweaks and wine.

Oh, well said! One might suppose Mr. Winer would have to subject a glass of wine to chromotography before he'd sip a drop.

Quote:
I just don't give a shit about audio theories. I just listen, compare, and decide.

There we must part company. Audio, like optics very much once was, is a fertile field of hypothesis where little is known for certain -- making it a worthy investment for one's intellectual energy.

Quote:
Test equipment? Test equipment tests test equipment as much as it tests the components under this type of scrutiny.

Don't forget -- it also tests the tester!

clark

Hi Martin,

Just want to make an overall comment, that as hard as you try want to understand, and you have tried, a couple of classes just won't give you the foundation you need. Is there a chance you can take some more electronics classes?

If you cannot, may I suggest purchasing some quality textbooks? I think it will really help as you seem really interested in learning. Also, since this post is so long, I have left out some.

">>Not harmonic. Read the article "Picking Capacitors" by Walter Jung and Richard Marsh. This explains in more detail what happens in a capacitor. Then one needs to understand how a stage of amplification (I guess a buffer stage as well)works in association with the power supply. The last and previous caps in a power supply, for example, are also involved in an audio stage. Cathode bypass capacitor?
">>The last power supply capacitor, if perfect, would be a perfect reference, grounded signal wise, at all frequencies . However, a capacitor is not perfect and therefore, the capacitor is not perfectly referenced to ground.

"I think that you

Yo, Clark. My stance on "audio theories" stems from the way they are presented, and from my own self-recognized limitations as a student of electronics. I believe theory is necessary for design consistency. Most good designers (at least, those who comment publicly on their own methods) build a model or prototype, listen to it, then generalize theory from its performance for further improvement and/or repetition of the prototype in production. Of course, a theoretical knowledge of amplifier design (historical -- from past successes and failures) is necessary to even begin the project. I, for example, cannot go buy a tin box and a handful of parts and begin constructing a prototype, because I have little knowledge of what has worked in the past, from a designer's perspective. I can, however, move my own speakers around, try various damping and reflecting devices, listen, and evaluate without the benefit of anyone else's prior theoretical ramblings.

But this isn't Winer's context. His "theory" involves the movement of sound waves in a room. So I repeat. I really don't give a shit about such theory, especially when presented from a pseudo-omniscient, abstract, unnecessarily prolix, and biased perspective. I would rather be buttonholed by the Ancient Mariner for an explanation of the mechanism of redemption. This man wants to sell me on a series of abstractions, when all I have to do is move my speakers around until they sound the way I like them to sound. I may be unable to construct an amplifier, but I can tweak my own system by ear, without any theoretical justification of my approach. The sound simply is. It is concrete and immediate to my senses. And I go to enough live concerts to be able to keep a reliable mental image of what I want to hear in my own room.

I honestly don't know what May is selling, other than her service as a guide down the "stepping stones" of her "path" to the great abstract harmonies of the outer spheres. I thought 4 chapters were plenty, and now we have a 5th. If I ever need a tour guide, I think I'll find one that requires less reading.

I do, however, think May and Winer make a cute couple -- sort of like Blavatsky and Wilder.

Quote:

>>The last power supply capacitor, if perfect, would be a perfect reference, grounded signal wise, at all frequencies . However, a capacitor is not perfect and therefore, the capacitor is not perfectly referenced to ground.

Wrong: A perfect capacitor (one with no stray resistance inductance etc) is not a perfect ground at any frequency. You

Hi Martin,

"Wrong: A perfect capacitor (one with no stray resistance inductance etc) is not a perfect ground at any frequency. You

Hello 301
We both seem to have our own interpretations on this myriad of points. I understand why you do not wish to post anymore. It does take up a lot of time
Many thanks for a lively discussion!
Martin

Hi Martin,

I hope you did not take this personally, I certainly did not. Yes, it is taking alot of time.

Take care buddy.

My reference to the embryonic research was to do with one particular aspect related to hearing aids - I was NOT referring to the whole area of research into hearing aids !! My reference was to a discovery that Peter had made over 20 years ago that the sound of hearing aids could be improved by 'treating' the hearing aid battery. All hearing aids - whatever the type - use batteries !!

The story is well known. But I will give a brief description.
Over 20 years ago, Peter had discovered that 'treating' batteries could give an improvement in the sound and we ended up with 'treated' pen torch batteries stuck on things all over the listening room. But, they all looked like slugs crawling all over everything so Peter got some packs of the tiny hearing aid batteries and 'treated' them. They replaced all the pen torch batteries, gave identical improvement in the sound and you could hardly see them around the room because they were so tiny !! Then the realisation struck Peter. Of all the things which deals with sound and uses a battery - a hearing aid !!

I do not wear or need a hearing aid but I had access to a leading ENT consultant and his Chief Audio technician. I described to them what Peter had discovered and they looked at me in utter disbelief. I was describing something outrageous and unbelievable but, to their credit, they had the courage to conduct some trials with (to use their own words) some surprising results. Over 75 % of the patients taking part in the trials registered an improvement in the sound of their hearing aid when using a 'treated' battery - describing the improvement as clearer, clearer, a lot better, more natural, clearer. Further trials were planned.

Then in 1985 there appeared in a Hi Fi magazine an article by Jonathan Kettle entitled "Beyond the Fringe". In this article, Jonathan listed various things which he regarded as "Beyond the Fringe" - one of these was something which Peter had sent him to try. Jonathan admitted that he had not actually tried it because he could not understand how it could possibly work. But, nevertheless, he included it in the list of being "Beyond the Fringe"
After reading this article, the Chief Audio Technician began to get cold feet, fearing damage to his professional reputation - by being associated with someone (Peter Belt) who was listed under the heading "Beyond the Fringe".
Before any further trials could be organised, J. Gordon Holt's article appeared - at the end of which Peter Belt is considered by J. Gordon Holt to be a 'charlatan'. After reading J. Gordon Holt's article, the Chief Audio technician, who was very well respected in his particular field of expertise, decided that it would be better for his professional reputation if he was NOT seen as being associated, in any way, with someone being described as 'a charlatan'. So, the planned further trials never took place !!!!!

I would like people to read J. Gordon Holt's article, especially at the end where he 'implies ?? that Peter Belt is a charlatan. Then after reading that article to ask themselves. "If they were a researcher working on hearing aids would they be prepared to do trials and, more importantly, admit publicly to doing trials of some of Peter Belt's treatments with the knowledge that their professional reputation could take a nose dive ?" If their answer is Yes, then I applaud their courage. If their answer is No, then they will understand why such as the Chief Audio Technician, 20 years ago, decided that he did not wish to continue any further with the planned trials. So, THOSE particular embryonic research trials I referred to, started by the ENT Consultant and Chief Audio Technician, never matured past the very earliest of stages !!

Now, Scooter123. If you were to approach any of the researchers into hearing aids which you are describing and told them of some treatments which could be carried out on the batteries of hearing aids to improve the sound of the hearing aids, I know that you would have to say that you had heard of these techniques from an anonymous source !! Because if you mentioned that you had heard about these techniques from someone called Peter Belt, then the researchers would do a Google search for the name Peter Belt and up would come J. Gordon Holt's article, referring to Peter Belt as a charlatan !! Up would come another article referring to Peter Belt as a 'nut case', another article referring to Peter Belt as a con man and, quite possibly, up will come Buddha's sentence
"The Peter Belts of this world are sly, like the serpent. They are driven off, but then always find ways to slither back into the hobby to suck the green life blood from the uninitiated."

It probably won't be long either until Buddha's sentence is quoted also. !!!!

Under such circumstances I think, Scooter123, that the researchers you refer to would react with the opposite of 'welcoming you with open arms'.

This is REAL life - I know and I accept that it is so. That is the way of the world and, history shows, always has been. But what is also reality is what I describe CAN happen as the consequence of such freedom of speech. My reply (which upset you so much Scooter) was to 4season who had joined the many who, over the years, have quoted J. Gordon Holt's article !!

Everyone and his uncle has and has had their say about Peter, so I thought I would present a few facts !!

From the many researchers working on hearing aids which you mention Scooter123, I personally have not seen ONE reference, in the whole of the past 20 years, to the fact that you can improve the sound from hearing aids by 'treating' the hearing aid battery !!!!!!
From the way you have written, I get the impression Scooter that you are white with anger - at my supposed crime of "insulting a very dedicated industry". Instead of being white with anger at me, why not be white with anger at the past 20 wasted years when people who have to wear hearing aids could have had their hearing aids sound much better with a 'treated' battery !! Just how many that would have been we will never know now will we ? Those past 20 years have gone !!

So, I repeat the reply I gave. We have the luxury of freedom of speech but with this freedom of speech comes responsibility. You have to be sure, so sure, so very sure, when you write something, particularly when such writing claims that Peter Belt is a charlatan, so sure when you chose to quote from that article and so sure when you use the article as a reference. !!

It may have been merely co-incidental that the two articles I have referred to just happened to be published at a crucial time when we were trying to get some 'hearing aid' trials done - but that does not alter, in any way, the effect the articles finally had !! What I described was the reality !!

Yours was another example of a knee jerk reaction Scooter. Straight in there - immediately - in order to give me a 'dressing down' for my 'supposed' insulting of hearing aid researchers.

You have shown such respect for and confidence in the 'researchers into hearing aids' Scooter that I am going to throw out a challenge to you. I am going to put the onus upon YOU to take it further - to make contact with these researchers, to describe the first simple technique (which anyone can do) for treating hearing aid batteries and, if they have as much dedication as you claim your ex girlfriend had, then surely they would be prepared to listen to you. For you then to keep people informed, via the Stereophile Forum, of every inch of progress (or non progress). I am sure this would be of interest to readers - even if only as study exercise in what goes on in the real world - for people to see exactly where the stumbling blocks are !!
Information such as :-
A) Whether, at the start, YOU even have the courage to approach these researchers (given your stated confidence in them).
B) If you do approach them, are they prepared to listen or will they just ignore you. ?
C) If they are prepared to listen to you, what is their reaction - will their reaction be to roll around on the floor laughing ?
D) If they listen to you and don't roll around on the floor laughing, will they actually be prepared to try what you describe ?

I have been there, I have done that, I have faced the disbelief, I have faced the ridicule and I even got to the stage of the first blind trials being done. You say that I am putting some blame on the audio industry but the audio industry could have had some influence over these past 20 years because some members of the audio industry could have confirmed our findings, thereby overcoming reluctance within the researchers into hearing aids.

Some members of the audio industry were (and are) absolutely courageous but others have buckled under attack and ridicule.
Regards,
May Belt.

How were these batteries "treated?"

I evaluate audio faith healing..err, esoteric tweaks and political promises in much the same way: I watch where the money is going.

"Treated" hearing aid batteries could've been a particularly fine, high-margin revenue stream, because unlike some other tweaks, they need frequent replacement!